Sitting of 11 May 1967

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

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Amendment to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the following Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE
Standing Order 242, line 20, at end add 'but only if objection to locus standi or such rights has been made in a memorial duly deposited as aforesaid.'—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday, 31st May.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

    Incomes and Productivity
    Mr. Longdenasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will particularise the measures to be taken by the Government, with a view to ensuring that incomes do not exceed productivity.
    The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper, Cmnd. 3235, and to my statement on 17th April —[Vol. 745, c. 92]—which, together, give an account of the steps the Government are taking to maintain an effective productivity, prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Longden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Transport, who said last night on television that if we are to have proper planning we must
    1670
    plan incomes? Is he aware that if one plans incomes one dictates incomes, and is it not clear that if one plans and dictates prices this will lead directly to the direction of labour?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman does not know the difference between "plan" and "dictate" he had better think again, because his own leaders are committed to believing in planning. As has been made clear, we believe that prices and incomes should be planned to the greatest extent possible by voluntary agreement.

    National Board for Prices and Incomes (Staff)
    Mr. Biffenasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by what amount he expects the permanent staff of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to be increased on account of prospective legislation amending Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): Until the Bill has been considered by Parliament it would be premature to attempt such an estimate.
    Mr. Biffen: In view of the existing evidence, which points to the indifferent and contentious nature of many of these reports, and the fact that they have had to be done with the help of vast numbers of outside consultants—whose names are never disclosed to the public or this House—does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should be able to give some assurance on this subject, certainly by the time the Bill is published?
    Mr. Lee: No, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman is being too pessimistic. I see a future in which the Board will be dealing with issues of principle rather than dealing with so many individual issues. When the Bill is published, and we see how it is working, we will be able to make a better assessment.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be published and whether he expects it to become law before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Lee: The Bill will be published shortly and I hope that it will become law before the Summer Recess.

    Price Changes
    Mr. Biffenasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by what means he proposes to encourage non-statutory supervision of price changes in the light of the Government's objective of promoting a voluntary prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Primarily through continued operation of the voluntary arrangements for early warning of price increases, concentrated on prices of economic significance, including those of importance in the cost of living.
    Mr. Biffen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the T.U.C. has accepted responsibility to do some supervision of wage claims, the C.B.I. has openly declared that it is not prepared to undertake a similar rôle for the supervision of prices? Since the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said, when he left the Department of Economic Affairs, that he did not believe that one could have a system of price control, is it not clear that the policy will operate by differing standards for prices than for incomes?
    Mr. Lee: In that event, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman has been opposing a compulsory system. For our part, we believe that, after the initial period, during which both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. will be building up the machinery which they intend to use, we can then have a fully voluntary system, and I believe that it will work effectively.

    Prices (Control)
    Mr. Molloyasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what additional measures will now be taken to control prices to the same degree as wages.
    Mr. Moonmanasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, in view of the difficulties experienced in recent months in containing price increases, a new mechanism is now contemplated to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The Government will continue to see that the criteria for prices behaviour are properly applied. I
    1672
    would not accept any implication that the policy has been applied more rigorously to pay than to prices during the present period of severe restraint.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the retail sector, as any housewife will tell him, this criteria is not applying? Since there is in the Department of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour a section known as the wages inspectorate, will my right hon. Friend consider establishing within his domain a prices inspectorate?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is really asking us to establish something on the French model whereby, I believe, more than 20,000 people are supervising the prices issue alone. For our part, we reaffirm that the position on prices has been held very well indeed. If my hon. Friend is challenging the validity of the Index of Retail Prices, I suggest that the Ministry of Labour, with the assistance of the T.U.C. and other informed people who are on the Committee which runs that Index, will tell him that they believe that although it is not, of course, an exact replica of every price movement, it is a good return of the movement of retail prices generally.
    Captain W. Elliot: Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold to the Government estimate that, after July, wages will rise by approximately 6 per cent.?
    Mr. Lee: We were not referring to the period after July: we were talking about this year. If we are accurate about this estimate of a 6 per cent. increase in wages, when we know perfectly well that we will not get that kind of increase in productivity, it follows we shall have quite a job to restrain prices. If the House looks at what happened since the beginning of 1966, it is obvious that incomes had risen by at least twice the level of prices and—it is no good arguing against economic facts—if that increase goes on prices will rise.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that if the Government had shown that they were controlling prices and dividends as strictly as they were controlling wages the workers would have been behind them to a man?
    Mr. Lee: Again, my hon. Friend repeats something that is utterly wrong. Wages have increased during this period. I said publicly a few days ago that wages have been increased for 4½ million people this year. Over the period of the standstill and severe restraint, dividends are down by £60 million and prices have increased by only 1¾ per cent.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Does not the Question on the Order Paper ask what additional measures will now be taken to control prices, and do not all the Minister's answers boil down simply to "No, Sir"?
    Mr. Lee: No, Sir. They boil down to the proposition that we have looked at prices, and have been as strict on prices as we have been on incomes.

    National Plan
    Mr. Martenasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what effect the reduction in the projected growth rate has had upon the National Plan.
    Mr. M. Stewart: As I have told the House on more than one occasion, the assumptions and projections in the National Plan are being revised.
    Mr. Marten: Does not a cut in the projected growth rate mean that targets will have to be lowered by about one quarter? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying at election time that Labour's plans could not be achieved unless we had a 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. growth rate? Does not the present position mean that Labour's plans must be cut by about one half?
    Mr. Stewart: It is quite clear that if one has a lower growth rate there are many things one has to revise. I have explained to the House, and I have put in the Library a document describing how we are dealing with this task.

    Growth Rate
    Mr. Peytonasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what grounds the National Economic Development Council, according to his paper on planning, came to the conclusion that though the 25 per cent. growth over five years could not be
    1674
    realised, exercises based on such estimates had become no less relevant and were indeed more important than ever.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The paper does not attribute such a view to the Council.
    Mr. Peyton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my apologies that I should have read such a meaning into the paper, but is he aware that it is so obscure and so full of aerated piffle that it is exceedingly difficult to understand what it does mean? What is the point of carrying out one of these exercises based on an invalid premise?
    Mr. Stewart: The paper is not difficult, although the hon. Gentleman may find it so. The point at issue now is quite a simple one. The paper points out that there are certain courses of action—those, for example, mentioned in the check list to the National Plan—which are at least as relevant and important now, despite the fact that the numerical projections have to be revised.

    Prices Policy
    Mr. Marquandasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper explaining the assumptions on which his prices policy is based and the aims it is designed to achieve.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The aims of the policy for prices are to improve the competitive position of the economy, to restrain increases in prices and to encourage necessary investment. These aims have been endorsed by the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. We have set out in the White Paper—Cmnd. 3235—the criteria which are to govern prices behaviour, including price reductions, during the twelve months after 30th June, 1967.
    Mr. Marquand: But is my right hon. Friend aware that the White Paper is rather vague in what it says about prices? With reference to one of his earlier answers, could not my right hon. Friend look at the much more effective form of price control they have in France, and particularly at the way in which the French are trying to use price control as a way of stimulating productivity; and see whether we can apply something of that

    1675
    type here, particularly in view of our decision to apply to enter the Common Market?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend has mentioned prices in France. I hope that we shall be a little more successful in that respect than the French seem to me to have been during my visits to France in the last few years. There have been 974 proposals for price increases. Of these, 137 have been rejected or withdrawn, 614 have been accepted—in a number of cases, after modification—and 223 are still under consideration. Although we are not creating the kind of detailed analysis that my hon. Friend mentions exists in France, we are doing everything possible to ensure that where prices increase they increase only against the criteria of the White Paper.
    Mr. Higgins: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that British Rail is under the impression that a price increase may be justified when the demand for advertising space has gone up? Does he not think that to be a good principle and would he not extend it to the private sector?
    Mr. Lee: I would not say that the private sector has done so badly itself on the criteria.
    Mr. Tinn: Whatever doubts may be expressed about the accuracy of the prices index, does not my right hon. Friend agree that no one seems to mind quoting it when it suits him?
    Mr. Lee: There are many millions of workers whose increases are based on the retail index, and have been for many years—including the period when the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was Minister of Labour— and I do not think that any of them would care to say now that they were deprived of increases to which they were entitled.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: If the Prices and Incomes Board and the right hon. Gentleman's Department have to examine what is a reasonable profit, would they consider laying down some guide lines so that the appropriate return on capital as a fair investment can be seen for a wide variety of industries?
    Mr. Lee: I have answered this question before. I am sure that the hon.
    1676
    Gentleman would agree that one cannot lay down specific terms unless one looks at such things as the risk involved, the capital necessary, and that kind of thing, differentiating between different industries.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Dickensasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give the average annual rate of economic growth now expected over the period 1964 to 1970.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Not until the planning studies now in hand have been completed.
    Mr. Dickens: Would my right hon. Friend accept that, based on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, and projecting the figures forward for the three years to 1970, we shall achieve an average of 2·7 per cent. per annum compound over the six years; and that this rate of economic growth is lower than in any other period over the preceding decade?
    Mr. Stewart: I expect that my hon. Friend's arithmetic is correct, but it overlooks what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear; first, that this was a provisional estimate and, secondly, that he trusted that we should do better than this.
    Mr. Marten: On what basis was the estimate made?
    Mr. Stewart: On the normal forecasting techniques—[Interruption.]—but I would emphasise that this was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House as a provisional estimate based on certain assumptions. In my own speech on the Budget Statement, I developed the things that it would be necessary to do to help to improve on this estimate.
    Mr. Dickensasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will state the estimated percentage increase in economic growth in the calendar year 1967, compared with the calendar year 1966.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11th and 17th April.
    Mr. Dickens: But is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was characteristically vague on this point. He said that for the period to December, 1967, compared with December, 1966, there would be an increase of 3 per cent. That is rather a different thing from comparing a calendar year with the preceding calendar year. Would my right hon. Friend accept that the real figure for 1967 over 1966 would be 1·5 per cent.? Is this not utterly unsatisfactory, and should we not therefore end the period of deflation at once?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not accept a figure like that. I entirely agree that the rate of growth is not at present satisfactory, but in his first Question my hon. Friend asked for certain figures which can be deduced from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches. The real point is what growth we can expect in the future, and what measures we must take to that end. That is part of the planning exercise now being conducted.

    Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
    Mr. Hooleyasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give a general direction to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to consult representatives of trade unions whose members will be directly affected, before carrying through or taking part in any merger or reorganisation of two or more industrial firms.
    Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend accept that on this side of the House we very much welcome the activities of this Corporation? Will he give an assurance that it will not operate simply as a kind of orthodox marriage broker but will take account of the social significance of mergers which it is designed to produce?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, it will certainly do that. I would be very ready to listen to any views which may be relevant to its work, whether from the trade unions or from other quarters, but the specific question was that I should give a direction that the Corporation was itself to consult trade union representatives. I am not sure that the trade unions themselves would wish that. They might
    1678
    prefer discussions to be conducted with the employers with whom they are accustomed to deal.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman say for what reasons Mr. Grierson has retired before he was due to do so? Was it because he was not used to this kind of meddling from Government sources?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member should not make a suggestion like that. The reasons for Mr. Grierson's retirement have been given in the Press and there is no truth at all in what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. Maxwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that industry very much welcomes the setting up of the I.R.C.? Can he say on which industries its intervention will be made public?
    Mr. Stewart: I was glad to hear the first part of that supplementary question. The second part goes wide of this Question and should be put on the Order Paper.

    Regional Employment Premium
    Mr. Marquandasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what effect he estimates that the proposed regional employment premium will have on the annual average seasonally-adjusted rate of unemployment in the regions concerned, and in the United Kingdom as a whole, between the end of 1967 and 1970.
    Mr. M. Stewart: If the premium were to be introduced at the median rate of 30s. per week for men it might reduce the average disparity between unemployment in development areas and the country as a whole by around a half over a period of the order of three to five years from its introduction. It is not possible to be more precise than this. Unemployment in the United Kingdom as a whole might fall by about half as much as the fall in the development areas.
    Mr. Marquand: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us on this side of the House regard this proposal as one of the most imaginative in regional policy that we have yet had?

    1679
    But is he further aware that it becomes clear from his Answer that it is not going to have a very significant effect on unemployment in the regions between now and 1970? Will he say what other steps the Government will take to increase regional development in the short term?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think I could agree with my hon. Friend that this is not going to have a significant effect, but I quite agree that this is only one measure and we must proceed with the rest of regional policy, with the proper use of industrial development certificates, with the policy of dispersal, with advance factories and improving the infrastructure of the regions. It is one measure among many, but I think it a useful one.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will introduce legislation to implement the proposal for a regional employment premium.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The Government are still considering the advice they are receiving on the proposal.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend make an early statement, because many of us in development areas—for example, in the North-East—believe that an early statement of the Government's intention to go ahead with this proposal could deter firms from moving out of these areas as some firms are doing?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I said when introducing this proposal that although we wanted full discussion it must not be dilatory and I have this still very much in mind.
    Sir J. Eden: What is the assessment which the right hon. Gentleman puts on the representations or reactions which have so far come to him?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think it would be sensible for me to give a sort of provisional and perhaps ex-parte judgment. There will be further occasions to come.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether, when the legislation is introduced, there will be, as a part of it, machinery to enable a variation in premium as between one
    1680
    area and another and a variation in the premium itself from time to time so that the premium may be an effective means of ending the problem of hard-core unemployment in development areas?
    Mr. Stewart: I note that question with interest, but I think it is exactly the kind of question I should not answer now. I do not want the process to be prolonged. Our job in the fairly short term is to weigh up the representations we have received before bringing legislation before the House. The view expressed by my hon. Friend has, of course, come to us from more than one quarter.

    Price Increases (Complaints)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many complaints he has received alleging unjustifiable price increases in the last six months; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Most complaints about prices are made direct to the Ministers immediately concerned with the goods and services in question. In the six months to 30th April, 1967, some 9,000 complaints in all were received. Examination of the complaints showed that the great majority of them related to increases which had either been justified under the relevant criteria for prices behaviour or had occurred before the July standstill. Nevertheless, the flow of complaints has played its part in encouraging suppliers to do all they can to restrain price increases. We will continue to keep price increases and proposals for increases under proper surveillance.
    Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to publish a White Paper giving details of the various complaints and the so-called criteria that are advanced to justify some of these increases?
    Mr. Lee: The criteria have been published in the White Paper to which I made reference. I sometimes think that the great difference between incomes and prices is that, whereas it may well be that some trade unions do not mind being turned down by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, some employers do because it is not very good for their image.
    Mr. Mawby: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the complaints were complaints against nationalised industries?
    Mr. Lee: No, I could not offhand, but if the hon. Member puts that Question on the Order Paper I will give him an Answer.
    Mrs. Thatcher: How many of the complaints were found to be justified?
    Mr. Lee: I gave the answer to that in an answer a few minutes ago. If the hon. Lady looks it up, she will find that I gave the answer.

    Rents (Control)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now take the same power to control rents as he proposes in order to control incomes.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: I do not consider that this would be the right course to take. Rents of virtually all private sector housing are already subject to the Rent Acts. As my hon. Friend knows, the rents of local authority houses are not on a profit-making basis and are subsidised to an appreciable extent. Where increases in such rents are necessary because of the financial obligations and circumstances of local authorities, the latter have been urged to make the fullest use of rebates to protect tenants of modest means.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the operation of rent rebates, in my local authority area council tenants have had their rents increased three times in two-and-a-half years? Does he not think that this goes completely counter to the Government's policy on prices?
    Mr. Lee: This is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. My hon. Friend mentioned council houses. That question has a direct relevance to the issue of rates. If we were to have rents pegged, rates would go up.
    Mr. Biffen: Since the kernel of the prices and incomes policy is an exhortation, unbacked by Statute, for notification or! increases of either prices or incomes, why on earth cannot the right hon. Gentleman also ask for notification of increases in rents?
    Mr. Lee: The answer is that we do. During the period of standstill and restraint a very small number of local authorities, very small indeed, have raised the level of their rents. If the question asked by the hon. Member means that he is asking us to take compulsory powers for notification, we shall take note of his request.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers' rents increased last year in England by 6·5 per cent. and in Scotland by 6·9 per cent.? What is he going to do about this?
    Mr. Lee: We may have to look at the affluence of Scottish farmers and see if we can reduce it in some way.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole basis of acceptance of the prices and incomes policy rests on making it appear fair to the ordinary citizen and that when people who live in council houses see their rents going up substantially while rents in the private sector are frozen, they see that as an inequity which they are not prepared to accept?
    Mr. Lee: I accept entirely the first point made by the hon. Member. It is not only a question of being fair; it has to be seen to be fair. I thoroughly agree and we will do everything we can to ensure that. But the hon. Member is quite wrong in saying that, whereas council house rents are going up, others are frozen. I refer him to the Rent Act, 1965. I hope that he will study it.
    Mr. Lubbock: I was on the Committee and I know it by heart.

    Industrial Production (Growth)
    Mr. Peytonasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what benefits he expects to flow to industry from the estimate of a growth of production potential based on a range of figures with a difference of 1 per cent. a year between the higher and lower figures; and if he is satisfied in the light of experience that such a margin of error is sufficient.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): The two figures would not so much represent a margin of error as the implications of

    1683
    alternative assumptions. Their value would be that they would help industry to form a view of what is possible, on which planning assumptions could be based. One per cent. is quoted in my right hon. Friend's paper for illustrative purposes.
    Mr. Peyton: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that making these forecasts can be highly misleading and, therefore, very damaging to investment programmes? Does not he agree that the fiasco of the National Plan ought to have warned the Government against taking the arrogant path of claiming omniscience, which they do now?
    Mr. Shore: No. The whole purpose of asking for alternative assumptions on which plans can be based is to ensure that errors are not repeated, or to ensure that different possibilities are fully taken account of by firms when they make their own plans.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Bletchley and Bedford
    Mr. Maxwellasked the Postmaster-General (1) how many people are now on the waiting list for a telephone in Bletchley; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce this waiting list; and
    (2) when the new Bedford Telephone Exchange will be brought into service, including the installation of additional equipment with subscriber trunk dialling facilities at Bletchley; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): At 30th April, the waiting list at Bletchley totalled 472. An exchange extension and additional local lines, coupled with the provision of STD facilities, will enable all applicants to be connected in the late summer. The new Bedford exchange will be brought into service in July; subscriber-trunk-dialling facilities will be provided, at both Bletchley and Bedford, in September.
    Mr. Maxwell: I welcome my hon. Friend's Answer, which assures my constituents who are affected that the exchange is at last to start operating in July. May I ask him what steps he could take to speed up the connection
    1684
    in particular of the 420 people who need telephones in Bletchley and who have been waiting for them for such a long time? This is interfering with business as well as with the social amenities which they so urgently need in this growing town which is accommodating Londoners on such an increasing scale.
    Mr. Slater: I can appreciate my hon. Friend's interest, in view of the correspondence we have had from him. The Bedford switchboard, which at present handles trunk calls from Bletchley and the Bedford area generally, is seriously overloaded and we could not cover the additional traffic which would be originated by new customers. Nevertheless, we are doing whatever we can to help.
    Mr. Brian Parkyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been great concern in Bedford about the telephone situation and that his reply that the exchange will at last be in operation this July will cause a great deal of happiness amongst my constituents?

  Rentals
  Mr. Longdenasked the Postmaster-General what proposals he now has regarding telephone rentals.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): None, at present.
  Mr. Longden: Will the Postmaster-General bear in mind that the telephone service of the Post Office has made a large profit? There does not seem to be much justification for increasing the rentals. The higher the rental, the heavier the burden upon the smaller user.
  Mr. Short: The rentals are losing £12 million a year at present. The Post Office has to make a return of 8 per cent. on capital. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries pointed out the imbalance in our tariffs. I said in the House on 15th March that we needed to look at this to get the balance right again. I am looking at it at present.
  Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend still considering some possibility of special rentals for the crippled, disabled and people in that category?
  Mr. Short: I would not like to embark upon concessionary tariffs in the Post

  1685
  Office, because it is extremely difficult to know where to draw the line once one starts doing that.
  Mr. Brian: To what extent has Government policy on rentals affected the waiting list for telephones?
  Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the year's rental in advance, I think that it has held the waiting list as it is, but no more than that.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Illegal Radio Stations
    Mr. Fauldsasked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to prevent intervention by illegal radio stations in local or national elections.
    Mr. Short: No, Sir. I already have power to proceed against persons who broadcast illegally within this country, and legislation to suppress unauthorised offshore broadcasting stations has already been introduced.
    Mr. Faulds: May I point out how unsatisfactory——
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend realise how unsatisfactory that Answer is, because an illegal political broadcast was made last Saturday on Radio 270 by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)?
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Faulds: In view of this, would my right hon. Friend take steps to have the result of the York municipal elections today declared invalid?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be best if hon. Gentlemen made broad political criticisms rather than individual personal ones.
    Mr. Short: That part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I do not underestimate the seriousness of this situation. I hope that no one will underestimate the seriousness and un-wholesomeness of this situation. It is the first time in peacetime that this country has been subjected to a stream of misleading propoganda from outside our territorial waters. I do not
    1686
    think that it is a matter for joking. I think that it is an extremely serious matter. I hope that hon. Members who have been dragging their feet about closing down these stations will cease to do so from now on.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make it quite clear to the House that I have given notice to the hon. Member for Haltemprice. I am hardly responsible for his nonappearance.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Iremonger: Will the right hon. Gentleman come and explain this very important matter in Trafalgar Square on Saturday afternoon?
    Mr. Short: I do not know what is going to happen in Trafalgar Square on Saturday afternoon, but I explain this matter wherever I go and I am prepared to stand up for this wherever I go. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends take any pride in this development, they are not very good friends of democracy. That is all I can say.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Reading Research Unit (Finance)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make finance available to make it possible for the Reading Research Unit to carry out specific pieces of educational research arising out of the initial teaching alphabet experiment, as an alternative to the long-term support originally requested by the unit.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): The Department has made grants of over £19,000 to the unit for specific research projects, and is unable to provide more funds for the reasons explained by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate on this subject on 21st April last.—[Vol. 745, c. 1053–62.]
    Mr. Barnes: Are not the facts that this team will break up—in fact, it is breaking up and members of it are going to America—just at a point when their researches are starting to show some very

    1687
    interesting results? Is not this a great pity?
    Mr. Roberts: I do not accept everything that my hon. Friend has said. The Director of the unit may, if he wishes, put proposals for a prototype project research to the various bodies which stand ready to consider any worth-while proposal of this kind.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Dogs (Lung Cancer Experiments)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ban repetition in this country of the United States experiment in which dogs are forced to smoke cigarettes in investigations in lung cancer.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne):I cannot prejudge what experiments of this nature could properly be allowed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.
    Mr. Burden: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it has already been established in this country that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer in human beings? Therefore, is it human or feasible, or does it serve any good purpose, to prove that it also causes lung cancer in animals if they are forced to smoke cigarettes?
    Mr. Taverne: First, no authority has so far been given for this kind of experiment in connection with dogs. Secondly, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman that no useful further research can be done into the causes of lung cancer.
    Mr. Rankin: If no authority has been given for the experiment, and as it is an offence to the public mind that this should be going on, cannot my hon. and learned Friend do anything to stop it?
    Mr. Taverne: In view of the public concern which there is in cases connected with dogs, this is a matter which would almost certainly be referred to the Advisory Committee on the Workings of the Cruelty to Animals Act. That question has not yet arisen in relation to this experiment.

  COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of widespread dubiety and the need to maintain the rights and interests of Rhodesian British subjects in Zambia and elsewhere, he will make clear which functions of the Rhodesian Government have, and which have not, been assumed by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden):The United Kingdom Government and I have from time to time and as occasion required exercised the legislative and executive powers conferred by the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, and by Orders in Council made under that Act. Apart from these powers. Her Majesty's Government have not assumed any of the functions of the Government of Southern Rhodesia.
    As regards the protection of the interests of Rhodesian citizens in other countries—which has never been a function of the Government of Southern Rhodesia or, indeed, of the Government of any Colony—I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 2nd May. —[Vol. 746, c. 297–8.]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not clear that the Government accept or disclaim responsibility just as they think fit? As regards the protection of Rhodesian British subjects, as there has been, in Her Majesty's Government's view, a change in the position of Rhodesia since U.D.I., is it not up to the United Kingdom Government to protect Rhodesian British subjects in trouble in other countries?
    Mr. Bowden: Although there is undoubtedly a right in the British Government to act on behalf of Rhodesian citizens, there is no obligation. In the case which, I think, the hon. Gentleman has in mind, we did so.
    Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the figures recently given for the cost of sanctions, whether he will now

    1689
    recognise the de facto government of Rhodesia.
    Mr. Bowden: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lloyd: Has not enough of the combined wealth of Britain and Rhodesia now been spent to demonstrate policy irreconcilables as old as the European occupation of Southern Africa? If such sums have to be spent, would they not be more appropriately spent on dealing with the discrimination disclosed by the P.E.P. Report within the United Kingdom, where we have some influence, rather than in Rhodesia, where we have sacrificed practically all that we had?
    Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked that, on 11th November, 1965, Her Majesty dismissed the Rhodesian Ministers from office. When they return to a position of legality, we can discuss the position, and any cost on either side could then be saved.
    Mr. Tinn: Can my right hon. Friend explain how sanctions can be claimed to be so damaging and expensive by hon. Members opposite and, at the same, be held by them to be ineffective?
    Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. It is not my responsibility to explain the minds of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted reports that contracts have been entered into between M. Boussac and the Rhodesians for the exchange of textiles and tobacco, and has he made any efforts to investigate the validity of these reports?
    Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir; I have seen the reports. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that investigations are taking place to see what can be done to prevent this sort of illegal action taking place.
    Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend ignore these pro-Smith pleas from hon. Members opposite who, since U.D.I., have given comfort and assistance to the traitors in Salisbury?

  BOARD OF TRADE

    Internal Air Services, Scotland (Fares)
    Mr. Grimondasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the increase of from 25 per cent.
    1690
    to 50 per cent. on some internal air fares in Scotland conforms with the prices and income standstill; and if he will make a statement.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I presume that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the application for increases in the applicable tariffs made to the Air Transport Licensing Board by all airlines operating domestic services. Increases proposed on internal Scottish services form a part of this. The application has not yet been heard by the Licensing Board, which is statutorily bound to have regard to the prices and incomes policy. I cannot in any way prejudge its decision.
    Mr. Grimond: I do not ask the President of the Board of Trade to prejudge the matter, but will he assure us that the prices freeze applies to the nationalised industries, and will he bear in mind that few things could be more damaging to Highland development than this steep increase in fares?
    Mr. Jay: I am statutorily entitled to listen to what the right hon. Gentleman says. As a general principle, the nationalised industries are not exempt from the prices and incomes policy, but the Air Transport Licensing Board is the proper authority to consider this in the first instance.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the airlines will adopt the practice which is being advocated for British Railways, namely, differentiation between services run on commercial lines and the losses incurred on lines run for social reasons?
    Mr. Jay: I would not like to give an absolute assurance without thinking that over further, but I am sure that the airlines will note what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the expected loss this year on B.E.A. internal services is £300,000? We have for many years given a subsidy to Messrs. MacBrayne, on the West Coast, to operate both sea and road transport services. Could not that be considered in this case, allowing the nationalised airline to compete on an even keel with them?
    Mr. Jay: I am aware of those facts generally. There is no doubt that B.E.A. has contributed greatly to better services in Scotland, at some financial cost.

  Earnings and Exports
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a White Paper to show the Government's calculation of the relationship between earnings inflation and United Kingdom export performance.
  Mr. Jay: Our export performance is determined by many factors, including changes in wage costs in this and other countries. An article on "International Comparisons of Costs and Prices" will appear in the May issue of "Economic Trends".
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted from recent replies to me and other hon. Members that the countries with the highest rate of earnings inflation in recent years, such as Italy and Japan, have had the best record of export performance? Does not this cast doubt on the whole basis of the Government's incomes policy?
  Mr. Jay: I am not sure whether by earnings inflation the hon. Gentleman means inflation of profits or inflation of wages and salaries. Whichever he means, this is only one of the factors affecting comparative performance in exports, though I agree that in either case it is an important one.

  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech about the economic situation made to a Labour Party meeting in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, on Sunday, 2nd April, 1967.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have already done so, Sir.
  Mr. Molloy: Yes, I am aware of that now, but will my right hon. Friend agree that as that speech showed the remarkable achievements of the British people, initiated by Government legislation— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, this is so; hon. Members opposite must not be so annoyed at British——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt himself.
  Mr. Molloy: I was dealing with the cacophonous cackling coming from the cantankerous Conservatives opposite, Mr. Speaker.
  Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these achievements ought to be much more publicised, particularly those aspects which assist local government to help ordinary people in the matter of rates and houses? All these things are very important, so will my right hon. Friend see to it that they are given much more publicity and not be so shy of these achievements?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I made the speech to a large meeting. What happens to its ultimate reporting is not a matter for me.

  ECONOMY (PUBLIC CONTROL)
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on his plans for further public control of the economy, including the aircraft construction industry and the North Sea gas-field.
  The Prime Minister: As to the general Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) on 23rd March; as to the aircraft industry, I would refer him to the speech of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Aviation in this House on 21st November last; and as to the North Sea gas field, I would refer him to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power gave to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), on 20th December last.—[Vol. 743, c. 331. Vol. 736, c. 961. Vol. 738, c. 1164.]
  Mr. Whitaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if one approaches these questions without political prejudice, all the objective evidence favours these two measures? Is he aware that both the Economist magazine and the Plowden Commission recommended the nationalisation of the aircraft industry, and, as

  1693
  regards the North Sea gas-field, is he aware that the public very much resent the action of the oil companies in trying to refuse the fair and generous price which the Cabinet have decided upon——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have fair shares at Question Time.
  The Prime Minister: As is well known, I always approach all these matters completely free of political prejudice. As regards the aircraft industry, the Government's proposals, which are now under negotiation with the firms concerned, were announced by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Aviation. As regards North Sea gas, I thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power said some very wise words on this question yesterday in a public statement.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: Before the Prime Minister allows his enthusiasm for public control to become too unrestrained, will he consult Mr. Kosygin and some of the senior planners of Gosplan who are now making considerable efforts to restore the profit motive and other forms of incentive?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware that Mr. Kosygin had yet fallen prey to the proposals of hon. Members opposite and was thinking of denationalising his aircraft industry.
  Mr. James Johnson: Did not the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power show that, without any dubiety, the oil companies can make a profit, a good profit, at 2½. a them, although they are now sticking out for 3½d. and saying that if they do not get it they will not prospect further? As a vacuum would be left in those circumstances, is there not a case for some form of public ownership?
  The Prime Minister: While the negotiations are continuing, it would not be right for me to comment. I have referred to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power yesterday. My hon. Friend will be aware, also, that at least half of each of the areas licensed will revert to the Crown at the end of the initial period of six years, that is, from 1970 onwards.

  VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY SERVICE
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibilities for Voluntary Community Service.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable amount of frustrated idealism among young people nowadays, and would he consider giving an imaginative lead to young people so that instead of occupations like cadet corps at school they can do some useful welfare work, such as the reclamation of waste land?
  The Prime Minister: Inevitably, the publicity given to certain delinquent activities among a small minority of people diverts attention from the very fine spirit of idealism and service of a very large number of our young people —church people and others. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science, has special responsibility for all these matters, including voluntary services by youth.
  Mr. Sharples: Can the Prime Minister say when he expects publication of the Seebohm Report?
  The Prime Minister: Not without notice.
  Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a pretty poor comment on the Opposition benches that they should laugh when the idealism of British youth is mentioned?

  SOCIAL BENEFITS
  Mr. Iremongerasked the Prime Minister if he will set up an interdepartmental working party to study the subsidies in cash and kind at present being made available without test of need in various ways to the public, and to study the various kinds of means tests at present being applied to the public by Government Departments.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Iremonger: Whilst I assure the Prime Minister that I understand his reluctance, would he give thought to the proposition that social benefits are bound

  1695
  to be either universal and inadequate or adequate and selective, and that the public is entitled to a little more frankness and less humbug?
  The Prime Minister: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's last remarks, because I remember some of the speeches made in the recent debate on the social services concerning family endowment a week or two ago. I am well aware of the views of the Opposition that these things should be on a much more widely means-tested basis, but I would not agree with it.
  Sir E. Boyle: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the growing concern among university vice-chancellors about capital grants for universities? Does this not point to the clear need for more positive discrimination in social expenditure between the essential and the less essential?
  The Prime Minister: These are matters more appropriate for debate. There has been a recent debate on the question of the discrimination the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Of course, in certain matters such as rent rebate schemes, uniformity is being sought as far as possible throughout the country, and we all know the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I could not go along with the general proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Barber: Is the Prime Minister saying that with the provision of additional benefits for those people most in need, which has been promised for the summer, there will be no expansion of the area of the means test?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should await the statement we shall be making on this question before the end of the summer. He will then no doubt express his opinion on it.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say at what period since 1947 any element of selectivity has been applied to the subsidies given to the wealthy farmers of this country?
  The Prime Minister: That raises a rather wider issue, which is usually taken up when the House is discussing agriculture.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economic situation at Dunoon on 20th April represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Chancellor's claim that the Government have reverted to stop-go is somewhat inaccurate? As the Chancellor pointed out that under the Labour Government the increment in the G.N.P. declined by 50 per cent. each year, would it not be fairer to describe it as a policy of full speed astern?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the measures that had to be taken to get the country into balance of payments surplus. If he studies the record of his own Government over 13 years he will find some very bad periods, even after they had been in office for 10 or 11 years.
  Mr. Barber: Is the Prime Minister aware that even if the new target of 3 per cent. growth is achieved, which is by no means likely, on the Chancellor's own figures in that speech at Dunoon the overall annual rate of growth in the six years covered by the National Plan will be only just over 2½ per cent.?
  The Prime Minister: As I have made clear, for the first 2½ years of these we have had to clear up the £800 million deficit the right hon. Gentlemen left. I know that the right hon. Member would like to forget about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Alibi."] The alibi was created by those who left us with the deficit. One big difference in our case is that we did not slash the social services as they did whenever they got into difficulty.
  Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that although growth is very desirable the country is right behind him—[Interruption]—and the Government in their determination to repay our borrowing? [Interruption]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Recess is not until Saturday.
  The Prime Minister: I was not able to hear every word of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but in the past three days we have been discussing some of the actions which might add to the rate of growth this country could achieve unaided. Certainly I am well aware that the bulk of the country will support measures to put the country on its feet again economically, even if we are carrying some of the unpopularity for the measures necessary because of the deficit.
  Mr. Barber——
  Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You appealed earlier in our proceedings for fair shares at Question Time. This is the right hon. Gentleman's second supplementary on this Question, and I do not think that that is fair shares.
  Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Barber: I only wanted to ask t he Prime Minister whether he realised that inadvertently he had not answered my question. I asked a straight question, whether he agreed that, on the Chancellor's own figures in the speech about which he is being asked, for the six years covered by the National Plan the growth rate will be only just over 2½ per cent.?
  The Prime Minister: Obviously, if it is 3 per cent. for four years and less than 3 per cent for two, the average for six must be less than 3 per cent. I have explained that the 2½ years were spent getting the economy right because of the mess in which it was left by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Heath: As the situation is now as the Prime Minister has described it, can he now tell us how his programmes, which he himself has said are based on a growth rate of 4 per cent., will now be met?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have every confidence that the programmes will be met on the basis of the 3 per cent. or more which can be achieved over the next four years. The right hon. Gentleman should not calculate on their last four years until the election boom that caused the economic crisis, but on what their record was over 13 years.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very glad to note that the marriage of convenience consummated last night is now breaking down?

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES)
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the activities of Ministers concerned with the accountability of nationalised industries that are diversifying.
  The Prime Minister: Their activities are already fully co-ordinated, Sir.
  Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Power has accepted full responsibility for making it clear to the industries under his control that where they diversify the subsidiaries should keep separate audited accounts? Is he also aware that the Minister of Transport has refused to order British Railways to do so in relation to the railway wagon works? Will he set right this anomaly?
  The Prime Minister: I should have thought that railway wagon works were an essential part of railway working, which they were not allowed to be over many years. The case to which the hon. Gentleman refers concerning my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is in respect of steel and brickworks. In the case of steel, there are fringe activities some distance from the steel industry proper. In the case of the brickworks which, quite properly, are run by the Coal Board, they are a separate activity and have a separate profit rating that must be reached.

  CHILD POVERTY
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what communication he has received from the Association of Child Care Officers about child poverty; what were its terms; and what reply he has made.
  The Prime Minister: They wrote to me on the 19th April, drawing my attention to a resolution about child poverty passed at their annual general meeting and asking for quick and effective Government action. In reply the Association

  1699
  was reminded of the important measures which the Government have already put into operation for the benefit of the poorer members of the community, and of our announced intention to bring forward further proposals this summer.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that not mean that the Government are unable to give them quick and effective action?
  The Prime Minister: In the sphere of social security covered by the representations of the Association, we have given quick and effective action over a very wide range of issues never dealt with before, and we have done it during 2½ years of economic difficulty. We have said that our statement on child poverty will be made before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess.

  UNITED NATIONS (MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
  Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint an additional Member of this House to assist the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs representing Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the arrangements outlined on 17th April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. A. Woodburn) are satisfactory.—[Vol. 745, c.1.]
  Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the excellent initiative of two and a half years ago in appointing a separate Minister and the action that my noble Friend Lord Chalfont has taken on peace-keeping problems seem to have lost their momentum? Will not my right hon. Friend let us build up a new head of steam in this direction by giving the House direct and distinct responsibilities in connection with the United Nations?
  The Prime Minister: The House is able to question not only my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary but other Foreign Office Ministers who are Members. Any loss of momentum in peacekeeping activities has been due to the
  1700
  fact that our initiative at the United Nations got held up and blocked mainly by a number of countries which, I am sure, would want to support it but were more concerned at the time with the Rhodesian problem.
  Mr. A. Royle: Before the Prime Minister appoints any more Ministers of State at the Foreign Office, will he tell us what Lord Chalfont has been doing for the last two and a half years? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Chalfont was appointed to carry out disarmament negotiations? What success has he had?
  The Prime Minister: My noble Friend was appointed to carry out disarmament negotiations and, as a result of initiatives taken by the Government, he has made great progress on the question of the Non-Proliferation Agreement. The Agreement requires signature by a large number of countries, and it is not within Lord Chalfont's power to dictate to other countries that they must sign it.
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my right hon. Friend consider using Members of Parliament instead of civil servants to lead various delegations to committees of the United Nations?
  The Prime Minister: More has been done in this direction. Following the practice of the last Government and of the post-war Labour Government, our representation on some of the main committees and in the General Assembly has been undertaken by Members of this House.
  Viscount Lambton: Does the Prime Minister mean that he is going ahead with the Non-Proliferation Treaty despite the effect this may have in Europe?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES COMMISSION (50th ANNIVERSARY)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Sir RICHARD GLYN: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of the Commonwealth

1701
War Graves Commission which, on 21st May, will complete 50 years of service devoted to the commemoration of the dead of two world wars.
Mr. DAVID GRIFFITHS: TO ask the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission; and if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Gov-Government will continue to support this work.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. Q12 and Q13.
I am glad to have the opportunity of paying tribute to the Commission. It has in its charge, Sir, well over 1,100,000 individual graves and memorials for a further 770,000 war dead from two world wars in 150 countries and territories. Those who have had an opportunity of visiting any of the war cemeteries and memorials will appreciate the meticulous care which has gone into their creation and the devotion with which they have been looked after.
The United Kingdom Government supported the Commission's policies from its earliest days and as it completes its 50th year of service I think it right that our confidence and support should be reaffirmed. I am sending the following message of good will from Her Majesty's Government to the Commission:
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government and people in the United Kingdom and Colonial Territories, I express to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission our warmest congratulations on the attainment of its fiftieth anniversary. We reaffirm our confidence in the work of the Commission, which has brought comfort to so many bereaved families and has earned the admiration of countless visitors to the war cemeteries and memorials, and we pledge our support for the continuance of its work in the future.
I am sure that the whole House would wish to be associated with this message.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Heath: I behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to associate the Opposition with the tribute paid to the Commission by the Prime Minister. During all the years I was a member of the Government, and all the visits that I paid to graves being cared for by the Commission, I never heard a word
1702
of criticism of any kind. That is a most remarkable tribute to a tremendous service.
Sir Richard Glyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement and the Government's message will be a great encouragement to the Commission and its staff all over the world and will give consolation and satisfaction to bereaved families and former comrades of men and women who gave their lives for freedom in two world wars?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). We all owe a great debt of gratitude, also, to those right hon. and hon. Members of the House, both present and past, who have been members of the Commission over this period.
Mr. David Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we appreciate very much what he has said? I am sure that, if it were possible at all for officials and workmen of the Commission, where-ever they are in the world, who are doing this magnificent work, to do any more than they are doing, this statement would encourage them and that they will be comforted by his words.
Mr. Thorpe: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with everything which the Prime Minister has said in his expression of gratitude to the Commission and express, also, our great appreciation of all that has been done?

SOUTH ARABIA
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on South Arabia.
I have given the most careful thought to the situation in South Arabia and to what we need to do to bring about the transition to independence with the best practicable result, the least harm to our own interests and the greatest prospect of a stable and assured future for South Arabia.
In these discussions, I have had the advantage of the advice of my noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio,

1703
Lord Shackleton, who returned for consultation after two weeks in Aden, and also of my noble Friend Lord Caradon, the Minister of State at the United Nations, and of many of the officials who are actually stationed there and, therefore, have first-hand experience of the situation in Aden and South Arabia.
The final stages of the transition to independence will increasingly give rise to important questions of an international and diplomatic character, as well as those of colonial administration. I have concluded that it would greatly help the Government in dealing with these problems to have available someone with wide experience both in international affairs and in the affairs of the Arab world.
I am arranging forthwith for Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to take over the High Commissionership in South Arabia. Sir Humphrey has been our Ambassador in a number of important posts at very significant times and this has included key Embassies in Arab countries. In addition to being, as the House well knows, a man with an independent mind, I am confident that he possesses the ability, the experience and the energy to accomplish the very difficult task that he has agreed to undertake. He will take up his post in about 10 days' time.
In making this appointment it will be necessary for me to recall the present High Commissioner, Sir Richard Turn-bull. Since there have been leaks—which I must tell the House I deeply regret— and, in consequence, a lot of uninformed speculation on this change, I wish to make it clear that there is no truth in any suggestions that there have been differences between Sir Richard and myself, either personally or over policy.
What is possibly more important is that the change casts no adverse reflection on Sir Richard, to whom I should like to pay a special tribute. We should all be grateful to him for carrying out a task of the utmost difficulty with courage, resolution and high ability after he had already completed a distinguished career in the public service.
Sir Richard Turnbull and Sir Humphrey Trevelyan are both public servants of notable distinction. The change is being made because I think that Sir Humphrey's experience and background
1704
will bring new and valuable assets to bear on the problems at this stage. As a result of all the consultations I have had, I have become convinced that the situation which will develop over the remaining months will require a different kind of background and experience from that which Sir Richard has had, and it is for that reason alone that I am making this change.
The new High Commissioner must clearly now be given time to settle in. The House will understand, therefore, when I say that I believe that this is not the occasion to go into detail about the policy which I propose should be followed from here on. I realise, however, that the House will wish me to deploy, and will wish itself to be able to debate, a full statement of Government policy. Discussions therefore will, I hope, take place through the usual channels immediately to arrange for such a debate to take place as soon as the House wishes after the Recess.
I would like, however, today to assure the House that the policy I propose to pursue will be inspired by the aims already announced by the Government: first, the orderly withdrawal of our forces and the establishment of an independent South Arabia at the earliest possible date; secondly, to work in close consultation with all concerned and especially with the United Nations for the establishment of a broad-based Government by the time of independence; thirdly, on the basis of those principles to leave behind us a stable and secure Government in South Arabia.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I say at once that we will take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's offer of a debate. The Government have the right, of course, to change their executive officers and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that there is no reflection on Sir Richard Turnbull's conduct of this most onerous task. Both Sir Richard and Sir Humphrey Trevelyan are most distinguished servants of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman said that Sir Humphrey has an independent mind; if the Government's policy is not to be changed, what flexibility has Sir Humphrey been given?
In that context, I have three short questions. Can Sir Humphrey, for instance, introduce federal police, who

1705
could be entrusted with internal security well before independence day? Can he recommend retention of an air element in the base and the necessary troops to protect it? I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman used the words "orderly withdrawal at the earliest possible date" for independence; is that a change? I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not used those words before. Can Sir Humphrey therefore recommend that the date of independence and withdrawal should be changed?
Mr. Brown: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the beginning. Sir Humphrey has an independent mind and there is not the slightest doubt that he will tell us what he thinks, as well as telling other people what he thinks. And what we would like them to think—
As for changing over to the local police, I have made it clear very many times that I think that it would be a mistake for us to hand over the responsibility for internal security to those who could commit us while our forces were there. On the other hand, the phasing in of the local forces under our command is obviously a very important way of handling the whole arrangement.
The right hon. Gentleman's second question was about the air element. If he thinks about it, he will appreciate that the maintenance of an air element on the ground requires a very large number of troops for its protection. If we are talking about coming out, about conceding independence, then I suggest to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who know as much about this as I do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, indeed. This is a bilateral problem, a bipartisan problem. I go a wee bit further than that and say that it is more a partisan problem which I am trying to clear up.
If we keep air forces on the ground, we need large numbers of troops to protect them; and if we keep large numbers of troops there, then we do not get out. That is a factor which I have to take into account. If Sir Humphrey were to recommend any change in our present thinking, we would, of course, be willing to listen to whatever he had to say.
Mr, Philip Noel-Baker: While, with many of my hon. Friends, I would wish
1706
to be associated with the tribute to Sir Richard Turnbull, who has done such courageous work during very difficult months and years, I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on having secured so able and so admirably qualified a High Commissioner as Sir Humphrey Trevelyan. On behalf of, I hope, all hon. Members, may I assure Sir Humphrey of our good wishes and our support?
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House will be grateful to Sir Richard and will wish every success to Sir Humphrey? What is the position of the United Nations Mission? Is it likely to return? Secondly, what political initiatives will Sir Humphrey take? For example, will he make attempts to meet the leaders of the two nationalist parties? Can he make recommendations about changing the federal structure in Aden, with the possibility of the secession of Aden Colony? Finally, will he be able to examine the possibilities of external treaties, defence and guarantees?
Mr. Brown: He will obviously carry out his duty, his work, his responsibilities, in the way which he thinks right. I am not hampering him and nor am I directing him as to whom he should see and how he handles the problem. On the other hand, if we are to get out of Aden and out of South Arabia in good order at an early date, we need a broader-based Government. I am absolutely certain that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan knows about this very well and will address himself very much to that problem.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I asked the Foreign Secretary what was the significance of the phrase "earliest possible date", which I do not think he has used before.
Mr. Brown: I have used it before. When I make a full statement on policy when we have a full debate, I will say exactly what I mean by that. Our predecessors used the words, "in 1968". I will try to be a little more precise when the time comes.
Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we very much welcome his assurance that the United Nations will continue to be associated with the solution of this problem? Will he assure the House that the possibility of some

1707
United Nations presence in the difficult transitional period has not been ruled out?
Mr. Brown: Far from its being ruled out, I would be very willing for the United Nations to play a rôle. I am bound to say that that very long Sunday gave me some worries about how it should be done, but I am very much in favour of the United Nations having an important rôle here. This is one of the reasons why, before I finally made up my mind what to do, I called Lord Caradon back from New York, as well as Lord Shackleton back from Aden, to discuss it with them.
Mr. Donnelly: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while we all support the granting of freedom, freedom in itself is not a transitory gain? What assurance can he give that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that effective protection is given to the area until Egyptian troops are withdrawn from the Yemen?
Mr. Brown: May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), with the honourable name which he has, that freedom has never been supported by troops from other countries standing there trying to guarantee it for one. This is the way that freedom is lost. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about N.A.T.O?"] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to know the difference. N.A.T.O. is an association of equal sovereign Powers I am talking, as was my hon. Friend, about a colonial-dominated State, with a so-called imperialist Power.
The situation is totally different, and until hon. Gentlemen opposite understand this, they will not understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) got us into the mess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe, and I tell my hon. Friend, that I will arrange the withdrawal in an orderly way. I will seek to leave behind a stable Government and a viable situation. But I believe that I will put all those Arab nationalists who are fighting for that at grave risk if I make them look like British stooges.
Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that every day longer that he stays in his job he is making a bigger mess of this? He spoke in his
1708
statement of the orderly withdrawal of our forces, and the establishment of an independent South Arabia. Does that mean that we are not to withdraw until we have restored order? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that independence without protection against external aggression is a cynical farce?
Mr. Brown: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken just for a moment or two longer. I would like to read a letter which he wrote to me yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] His words today were that every day I spent in this office the greater the mess I am making of it. His letter of yesterday said:
"Dear George,
Splendid speech.
Well done.
Good luck.
Yours, Duncan."
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) wants to address me on a point of order.
Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. Is it not contrary to all the traditions of the House to raise in the House private and personal confidential exchanges between colleagues in the House of Commons?
Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order. Must it not also be understood that private messages of congratulations, which are to be denounced the following day by public messages of denunciation, ought also to be known?
Mr. Tinn Mr. Tinn rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) might allow Mr. Speaker to deal with the point of order. He is seized of the issue on which he has to give a Ruling.
It is unusual for private correspondence and private comment between Members outside the House to be used in the House.
Mr. Sandys: Further to that point of order. May I, to avoid any misunderstanding, make it clear that my letter to the right hon. Gentleman was not concerned with his gross mishandling of the South Arabian problems, but was to do with the Common Market?
Mr. Brown Mr. Brown rose—
Hon. Members: Resign. Disgraceful.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it is clear to the House what the congratulations were about.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are elevating something to a greater degree than is necessary.
Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Foreign Secretary, as he has deplored the leakage about the replacement of Sir Richard Turnbull by Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, how this leakage arose, and whether an inquiry is being made into it? Will he confirm again that his statement indicates no change of policy on the part of the Government?
Mr. Brown: On the latter part of that question, I re-emphasise what I said in my statement. It does not indicate any change of policy. I repeat that I have had no differences with Sir Richard Turnbull—whom I much admire—about policy or any personal matters. I take the view that Sir Humphrey's background and experience would be more useful at this moment.
I deplore the leakage and I wish that I could find out where or how it happened. Like leakages from the other side, they are very difficult to trace. Inevitably, a lot of people had to be consulted about this. It was not a decision that I intended 10 take lightly. It was a decision involving a lot of people and it is, therefore, very hard to track down how it happened. That does not mean that I do not regret it, and if I could track down how it happened I would act.
Mr. Maxwell: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House, in view of the bloody mess left behind in South Arabia by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and of the fact that the United Nations is not anxious to pick up this hot potato, who will?
Further, could my right hon. Friend tell the House, since Sir Humphrey is known to be a friend of Nasser, the only man who has kept his honour at Suez, whether he will allow him to talk to Nasser about what contribution Nasser is willing to make to help bring about peace in South Arabia?
Mr. Brown: I do not want to be drawn too much into the latter part of that question. Frankly, I feel that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan is right for the job at this moment, with all the qualities that he brings to it. I would not like to exaggerate his knowledge and association with President Nasser. All the qualities that he brings to this job may help us towards the kind of solution that we would like to have.
Mr. Tapsell: In view of the fact that during a period of only slightly more than two years the Government have parted company with two distinguished and experienced High Commissioners, and that almost all our friends in that part of the world are highly critical of the Government's policy in Southern Arabia, should not the Government give further reflection to the wisdom of their policy?
Mr. Brown: Maybe the Opposition will reflect upon the number of High Commissioners that they changed. May I make it quite plain that I have not, in that sense, parted with Sir Richard Turnbull. I have made a decision, in what I believe to be the interests of this country, that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, at this point of time, given his background and experience, would be a better appointment for us, a better officer to carry out what we now need to do than would Sir Richard Turnbull. I stand by that, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite will consider what one will need in future, I would be very surprised if they do not come to the same conclusion.
Mr. Whitaker: While echoing what my right hon. Friend says in paying tribute to the courage of Sir Richard, may I say how warmly the appointment of Sir Humphrey is welcomed on these benches? Will the Foreign Secretary say that he will be treated with more confidence and co-operation by Her Majesty's Government and by Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary than he was on his last appointment in the Middle East, when he was Ambassador in Cairo, in October, 1956?
Mr. Brown: On a serious matter like this, I do not want to get involved in what went wrong there. My hon. Friend may be quite sure that my relations with

1711
Sir Humphrey will be quite different from the relations with my predecessor, which he had in mind.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) about the inconsistency between freedom and military support is completely vitiated by what has happened in Malaysia? Does he say that the independence of judgment which he attributes to Sir Humphrey will entitle him to recommend, and have taken seriously a recommendation, that a blood-bath would result if British troops go next year and that, therefore, they should stay?
Mr. Brown: I rather hope that the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise. But my understanding with Sir Humphrey is very clearly understood by him and by me, that, before he recommends, I hope that he will report exactly how he feels and what he finds.
On the question of independence and troops and all that, of course there are always exceptions to prove the rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course. Nevertheless, if one looks at the Middle East, and at Asia generally, I have a feeling that we can do more harm by insisting on keeping British troops on the ground—I mean more harm to the local Ministers who want to take responsibility—than we could do good by removing this very obvious presence.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman has offered a debate. Is he aware that we shall want the debate at the earliest possible moment after the Recess and that we will then expect a full and clear statement of policy from the Government? We were denied that in the Adjournment debate, and the Foreign Secretary has constantly refused it at Question Time. I must impress on him now that the House will expect a full statement of policy when we debate this matter after the Recess.
Mr. Brown: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that seriously and sincerely. There are reasons why I thought that that was the wrong moment. There are reasons why I think that this is the wrong moment—good reasons. I recognise that when we return
1712
from the Recess, and Sir Humphrey is then already in Aden, a full statement of the policy and the purposes which we intend to pursue from here on should be made, and that the House should be able to debate them and give its verdict on them. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I shall not run away from deploying them.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to debate this matter soon.

BRITISH ARMY (INFANTRY REORGANISATION)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make an announcement about a reorganisation of the infantry.
As the White Paper on Defence explained, a wide-ranging examination of the long-term structure of the Army is being carried out. The Government have already taken decisions about the organisation of the infantry. Since we must now consult a wider circle about putting these decisions into effect, I thought it right to inform the House about them now.
The infantry of the line is at present grouped into 13 brigades or large regiments and the Parachute Regiment. Each contains either three or four battalions. It has become clear that the present groupings are too small to meet the needs of the future.
Accordingly, the infantry of the line, apart from the Parachute Regiment, will be organised into five new larger groupings, to be known as "Divisions", each being formed by amalgamating either two or three brigades or large regiments. The names of the new Divisions will be as follows:
The Queen's Division, which will consist of The Queen's Regiment, The Fusilier Brigade, The Royal Anglian Regiment.
The King's Division, which will consist of The Lancastrian Brigade, The Yorkshire Brigade, The North Irish Brigade.
The Prince of Wales's Division, which will consist of The Wessex Brigade, The Mercian Brigade, The Welsh Brigade.

1713
The Scottish Division, which will consist of The Lowland Brigade, The Highland Brigade.
The Light Division, which will consist of The Light Infantry Brigade, The Royal Green Jackets.
The Brigade of Guards, also, will become a Division.
These larger groupings will allow for contraction, or for expansion, with the least possible difficulty. In the new organisation it will be easier to smooth cut inequalities in manpower as between one battalion and another. The reorganisation will also make for efficiency in recruit training and economy.
The new organisation will be introduced by planned stages and will be complete by the middle of 1969.
The aim is to meet the needs of the future while preserving the best features of the regimental system.
I have arranged for details of the reorganisation to be available in the Library and they will also be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has made a very important statement which will have far-reaching, perhaps very far-reaching, consequences for the future of the British Army and that it will be necessary to debate it as soon as may be practicable, especially as it has, apparently, had to be made on the day before the House rises for the Recess?
Meanwhile, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this: does he deny that a main object of this reorganisation is to make possible a substantial reduction in the number of the infantry? If so, would it not have been more logical, more candid, and more manly to announce his decision on that major point first and the reorganisation afterwards so that this might be considered by the House and the country in a proper manner?
Mr. Healey: No. I know very well that if I had waited another three, six or nine months, however long it was necessary to wait before fixing the long-term size of the Army, I should have been under continuous criticism from the benches opposite because of the rumours and leaks which were continuously spreading about the formation of the large
1714
divisions on which it has been necessary, as the House may know, to consult colonels of regiments already. It would have been impossible to keep this quiet.
I felt that the only right and honourable thing to do was to tell the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, if he reflects on the matter, will recognise that I was right.
Mr. Powell: But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the rumours and anxieties which he so much deplores relating to the future size of the infantry will continue until he does make his announcement?
Mr. Healey: Yes, I do, and for that reason I shall make that announcement as soon as I possibly can. But I am not in a position to make it this afternoon.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the forecasts that this will mean a substantial reduction in the Army are justified? Is he aware that a distinguished soldier like Field Marshal Montgomery has recently called for very, very substantial reductions in the Army?
Mr. Healey: I have noted with great interest and some approval a number of remarks made by the noble Field Marshal on more than one occasion in recent weeks. What I can tell the House, as I have told the House on many occasions, is that it will be necessary to reduce somewhat the ceilings of all three Services before the Defence Review is completed. I made this clear a year ago and was taken to task by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for doing so.
Mr. Monro: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this decision will be received with grave disquiet in Scotland? Can he assure the House that the eight Scottish regiments will retain their separate identities?
Mr. Healey: I should like to make it clear that this new organisation does not affect the separate identity of the individual regiments. They will keep their insignia, although at some later time it may be agreed to be desirable to make some rationalisation in dress. The existing cap badges will remain, at any rate for the time being, although again, at a

1715
later stage—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite should know that when they created large regiments out of existing regiments they introduced a new cap badge for members of the large regiments. It will be similarly necessary at the appropriate stage to introduce a new cap badge for members of the divisions, but we do not foresee that stage at the moment.
Mr. Turton: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that recruits will be able to go into the battalion of their choice, wherever possible?
Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Ramsden: Would the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the reason why the present brigade organisation is judged to be too small to meet future needs? Why have the Government abandoned the previous policy of moving towards the large regiment which hitherto has been actively pursued by the brigades?
Mr. Healey: I think that there were two main reasons. First, there are serious manpower inequalities in recruitment to the various brigades. If there is to be free movement of officers and men between one battalion and another, it is necessary to group battalions into rather larger groupings than the existing large regiments. Secondly, as a result of this regrouping it will be possible considerably to reduce the overhead costs of organising the infantry. It will be possible, for example, in time to get rid of some existing depots.
Mr. James Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, at battalion level, the Scottish and other regiments will retain their present names? Will he also say whether he has taken into account the effect on recruiting, particularly in view of the traditional links between individual villages, towns and families and certain regiments?
Mr. Healey: All this has been taken into account, and I am glad to confirm that battalions will retain their existing names.
Mr. Maxwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a former soldier in the Queen's Royal Regiment, I regard the naming of one division as the Queen's
1716
Division as a very good idea? Much more seriously, this reorganisation strikes me as extremely sensible and the only way of bringing about the kinds of savings both in overheads and in numbers of infantry to make possible the reductions which we obviously need, not only economically but from the point of view of maintaining a sensible military establishment.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will this reorganisation of the infantry into divisions also include the supporting arms which will normally be associated with particular divisions?
Mr. Healey: I want to make it clear that these divisions are divisions of infantry grouping, in the same way as an infantry brigade is a grouping of battalions. It is quite different from a fighting formation, which has supporting arms going far beyond the infantry.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that, a year ago, after the reappraisal of the whole defence policy, he told the House that all the major decisions had been taken? His answer today that he anticipates substantial cuts in the strength of all three Armed Services reflects the total failure of the economic policy of the present Government and appeasement of their own Left wing.
Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman's memory is at fault.
Mr. G. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in Scotland, retention of regimental identities is important, otherwise recruiting could be badly damaged, when, hitherto, recruiting in Scotland has been good?
Mr. Healey: I recognise that very well, and would point out that regimental and battalion identities are not affected by this regrouping.
Captain W. Elliot: Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, have the Government made a decision to reduce the ceilings for the Army and the Air Force? If so, can he give the new figures? If he cannot, can he say when he will be able to do so?
Mr. Healey: I dealt with this matter at some length in this year's defence debate, and foreshadowed it in last year's debate. I made it clear that, when I am

1717
in a position to announce changes in the long-term structure and size of the three Services, I shall do so, and I recognise that the sooner that that can be done, the better.
Sir C. Mort-Radclyffe: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, up till now, with the brigade grouping, this has not seriously altered the characters of the different regiments? Now, with the new proposals to go on to a divisional basis, could he give a more convincing answer than hitherto as to how it is proposed to retain the very important regimental traditions within the new divisional grouping? Could the House have a White Paper to explain in detail how it will be worked out?
Mr. Healey: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot do better than talk in the same terms as he did, namely, that the identity and tradition of individual battalions and regiments will be preserved in exactly the same way under the new grouping, as under the grouping of the large regiment or brigade.
As for a White Paper, the hon. Gentlemen will find that the details to be published in HANSARD tomorrow will answer any questions which can be answered at this time.
Mr. Tinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House welcome the fact that, in honouring the Government's pledge to contain our defence expenditure, he has not shrunk from grasping this nettle, and that, if it involves us eventually in the cost of a few new cap badges, we will not bother too much about that?
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Castle——
Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the rising of the House, are we not to have a statement on the third London Airport, about which there have been extensive reports in the Press today?
Mr. Speaker: No request has come to me from a Minister to make such a statement.
Mr. Mac Arthur: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of other questions arising from the state-
1718
ment by the Minister of Defence, largely because of the uncertainty that some of his words have raised in our minds. Is it possible to allow one or two further supplementary questions?
Mr. Speaker: This is always the difficulty of Mr. Speaker, but, at the same time, I must protect the business of the House——
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with a point of order. I allowed the questions to run as long as I thought reasonable. The House must leave it to my discretion. Mr. Biggs-Davison. Point of order.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), may we take it from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that there will be no attempt on the part of the Government to announce a decision on Stansted Airport, which is of grave concern to my constituents and is threatening havoc in Essex, just as the House is rising? That would be most improper.
Mr. Speaker: The last thing which the hon. Gentleman would wish to do would be to get the Chair involved in the differences of opinion between both sides of the House.
Following are the details:

REORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY
Introduction
1. The White Paper on the Defence Estimates 1967 (Cmnd. 3203) stated that a wide-ranging examination of the long-term structure of the Army was being carried out, and that it was hoped to announce further plans for the long-term size and shape of the Services later this year. Decisions have already been reached on the future organisation of the Infantry. As these are of very close concern to the Army the earliest opportunity is being taken to announce them.
Present Organisation
2. The Infantry is at present organised into Brigades or Large Regiments. The Brigade of Guards contains eight battalions. The Infantry of the Line is made up of ten Brigades, three Large Regiments and the Parachute Regiment, each containing three or four battalions. A Large Regiment is a more closely integrated group than a Brigade of Infantry of the Line. This organisation is set out in the Annex.
Divisions of Infantry
3. It has become clear that, for the reasons given below, the present groupings of battalions within Brigades and Large Regiments are too small.
4. The Infantry structure of the future must allow for contraction, which could be considerable, or for expansion in the number and size of infantry units with the least possible difficulty. The present structure is a well established organisation but it is now necessary to develop it further into larger groupings to meet such changes.
5. Recruiting is largely on a territorial basis. There are inescapable fluctuations in the recruitment to individual Brigades and Large Regiments. The formation of larger groups for personnel management purposes will make it easier to eliminate any inequalities in strength and in specialists.
6. With larger groupings, it will be possible to concentrate recruit training into fewer Depots; this will make for training efficiency and for economy.
7. The Army Board have rejected the possibility of a Corps of Infantry devoid of subordinate groupings of Regiments. A single Corps would be unwieldy and impersonal to a degree inimical to effective personnel and general management. What is needed is a reduction in the number of groupings, not their abolition. They have accordingly decided that the Infantry should be reorganised into larger groupings to be known as "Divisions".
8. The Infantry of the Line, less the Parachute Regiment, will be organised into the new Divisions by grouping together existing Brigades and Large Regiments as follows:

Division

Existing Brigades and Large Regiments

The Queen's Division

The Queen's Regiment

The Fusilier Brigade

The Royal Anglian Regiment

The King's Division

The Lancastrian Brigade

The Yorkshire Brigade

The North Irish Brigade

The Prince of Wales's Division

The Wessex Brigade

The Mercian Brigade

The Welsh Brigade

The Scottish Division

The Lowland Brigade

The Highland Brigade

The Light Division

The Light Infantry Brigade

The Royal Green Jackets

9. The Scottish and Light Division are smaller than the others but each has distinguishing characteristics justifying a separate identity. In general the new groupings reflect geographical contiguity of home recruiting areas. In each Division a Headquarters will be formed, superseding existing Head quarters of Brigades and large Regiments. Officers will be gazetted, and soldiers enlisted, into the Division. Whenever possible, officers and soldiers will be posted to the Regiment of their choice. Basic training will be carried out in Divisional Depots. Regiments will preserve their identities, territorial affiliations and titles. To facilitate postings between battalions,
1720
there will in due course be some rationalisation of dress and eventually a Divisional cap badge will be introduced.
10. The Brigade of Guards, which is already roughly of the size proposed for a Division, will continue as a separate organisation. In conformity with the new nomenclature its title will be changed to The Guards Division.
11. The Parachute Regiment, because of its special characteristics, will not be included in any Division of Infantry and will remain in its present form.
12. The new Divisional organisation, which will be introduced by planned stages, will be complete by the middle of 1969.
The Future
13. The new system of Divisions of Infantry will meet the needs of the future while preserving the best features of the regimental system inherited from the past. It will be flexible enough to meet all the demands that may be made upon it and will thus provide a stable enduring structure for the Infantry.

PRESENT ORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY
The Brigade of Guards

1st and 2nd Battalions, Grenadier Guards.

1st and 2nd Battalions, Coldstream Guards.

1st and 2nd Battalions, Scots Guards.

1st Battalion, Irish Guards.

1st Battalion, Welsh Guards.

Th Lowland Brigade

The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment).

The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment).

The King's Own Scottish Borderers.

The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles).

The Queen's Regiment

1st Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Queen's Surreys).

2nd Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Queen's Own Buffs).

3rd Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Royal Sussex).

4th Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Middlesex).

The Lancastrian Brigade

The King's Own Royal Border Regiment.

The King's Regiment (Manchester and Liverpool).

The Lancashire Regiment (Prince of Wales's Volunteers).

The Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire).

The Fusilier Brigade

The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers.

The Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers.

The Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment).

The Lancashire Fusiliers.

The Royal Anglian Regiment

1st (Norfolk and Suffolk) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

2nd (Duchess of Gloucester's Own Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment

3rd (16th /44th Foot) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

4th (Leicestershire) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

The Wessex Brigade

The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment.

The Gloucestershire Regiment.

The Royal Hampshire Regiment.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment (Berkshire and Wiltshire).

The Light Infantry Brigade

The Somerset and Cornwall Light Infantry.

The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry.

The King's Shropshire Light Infantry.

The Durham Light Infantry.

The Yorkshire Brigade

The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire.

The Green Howards (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment).

The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding).

The York and Lancaster Regiment.

The Mercian Brigade

The Cheshire Regiment.

The Worcestershire Regiment.

The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's).

The Sherwood Foresters (Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Regiment).

The Welsh Brigade

The Royal Welsh Fusiliers.

The South Wales Borderers.

The Welsh Regiment.

The North Irish Brigade

The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.

The Royal Ulster Rifles.

The Royal Irish Fusiliers (Princess Victoria's).

The Highland Brigade

The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).

Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons).

The Gordon Highlanders.

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's).

The Parachute Regiment

1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions, The Parachute Regiment.

The Royal Green Jackets

1st Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (43rd and 52nd).

2nd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (The King's Royal Rifle Corps).

3rd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (The Rifle Brigade).

BILL PRESENTED
  ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING
  Bill to resolve doubts as to the application of the Road Transport Lighting Act 1957 to reflecting material; to confer power on the Minister of Transport to require or authorise lights of prescribed colours to be shown to the rear of vehicles; and to restrict the carrying by vehicles of certain illuminated signalling devices, presented by Mrs. Barbara Castle; supported by Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, and Mr. Stephen Swingler; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn till Wednesday, 31st May.— [Mr. Harper.]
4.18 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn, I think that the House is entitled to a statement from the Leader of the House about his intentions to allow us an opportunity to debate certain matters arising from articles in The Times and books concerning Suez. Fundamentally, there are three questions which are debatable. I should like to know from the Government whether we are to have a debate on all or any of these questions.
There is the question about the propriety of ex-Ministers of the Crown using knowledge which they acquired while in office to throw fresh light on decisions taken during their terms of office. It would be improper to debate the propriety or otherwise of this now, but there are two points which legitimately can be made.
First, if there is to be a ruling that Ministers should be debarred from doing this, it must apply to all Ministers, and we must not allow a custom to grow up by which very senior Ministers who want to defend or explain their own conduct are allowed a latitude which is not allowed to more junior Ministers. Second, for my own part, I take the view that when these matters have passed out of the immediate relevance of politics, it is all to the good in a democracy that, within reasonable limits, Ministers should be allowed to explain their points of view.
No doubt they sincerely held the points of view which they then upheld and, therefore, I cannot see that any damage is done by asking them at a future date to come forward and refute or argue with allegations made by Ministers who took different points of view. I cannot think that democracy will be helped by imposing for ever a cloak of secrecy over the ways in which very important decisions were entered upon.
Then there is the whole question of the Suez expedition. At one time, the Leader of the House was greatly concerned to have a full inquiry into how
1724
this lamentable expedition ever took place. It may be said if the House were now to begin to disinter this very unfortunate incident in British history it might do us harm in the eyes of the world, but greater harm will be done to us if we attempt to bury it for ever.
It is said in some quarters that President Nasser is always stirring up trouble in the Middle East, but it appears that other people nearer home were determined to have a show-down in the Middle East. It has been said by the French and by various historians of repute. It is useless for us to pretend——
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is straying from his own guide lines. He must not seek to debate the merits of what he wants the House to debate.
Mr. Grimond: I take your point, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not pursue the matter any further, except to say that I am entitled to refute the objections to having a debate on this by saying that I do not believe the objections made from a wider area of policy would be justified.
Rightly or wrongly—and, again, it is not my intention to debate the rights and wrongs of the matter—we imposed a very heavy penalty on Mr. Profumo for having misled the House. I agree that there are great differences between what he did and what it may be alleged other Ministers have done before him, but it is a matter for consideration by this House about how far we have a right to accept from all Members, whether Ministers or not, a degree of complete frankness with the House, and whether, if they fall from that degree of frankness, it is excusable because they can plead, and fairly so, that concealment was made in the public interest.
I would regret it if we were to embark on a vendetta against Ministers who were engaged in the Suez venture, but there is an important point of principle here, and an extra element is added to that point of principle by the behaviour of this House, for which we all take responsibility, in regard to Mr. Profumo.
Further, it seems that Mr. Nutting himself in some ways has been used as a scapegoat. He is not getting the credit, which to my mind he should be, for having been one of the few people to "come clean" over the whole incident.

1725
It has been suggested that he behaved improperly in not making a statement to the House when he resigned. We should know why he did not do that, whether there was anything improper in this conduct, and what advice he was offered.
Without going into the merits of the case, I think that it has certain important implications for the way we conduct our affairs. Before we rise for the Whit-sun Recess I think that we should hear from the Leader of the House whether it is proposed to have a debate on this matter, and if so, when, and what will be discussable. It has been rumoured that it is intended to hold a debate after the publication of Mr. Nutting's book, but I would be grateful, if it is his intention to enable us to have a debate, if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether in that debate all these matters will be discussable, whether the debate will be limited in content, and whether his undertaking to provide time for a debate is a firm one, or whether he is waiting for the general opinion of the House.
4.23 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I do not think that we should agree to this Motion without having some opportunity to express our view about the situation which arose recently in Greece, because, unhappily, in this House there has been no opportunity to do more than ask one or two brief Questions and to obtain some extremely brief replies. As we are facing a situation in which a member of N.A.T.O. has had its parliamentary Government overthrown by means of a military coup, possibly using equipment provided for N.A.T.O. by the United States, or conceivably even by us, it will seem fantastic if no expression of opinion is clearly given from this country.
Our anxieties are made all the greater because of news of the large number of people who have been detained. According to the latest information which I have, more than 6,000 people are being detained and interned on the Island of Yioura, and the memories which some hon. Members have of the islands used for detention off the coast of Greece give cause for great anxiety. It is therefore no light matter to us in this country that this sudden and brutal assertion of military power should have occurred.
1726
I am concerned that there has been no statement from our Government, other than comments in another place. I am all the more concerned because certain other Governments have taken a different view. The Danish and Norwegian Governments have expressed their anxiety about the situation and have called for the restoration of constitutional Government in Greece.
At its meeting only a fortnight ago the Council of Europe, which was widely attended by representatives from Western European countries, unhesitatingly passed a resolution calling attention to the serious situation in Greece and calling also for an early restoration of constitutional Government. It called upon the Bureau of the Council of Europe to inquire about the safety of the delegates from Greece who normally attend Council meetings and who, quite suddenly, were prevented from attending only a day or two before the Assembly was due to meet.
I notice that at a recent N.A.T.O. meeting attempts were made to raise this matter, and that in the European Parliament of the Common Market countries, to which we hope shortly to become attached, the matter was vigorously debated and attention was called to the seriousness of the situation.
There are, of course, many individual cases to which reference has been made, and there have been Written Answers in this House in connection with Mrs. Betty Ambatielos.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has the sympathy of Mr. Speaker in the issues which he is seeking to raise, but he cannot go into the detailed merits of the matter.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I was not wishing to go into too much detail, but merely to emphasise the gravity of the situation which, I submit, warrants some consideration before we agree to the Motion before us.
I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend, or one of his colleagues, to make a statement today expressing the Government's view and saying what representations have been made on this matter to the authorities now in charge in Greece. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us an assurance

1727
that there is no suggestion of recognising the new authority there until steps have been taken to restore constitutional Government.
All kinds of criticisms may be made of the situation in the past, but surely it is clear that we require from our Government a statement associating this country with the protests made by other countries and by assemblies of Parliamentarians elsewhere. I hope that my right hon. Friend or one of his colleagues will be able to do this in this House today.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Royle: I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether, before we rise, we are to have a statement about Stansted Airport. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave concern throughout the London area, and indeed throughout the country, about where this new airport may be sited and whether Stansted will be chosen? There is grave concern not only in Essex and around Stansted itself, but in other constituencies in the London area, including my own, which suffer from aircraft noise along the glide path into Heathrow.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been concerned to read in today's Evening Standard what appears to be a major leak—yet another major one from this Administration—which says that the Government are going to announce the establishment of this airport at Stansted, but presumably as they are not doing so today they will announce it tomorrow morning. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not behave in such a dishonourable way as to tuck this statement in tomorrow morning, when he knows that most hon. Members will have returned to their constituencies.
I hope that the Leader of the House can say something about this today. The reason why such widespread concern exists on the question of siting the airport at Stansted is that the suggestion has been put forward of an alternative site in the estuary, clear of London and London's built-up area. It is the view of most Londoners, both in the centre and on the outskirts, that before we rise for the Recess the Government should announce to the House, at a time when Members
1728
will be present in large numbers, the fact that this airport should not be at Stansted but—taking a longer view—in the estuary.
By building this new airport in the estuary we shall remove the heavy buildup of aircraft noise which is bound to take place over the next few years as the result of siting the new airport at Stansted.
I am sure that the Leader of the House is well aware of the aircraft noise which has to be borne by Londoners living under the glide path. Not only in my constituency of Richmond but in other constituencies around London this noise is becoming intolerable. Life will be made hell for those living under the glide path, and where so many hundreds of thousands of people are involved the Leader of the House should arrange for a statement to be made on this important matter and not tuck it away tomorrow morning—I see the Leader of the House nodding; I have a feeling that that is what he intends to do. He should not tuck it away on a day when there will be few Members here. Therefore, the announcement should be made either after we return from the Recess or this afternoon.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Mr. Francis Noel-Baker.
4.33 p.m.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I venture to revert——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Philip Noel-Baker.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Was that misunderstanding due to the right hon. Gentleman's youthful appearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Noel-Baker: Realising that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) was not here, I ventured to accept your invitation to address the House.
I want to revert to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I venture briefly to support his contention that we should have a pledge from the Lord President of the Council that we shall shortly have a debate on the revelations

1729
made by Mr. Nutting, and the reports in The Times—to both of whom the House should be very grateful. I do not seek to argue the merits of the question, but I am sure that we should debate all three aspects of the events of 1956 and what followed—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
I consider this question to be of the highest importance to all parties in the House. I remember that after 1956 it seemed not only to me but to many other hon. Members that the work of the House was being poisoned by the fact that we could not rely on what we were being told from the Government Front Bench. It strikes at the very root of democracy if the House of Commons cannot rely on securing straightforward answers to questions and arguments which may be put.
It is vitally important for a second reason. The real point at issue in 1956 was the sanctity of the Charter of the United Nations. No right hon. Gentleman on either Front Bench would venture to contest the view that the survival of mankind depends, in the long run, on the integrity of the Charter. The events at Suez, ten years ago, were followed by many similar events in other parts of the world which have undermined the integrity of the new law which the nations have created. For those reasons, I hope that the Lord President will do what the right hon. Gentleman has asked.
4.36 p.m.
Sir Douglas Glover: I do not think that the House should rise for the Whitsun Recess without being given an authoritative statement from the Lord President, or the appropriate Minister, on the subject of Stansted Airport. I do not raise this matter because I have a personal constituency interest, but I suffer the same as anybody else who lives in London from the noise of aircraft flying overhead—although I am so conditioned to it now that at night I wake up if aircraft stop flying over.
The House will be treated with contempt if this inspired leak in the Evening Standard tonight is confirmed tomorrow, when it is too late for many Members of the House to ask pertinent questions of the Minister. If the announcement is to be made tomorrow the question will have died and become old news by the time
1730
we return. Hon. Members with constituency interests have not only a right but a duty to raise the matter, and to pursue it—because it is a very controversial question.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, in a very friendly manner—at the moment— that unless we have some assurance of a debate which is unlimited, I am prepared to break the record for a long speech, held by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). The right hon. Gentleman should realise that this is the sort of issue he is facing. There are many matters that we can raise in this connection, and he had better arrange for a statement to be made or give the promise of a statement before the rising of the House tonight.
Another point that I want to raise concerns the report in The Times that a Mr. Wilson, a native of Derby, is apparently to be deported from Guyana. I thought that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) intended to raise this point. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of Mr. Wilson's deportation. I understand that it was made under a law just passed in that country, which gives Guyana the right to deport British subjects.
What is far more important is the fact that this gentleman settled in that country and married an Amerindian woman—one of the natives of that country—and by "native" I mean one of the original inhabitants who were overrun by Indian and Negro tribes. His wife was one of the original, uneducated elements from the centre of the country. Mr. Wilson married this lady because he wanted to spend his life with this community and help it raise its standards, and also to find out something about it.
Although this gentleman is to be deported, I understand that his wife is not to be allowed to come with him. I would have thought that the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who raised the question of the United Nations, would agree that this case involves the question of human rights and the freedom of the individual, and was a matter in respect of which the House should hear from the Commonwealth Secretary as to what is being done to protect this gentleman and his wife, because action will presumably need to be taken quickly.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Grossman): I am sorry, but I did not catch the name of the gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman was referring.
Sir D. Glover: He is a Mr. Wilson, of Guyana. I did not think that I would need to repeat his name. I am sure that there will not be any confusion about which Mr. Wilson I am referring to. I do not raise this subject in a hostile way, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to arrange for a report to be given to the House before we rise, because by the time we return the question will have passed out of our control.
I do not know about my Front Bench——
Mr. Anthony Barber: I am not sure that I know about my back bench.
Sir D. Glover: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will have a view on this matter. I do not know about my Front Bench, since it has been generous today with the Foreign Secretary over the question of a statement about Southern Arabia. Knowing how rapidly events move, I should have thought that we needed a much clearer statement of policy before we rose.
I have always appreciated the difficulties of those holding of high offices of state, and there are two other aspects of the problem which the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. Although we may be critics in the House, we also have a responsibility to be informed in the country. The House is to rise until 31st May. The public have read about the proposed changes, together with hints of alterations of policy and perhaps a greater emphasis on delay—all implications in the Foreign Secretary's statement—but not a single hon. Member could help the public in the Recess in informing public opinion about Government policy in the South Arabian Federation——
Mr. David Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best news possible about Aden would be that the South Arabian Federation will be finished completely?
Sir D. Glover: It is most helpful of the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I am sure
1732
that that is what he wishes. But, judging from what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, I am sure that it is not what he will do. I should therefore mislead the public if I used the hon. Gentleman's helpful advice and said that this was the Government's intention. I do not think that it is. Therefore, the House and hon. Members need a great deal more information before we rise.
We also need more information about our procedure. The right hon. Gentleman has tried many innovations, but the mood of the House seems to be much less enthusiastic for some than when they were instituted. Will they run on to the end of the next Session—if we know that we can make our plans on that basis—or will the right hon. Gentleman, after three weeks' consideration, bring in alterations? In other words, are Monday morning sittings to continue to the end of the summer, or will they be done away with, since the right hon. Gentleman admitted in our last debate that they cause trouble not only to hon. Members but also, perhaps more, to the staff of the House?
It is no use me and 629 other hon. Members going around our constituencies deciding that we should like to raise a subject on the Adjournment on Monday mornings if there are to be no sittings then. It would be helpful to know. On many of these things, the right hon. Gentleman could give the House more information. After a very unsatisfactory debate on our procedure, we should have a very important one at an early date to consider proposals—
Mr. Eric Lubbock: While he is on this very important question of the reform of our procedure, would the hon. Gentleman care to say anything about shorter speeches?
Sir D. Glover: I should be only too happy to make a speech on that subject, because that would enable me——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be out of order.
Sir D. Glover: It might be thought to be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have a debate on shorter speeches before the House rises, so that when we return we would know that we should not make longer speeches than the length we discussed before we rose. When the Liberal

1733
Chief Whip so helpfully raised this matter, I thought that if the same principle had applied during the recent debate on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, two-thirds of the information which the Prime Minister gave would have been barred and restricted——
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is not how long speeches are which counts but how long they seem to be?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches, and a large number of hon. Members still want to speak. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Motion.
Sir D. Glover: I will do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members opposite probably were not present when I told the Leader of the House that the House was entitled to a very important statement. I am only using the proper procedure to try to get the right hon. Gentleman to do that. I hold him what powers a back bencher has and they are very limited today. The right hon. Gentleman is not exactly trying to extend them. I will not carry this any further, because I am basically kind-hearted, and have made something of a demonstration.
I believe that, despite some of his unpopularity as Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman genuinely desires to serve it and he has an absolute duty. If there is an announcement about Stansted, it should be made to hon. Members, not at a late hour tomorrow when the House is empty, but today, when many hon. Members can ask proper questions about it.
4.47 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I wish to return to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), because I thought that he misunderstood it. It is not fair to relate anything said by Ministers at the time of Suez to a statement made by Mr. Profumo. It has nothing to do with it. If this is to be brought into the debate, I hope that the Speaker will look at Mr. Profumo's statement again.
The explanation is that I had always understood that personal statements were personal statements, but there were grave doubts about that one. It was edited by
1734
the Prime Minister of the time, and delivered to Mr. Speaker by the Patronage Secretary of the time, which, in effect, was out of order, and ought to be regularised. There is a personal responsibility on a Minister and a Speaker.
I thought that the late Speaker, as I told him, was mistaken in the course which he followed. Consequently, if there is any debate about statements made in good faith from that Box, it ought not to be confused with the Profumo statement, which——
Mr. Lubbock Mr. Lubbock rose——
Mr. Pannell: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I am on something which I know something about; I want to be careful about this, because I raised a point of order at the time.
When hon. Members make a personal statement, they ask Mr. Speaker about it and submit the statement to him, and he knows what is in it. The Member puts his hand on the Box and cannot depart from it. There is no doubt that there were improper matters in that statement, which reflected on other hon. Members and which were held to be improper afterwards. There was a serious dereliction of duty by the Speaker of the time in admitting the statement. In any case, the statement——
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman, as he has just done, to accuse a previous occupant of the Chair of a serious dereliction of duty? I had always understood that criticisms of present or former occupants of the Chair could be put forward only by a substantive Motion.
Mr. Pannell: I have carefully thought about this; and, in any case, there was no——
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a difficult matter. I do not think that a former occupant of the Chair is protected in the way that a present occupant of the Chair is. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is responsible for any statements he makes to the House and would naturally, I expect, take care about what he says.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to you for that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and, of

1735
course, I accept it. However, has it not been the practice of this House to treat with great care and respect the reputations of former occupants of the Chair who are no longer here to answer for themselves? Is it not contrary, at any rate to the general sense of the House, for, above all, a right hon. Gentleman to make a criticism of a former Speaker who now, alas, is in no position to defend his own honour and reputation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair can deal only with matters of strict order and with matters as they arise. I endeavoured to convey my feeling to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that he should take care; but I must say emphatically that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West is responsible for any statements which he makes.
Mr. Pannell: I am as fastidious in my treatment of the Chair as any hon. Member. I know the rule. It is that the antecedents of the present Speaker must never be referred to, however lurid they may be. If the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has any feelings on this subject, he will know that if one considers the history of Speakers of the House, it is at the time of their death that history begins.
I am merely trying to make the point that what was done at that time should, in my view, not have been done. The idea of having a Select Committee to go into those matters was resisted by Conservative hon. Members at the time. They therefore cannot complain now if I use this opportunity to raise the matter. Indeed, I was making the point on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman's side that one must draw a sharp line between a statement deliberately made to the House, which is under protection, and something which an hon. Member may say in good faith when he comes to the Dispatch Box, but which is afterwards held to be untrue.
I want to make it perfectly clear—and in doing so I am not calling for an early debate on Suez—that it was a great national humiliation and that when the Leader of the House considers this matter he would be well advised to stick to his original opinion, which was that Mr. Nutting's book should be published in full before he decides whether to have a
1736
debate. After 10 years, a Suez debate is not something that can go off half-cock. We want all the information. It is a serious matter indeed. Only when people like the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) can read it all, and take it in its context, will they be able to come to the Dispatch Box prepared to meet it. There may be a time to debate Suez——
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Such as now.
Mr. Pannell: I believe that my hon. Friend wrote a review of another book.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I saw the uncorrected proof copy.
Mr. Pannell: But I have not. My hon. Friend is a great authority on this subject, but he must allow me to read the darned thing for myself.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: My right hon. Friend can do so at any time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) must not make interventions from a sedentary position. If he wishes to catch my eye he should attempt to do so in the usual way, when notice may be taken of him.
Mr. Pannell: I would take as true anything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not while he is sitting down.
Mr. Pannell: Like Stanley Baldwin, one must occasionally reflect on the many-sidedness of truth. I am making the point that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should stick to his previous opinion, which was that we should have all the information we can possibly get before we debate the quesion of Suez.
I strongly reinforce the view that, in my opinion, there has been a great deal of selectivity in Establishment channels about who they allow to reproduce certain stuff. Undoubtedly, Sir Winston Churchill was allowed a most favoured position in the keeping of all sorts of things. So was Sir Anthony Eden, but I will not go into that now. The present Government might very well consider introducing rules that would protect them and others before them so that we may have something like impartiality on this issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is going much too far into the merits of the case on a Motion about the Adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess.
Mr. Pannell: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one cannot be expected to look over one's shoulder to know in which way Mr. Speaker ruled when the right hon. Gentleman was on his feet. I am endeavouring to stick closely to matters that have been raised during the debate. I have not wandered beyond Mr. Speaker's Ruling, though I bow to your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I merely wish to fortify this point, because there has been a great deal of partiality. I can recall the fine which was inflicted on the son of George Lansbury for the harmless reporting of an innocuous Cabinet matter. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken many opportunities with the Establishment when they have been out of office— [Interruption.]—but I will leave the matter there for now.
I mention these points because we are concerned about history. I do not believe that they are matters which should prevent the rising of the House for the Whitsun Recess. I want to make that perfectly clear. They are matters which can be safely left with the Leader of the House. I hope that I am in order in saying that the sort of propaganda that is put out about the Leader of the House—that he is unpopular in the House, that he lacks support from my hon. Friends, or that the friendship we feel towards him is palpably untrue—does no good at all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pannell: The matter has been raised in the other direction. I hope that I am in order in considering the affirmative side of the argument.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to restrict the right hon. Gentleman, but he must confine his remarks to the Motion. If he will relate them to the Motion I will be happy to hear them.
Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman as good as said that we should not rise for Whitsun while the present Leader of the House holds that office.
1738
I want to keep him. I do not want to throw him away. Normally speaking, every other Leader of the House has never wanted to do anything at all. This man is simply bursting over to do things—and, of course, occasionally some of his ideas will not come off.
In an old building like this, a place which is encrusted with 1,000 years of history, new hon. Members want to alter things the first Session they are here. After that, the place seems to become increasingly rational. It becomes more rational as they get older. There is a great surge of opinion behind the present Leader of the House in attempting to alter our procedures. Those alterations are bound not to suit everybody, such as the Member who wants a career and to be in this place. I am merely saying that my right hon. Friend should not lose any sleep during the Whitsun Recess and that he can rest assured that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West has confidence in him.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want, particularly on the eve of the Whitsun Recess, to quarrel with the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I hope, however, that he will reflect during the Recess on what he said about our late Speaker. You ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if I may say so, you ruled, as always, absolutely rightly—that although in order, that kind of statement was made on the right hon. Gentleman's own responsibility. He was, therefore, entitled, if he took the responsibility, to say what he said.
On the other hand, to take the responsibility of charging our former Speaker, who was a friend of many of us, who is no longer here to speak for himself, but whose family is, happily, still about the place, and to accuse him of a serious dereliction of duty, is a point made in my presence which I must severely rebut. Without wishing to enter into the controversies of those days, I do not believe that our then Speaker, or any Speaker, has been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty. I hope that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West will use the Recess to reflect on what he said. He is a fair-minded man, and I know that if he comes to the conclusion that the words he used were

1739
not fair he will withdraw them. I hope that he will.
As for a debate on Suez, I hope that if we have one it will be a wide one concerned not only with the Government of the day but with the Opposition of the day. I hope that it will enable us to inquire into why it was that the then Leader of the Opposition, having made a highly responsible speech on 2nd August—in which he said that Nasser should not be allowed to get away with it—then changed his front. Inquiries might be interesting into the pressures that might have been applied to him.
Equally, the conduct——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to relate his remarks to the Motion on the Order Paper. I would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman, too, would do that.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very conscious of that need, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I understand the reasoning it is that if we adjourn now we forfeit a fortnight or so of the time in which we could have a debate on Suez, and some hon. Members want a debate on Suez. I was only concerned, in relation to that enthusiastic desire, that the debate should be sufficiently wide in scope to enable all the relevant facts affecting all the parties concerned to be fully adumbrated.
As quite serious things have been said about some of my right hon. Friends, I think that it is at least within the confines of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should be allowed to point out that there are others whose conduct at that time could be called in question. There is the attitude of the then Opposition, while our troops were actually engaged in operations, seeking, contrary to all tradition, to raise the most appalling hoohah in this House. All I say, and I will pass from this——
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South) rose——
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way!"]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames
1740
(Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has indicated that he will give way in a moment.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes. I always do give way to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), but I prefer to do so at the end of what I am saying at the moment.
My only point is that if there is to be such a debate it should be completely comprehensive and cover all the issues. In deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now leave that subject, with the one escape clause—unless I am incited by the right hon. Gentleman to whom I now give way.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He will no doubt recall that from 2nd August onwards the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, repeatedly warned the Government that they must not use force in the Suez dispute without the approval and sanction of the United Nations; and that when the then Government violated the Charter of the United Nations we had to stand by the warnings we had given; and that the country and the world supported us and not them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In all fairness, I should allow the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to reply—but a short reply.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My short reply is that if this be so the right hon. Gentleman, who is among those who support the request for a debate on this subject, can make a speech in that debate and explain what the then Leader of the Opposition meant when, on 2nd August, he said that Nasser must not be allowed to get away with it. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I, too, have got away with it as far as I can, and I retreat at least to the outer perimeter of the rules of order.
It is obvious that none of us should go away on what is, in many ways, the most agreeable of all the Recesses without some serious factors being weighed, and I must put it to the Leader of the House that if we do not go away for a Recess of this very considerable length there is one wrong on which we could use the time in putting right.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that but for the action of the Government local government electors in the

1741
boroughs of London would today be voting in local government elections. Even the right hon. Gentleman in his most sanguine mood can not now have the slighest doubt about what the result of such elections would have been. When the Government put through the legislation which denied to these boroughs of London, alone in the country, the right that they had under previous law today to change councillors whose mandate had expired, we were told, "Well, they probably will not want to change them anyhow."
The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that now in the face of the G.L.C. elections, and in the face of the borough elections throughout the country, where Labour councillors have been ejected with almost monotonous rapidity and regularity. What we know now, though we did not know it then—though some of suspected—is that what the Government were doing was to foist on the London Boroughs, by selective and discriminatory action as compared with the rest of the country, local councils they do not want.
The right hon. Gentleman could repeal that legislation. He could not allow an election today, but if we came back next week and he repealed that legislation he could have elections in June, which is soon enough. He is now in a position, if he chooses, to extricate the Government from the very undemocratic position of imposing on the electors local government that they have shown they do not want. And with all respect to hon Members opposite, who show great unhappiness about events in Greece, about which we can do little, we can do a lot to ensure the return of democracy in London.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman why we are not having legislation to put right that wrong——
Mr. Lubbock: How many people in Enfield are in detention without trial?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), or perhaps he would like to address his question to the Home Secretary, who is responsible for that state of affairs in London. I understand, naturally, how a Liberal Chief Whip can never be affected by questions of prac-
1742
ticability, but if the hon. Gentleman were in touch with reality he would grasp the simple proposition that there is, unhappily, very little we can do about the state of affairs in Greece, but we could give London its elections by a decision of this House——
Mr. Grimond: I know the right hon. Gentleman's passionate interest in reality, but does he really think that the Leader of the House would do what he says?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: One of the fascinating things in my long experience of the Leader of the House is that one can never anticipate what he will do, but one has the knowledge that one shares that happy ignorance with the right hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. Crossman: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he is in a state of extreme hopefulness about my reply on the London Government Act.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I only say that the Leader of the House will know that there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over many of us Tories who need no repentance, and although the right hon. Gentleman has done 20 years and many wrong things in this House, there is still hope that he will reform. He has a chance this afternoon.
One of my hon. Friends asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could use this Recess in connection with his far-reaching reforms of procedure—that streamlining of our procedure, proposals for which flow on to the Order Paper without even the clerks being consulted to find out whether they will be available to implement them. When we come back, are we still to go on with this ludicrous business of concluding the main business of the House on Mondays and Wednesdays at half-past nine, or is that state of things to be put right? Are we to go on with the farce of Monday morning and Wednesday morning sittings, or does the right hon. Gentleman intend to put that right, too.
Do the terms of the Motion for a long Whitsun Recess bear some relation to the fact that the Leader of the House knows that he is to exercise his newly acquired powers to guillotine the Finance Bill?

1743
Does he feel able so confidently to send us away for this longer period because he knows that he now has the power, never taken since the war, to guillotine the annual Finance Bill? Can he tell us whether, when we come back, the Finance Bill will be guillotined?
We were told by the Minister of Health on Monday, when under some pressure, that he would have discussions with the chairman and managers of St. Teresa's Hospital at Wimbledon—I hope with a view to finding a solution of that unhappy state of affairs and retrieving the crude and clumsy error of the Hospital Board. Can we be told that when we come back the Minister of Health will be able to make a statement about this matter? People care about this hospital. In view of the previous attitude of the Minister, and the even worse attitude of the Chairman of the Regional Hospital Board, some of us are not happy about going away and so leaving time running against this hospital. The Minister gave us some hope on Monday. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, whatever the result of these discussions, that the Minister will be prepared to make a statement on our return?
Finally—and this concerns all of us in London—there is the question of Stansted. When are we to have a statement on Stansted? We know that there are leaks saying that it is ready. Ministers in charge of Aviation have a bad reputation for making statements on the verge of a Recess. If it is impossible for the statement to be made tomorrow, will there be time given for a debate on this matter after the Recess?
5.10 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I would not under-estimate some of the important national or local issues which have been raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), but I rather regretted in his speech a note of indifference to some affairs which have occurred rather further away. I thought this quite unnecessary, because many things which have happened far away may in their consequences be of far more importance to the people of this country than some domestic matters. Knowing the general outlook of the right hon. Gentleman, I was rather surprised that he allowed him-
1744
self that expression of indifference, particularly to the tragic events in Greece.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I gave that impression, it was certainly not my intention. I said that those events were unhappy but there was little we could do about them. I would not construe that as indifference, but if I gave that impression to the hon. Member, I assure him that I did not mean to do so.
Mr. Mendelson: In the opinion of all hon. Members, wherever they sit in the House, it is important to endeavour not to give an impression of that kind to our comrades-in-arms and friends in Greece. Therefore, I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said when he asked that the Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the Government, will tell us what representations the Government, have made in Athens concerning the very serious events which have taken place there recently.
This is all the more necessary because it has been reliably reported that there were two aspects of the recent military coup which concerns us directly as members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance. The first aspect, which has been very widely reported, is that the arms used to occupy all the central positions in Athens when the coup took place were arms supplied under the N.A.T.O. Treaty. That was not the original purpose for which those arms were supplied. Secondly, and equally important, it is said that the actual plan which was used and worked with such precision was a plan worked out under N.A.T.O. authority against foreign aggression.
It is reported that the King himself and many officers senior to those who organised the coup with such efficiency were caught in it because they thought that an international crisis had arisen and that under the Alliance arrangements they ought to fall in with what was being done. Only at a very late stage did some of those senior officers realise that this plan had been used to overturn the internal constitution of Greece. This is a matter which concerns the Government very directly as a member of the N.A.T.O. Alliance.
We hear a great deal, particularly in general debates, about the main purpose of the Alliance being to secure our own

1745
security, the security of our allies and, above all, of democracy. That is always the argument put forward when decisions in the N.A.T.O. Alliance are discussed. In many newspapers I find a complete indifference to the overturn of democracy in Greece. Many people are only a little concerned about this matter when it is raised by some of my hon. Friends. The position there has been raised officially by the Danish Government and by other Governments.
To be fair to the Government, it has been reported that at the very beginning the American Ambassador and the British Ambassador intervened and had an early interview with the new civilian Prime Minister who has been put in office by the military. It was reported that the American Ambassador adopted a very soft attitude to the events while the attitude of Her Majesty's Ambassador was fairly rigid and was critical. I was glad to see this report and I should like it to be confirmed by my right hon. Friend, because since then there has been another report on the official Greek radio in Athens which gave a completely different outline of the interview.
That report said that the British Ambassador had seen the new Prime Minister and assured him that Britain fully understood what had taken place and more or less accepted it in those terms. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend could deny that account of the attitude adopted by our Ambassador. Does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) wish to intervene?
Sir John Langford-Holt: I do not expect that the Leader of the House would give an answer of that sort in reply to the debate on this Motion.
Mr. Mendelson: I have been here since the beginning of this debate and I have heard all the Rulings given from the Chair. It is not for an hon. Member who has just walked in from the outer regions to rule over us as an extra Deputy Speaker.
I should be very glad if my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, could deny this very serious report, which I hope misrepresents the attitude adopted by our Ambassador.
I turn to the only other matter I wish to raise. It concerns what is happening in
1746
a region even further away, but one which may have even more serious consequences on the future and fortunes of the people of this country. That is the ever-increasing escalation of the war in Vietnam. This subject has not been mentioned this afternoon. I introduce it by saying that some of the events which the Prime Minister and the Government in general have always regarded as most dangerous and most likely to lead to involvement of other Powers and, therefore, to the danger of a new world war, are now taking place daily in Vietnam. They are taking place as a result of a major decision by the Administration in Washington.
It is reliably reported from Washington that the decision is to escalate further the bombing and step it up in the next few weeks. This is directly linked with this Motion, because it is absolutely clear that while we are in Recess these matters might come to a head and we shall have no opportunity whatever of questioning Ministers and no opportunity of bringing the opinion of the House of Commons on these matters to bear on the action of the Government.
It has also been announced that during the Recess, I believe on 19th May, the Foreign Secretary will be arriving in Moscow on a diplomatic visit and that he will have discussions with the Soviet Government. This would be a useful opportunity for him to discuss these matters. If we were in Session we could immediately ask for a statement on his return from Moscow. We shall not be able to do so and, therefore, this is the last opportunity for any hon. Member to raise these matters with a Government spokesman. The decision which was recently taken by the United States Administration concerns the bombing of North Vietnam. The decision has been taken to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong. It is proposed to step up these bombing operations in the next few weeks whilst the House is in Recess. I have here a report published in the New York Times this morning. I want to quote only this one sentence from it:
"Navy carrier jets bombed inside the City of Haiphong today in the second such attack of the Vietnam war."
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on an important occasion, speaking from the Dispatch Box, said in reply to a

1747
Question that the Government were wholly opposed to the extension of the bombing operations against main population centres in North Vietnam or anywhere in Vietnam.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting at the merits of the subject rather than the reasons for adjourning or not adjourning, which is the Motion on the Order Paper. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks to the Motion.
Mr. Mendelson: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I have so far not introduced any more subject matter than other hon. Members have introduced on many other subjects. I will hasten to put myself in order by saying that this is the second time this operation has taken place. It will be continued in the next few weeks. If these attacks multiply on the main population centres, a policy to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed the Government will be violated, and this is the last opportunity that I have to urge the Government to reaffirm the statement made by my right hon. Friend that the British Government are totally opposed to the bombing of main population centres in Vietnam.
There is a further escalation which it is expected will occur in the next few weeks. [Interruption.] I cannot understand the mutterings of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) when I am discussing a matter of such importance, because if a world war were to break out over Vietnam his constituents would be as much involved as mine.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: I was merely trying to ascertain whether the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend intend to vote against the Motion. If they do, I shall support them.
Mr. Mendelson: I ought to have known that it would be a frivolous intervention. I return to the main point. The other major escalation which is foreshadowed in the next few weeks concerns the sending of a further 60,000 American troops to Vietnam. It has recently been reliably reported that the Soviet Ambassador has made a démarche in Washington in which he said, on behalf of the Soviet Government, that if this were to take place there
1748
would be a very large increase in the amount of military equipment and other matters supplied by the Soviet Union to Vietnam.
Therefore we are facing over the next few weeks perhaps the gravest development of the war in Vietnam that we have yet had to face. It will be precisely at a time when the House is not in Session. I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House whether the Government are making any representations in Washington for the Americans to think again before they make this further large commitment to escalate the war in Vietnam. After all, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to be against the further escalation of the war. Whatever disagreement any of my hon. Friends or I myself might have had with the Prime Minister or with other members of the Government in our attitude towards the war in Vietnam, we have always been in complete agreement on one point—that we are opposed to the further escalation of the war. This has been confirmed time and again by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. What is more, I know that my right hon. Friend has in the past, in many ways and in co-operation with many other Governments, worked very hard to avoid further escalation.
In conclusion, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he can tell the House anything about the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his visit to Moscow, whether he intends to take up again with the Soviet Union, because of the growing dangers of this situation, the possibility of a new initiative. I would not expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to disclose any details of such an initiative, but perhaps he could indicate in general terms whether the Government are determined to start a new initiative with the co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference—the Soviet Union; because we must realise that, if indeed escalation proceeds and other powers, first indirectly and then on a larger scale——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that a certain amount of latitude has been allowed in the debate, but I really think that he has exhausted the limits of the latitude offered to other right hon. and hon. Members. He must now come to the point.
Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are all of us near the borderline at times. I go back to within the confines of the Motion. The point I was coming to is directly on the Motion. Would my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that if the further escalation does begin to take place and if there are dangerous developments over the next three weeks, he will advise the Prime Minister to have the House of Commons recalled?
This is the point of the debate. We have the right to demand an assurance before we adjourn that if certain eventualities that we are afraid of do occur the House should be recalled. It is very important to have the reply by the Minister concerned on record before we agree to pass the Motion. On this occasion, tragically, the dangers are even greater than they were when the House last went into Recess, because it is clear that if there is a further intervention with more troops by the United States there is a very great danger of two other major Powers becoming more involved, first indirectly and then more directly. Then we may be facing a development in which the play of alliances in which we are involved would directly concern the people of this country. On these grounds, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us in some detail what the Government are doing.
Sir D. Glover: If the hon. Gentleman does not get a satisfactory reply from the Leader of the House, would he like any help in the Division Lobbies?
Mr. Mendelson: I am addressing myself to the Leader of the House on a very serious matter. I am concerned to know what the Government are doing about it. I am not concerned about trifling interventions.
5.27 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall try to be careful not to offend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, either as to latitude, to which you have just referred, or as to longitude.
I do not agree entirely with the views of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) on Vietnam, but I agree with him that we should have the assurances for which he has asked from the Leader of the House. If it is required, I shall
1750
be happy, as I believe some of my hon. Friends will be, to be with the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby.
I personally should also welcome any discussion which may be held upon the subject of Suez, although the line which I took on that matter was diametrically opposed to that taken by right hon. and hon. Members who have so far mentioned the topic of Mr. Nutting's book in the House this afternoon. I think that this subject would make a very interesting debate. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was absolutely right to say that many interesting matters would be brought out, which would reflect, not so much on the Conservative Government of the time, but upon Opposition Members at that date. I should be very glad to give the hon. Member, for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) something to put into his next book on the subject. I remember that I was extremely flattered, as a young Member, that I should have been mentioned in his book, but I do not think that the weight of guilt has been very heavy on my conscience.
However, the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was right in suggesting that perhaps we should wait for the appearance of Mr. Nutting's book in full, because there are many gaps and I, for one, should be glad to know exactly why and when Mr. Nutting changed his views about President Nasser.
The hon. Member for Penistone and other hon. Members who have spoken mentioned the people who are detained in Greece. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) mentioned Mr. Wilson, of Guyana. The House is always deeply concerned for the protection of the rights, liberties and property of Her Majesty's subjects wherever they may be.
Last Thursday, I gave notice to the Leader of the House that I might be disposed to oppose this Motion until we heard more from the Government about the plight of British subjects and Commonwealth citizens, for whose protection Her Majesty's Government are responsible, who are detained in Zambia and elsewhere in Africa. There are seven of them, I believe, though the score may have gone up since we last had news. I shall not discuss the merits of

1751
their cases. I do not know why they have been detained. In passing, I must say that it was regrettable that Her Majesty's High Commission in Lusaka failed to extend to a British subject who happened to be a Rhodesian the same assistance as was extended to other British subjects, but the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs explained today that that matter has been put right, and I am grateful.
We understand that these unfortunate people are to be put before a tribunal. I wish to say nothing in this House disrespectful to the judiciary of Zambia. On the other hand, when we learn today that an able and honourable British journalist, Mr. John Monks, of the Daily Express, has been deported from Zambia and will, therefore, no longer be able to report on these matters, one wonders a little whether justice will be seen to be done. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said, we have little power to affect events in Greece. But I am speaking of British subjects for whose rights and liberties Her Majesty's Government bear a direct responsibility.
I turn now to a subject about which other hon. Members have spoken, a subject of direct concern to my constituents, namely, the possibility that there will be a third London airport at Stansted. If this comes about, it will wreak havoc in Essex. My constituents are desperately worried. It would be monstrous, the decision having been so long delayed, if the Government even dreamed of making an announcement when the House was practically up and many hon. Members were not able to speak their minds as we can at this moment. I hope that we shall hear from the Leader of the House that nothing like that will happen and that any decision which the Government propose to take will be properly announced when the House is back or, alternatively, that the House will not go away for Whitsun but will have ample opportunity to debate the matter at length. On this and the other matters to which I have referred we must have satisfaction from the Treasury Bench.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish, first, to raise a question of procedure. I shall not trouble the House
1752
with it for more than a few moments, but I should like an assurance from the Leader of the House that, before we return after the Recess, he will give serious thought to the method by which we record the votes of hon. Members on important issues. When hon. Members abstain in Divisions on important issues, could not a method be devised for recording such abstentions in the columns of HANSARD? I raised this question on on earlier occasion with a previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), and he promised to give it serious consideration, but there were not many occasions thereafter on which there were abstentions. Recently, however, there has been a series of Divisions in which hon. Members on both sides have felt that abstention was the best way to register their views. It is important that such abstensions should be recorded in the columns of HANSARD so that reference could be made to them later.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It would be difficult to distinguish between those who genuinely abstained and those who were just not here. Those who were not here might not wish to have their names recorded in HANSARD as having been absent.
Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to discuss the merits of the question. That could come later. I want an assurance from the Leader of the House, who is progressive and enlightened in these matters, that he will continue the consideration which was promised to me by, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West when he was Leader of the House. There are occasions when hon. Members do not wish to be associated with any particular Motion but take an attitude which can, perhaps, be described as positive abstention.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he is in favour of adjourning or not?
Mr. Hughes: I am not in favour of adjourning until we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that he will continue the consideration which was promised to me by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. When abstentions occur on both sides of the House, difficulties are caused in various ways. For

1753
example, representatives of the Press do not know who has abstained because of principle or because they were ill and not present. All I ask is that, during the Recess, my right hon. Friend will give his earnest consideration to this matter and report to us when he has done so.
I entirely agree with what has been said by hon. Members about Greece and Vietnam, but I wish now to refer to Scotland. No one can say that Scotland has taken a great deal of the time of the House this week. I understand that one Member, and one only, expressed views about Scotland in the Common Market debate.
Sir D. Glover: Two.
Mr. Hughes: Only two, then. I make no complaint against the right of the Chair to select speakers. What I say is that, on the occasion of an important debate such as that, a Minister for Scotland should put the Scottish point of view. I should like an assurance from the Leader of the House, before we rise for the Recess, that a statement will be made about how Scotland will be affected economically if we go into the Common Market. It is an entirely new line in procedure that Scotland should be completely ignored and the question of, say, agriculture in Scotland be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture in England.
Many of us who come from Scotland will have great difficulty during the Recess in explaining these matters to our constituents if we do not have a statement from the Secretary of State or the Minister responsible for agriculture at the Scottish Office. I do not want to interrupt the proceedings tomorrow. I do not ask for any special attendance, and I do not wish to impose upon the Secretary of State's time, but I ask the Leader of the House to give us an assurance that a statement will be made giving Members representing Scottish constituencies information which will enable them to explain to their constituents what changes will be likely to affect them if we go into the Common Market.
I say this as one representing a constituency where there are many milk producers. I should like the matter to be spelt out so that I can tell my farmer constituents what they are likely to be in for and exactly how the Common Market
1754
arrangements for milk will affect dairy fanners.
Sir Stephen McAdden: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly? Is he suggesting that those hon. Members representing Scottish seats who cast their votes yesterday voted without any knowledge of what they were doing?
Mr. Hughes: I cast no aspersions on my colleagues from Scotland or England. I only say that they would have been better informed on how they could vote if we had had spelt out exactly how the people who live by the production of milk will be affected by the proposals. Like hon. Members opposite, I spend some time in the Whitsun Recess talking to farmers, and naturally Scottish farmers, who are anxious to know how they will fare under the proposals, will ask, "How are we affected?". I shall say, "Read the White Paper on Agriculture", and they will say, "But we have no statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland". They will press me and tell me that the White Paper says that under the proposals there will be less profitability in the production of milk. Less profitability in the production of anything is serious. When they ask me to spell the matter out I shall be unable to do so unless we get a statement.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is spelling out his comments in too great detail to keep in order. He must relate his remarks to the Motion, which is about the adjournment for the Recess.
Mr. Hughes: I shall not proceed further on that, except to say that I think that I have proved my case that Scottish Members visiting their constituents are entitled to a fuller explanation about matters affecting Scotland than they have already had. We have had a debate without a Scottish Minister having an opportunity of telling us the exact position.
We shall also inevitably be asked as Scottish Members how the decision will affect the advance factories position. If the Common Market proposals come into effect, how far will that prevent the advance factories being built in Scotland,

1755
and how far will it mean that there will be a continuation of the drift south?
I suggest that I have said enough to show that there should be a clear statement—not necessarily a White Paper—from the Scottish Office, showing the people of Scotland exactly how they are likely to fare in the negotiations. I believe that I will have the majority of my Scottish colleagues on both sides of the House with me in asking that some kind of statement should be made from the Scottish Office before we rise for the Whitsun Recess.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. James Davidson: It is by coincidence that I happen to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), with whom I completely agree. I wish to reinforce his point but do not wish to delay the business of the House for more than a few minutes. I was one of those unfortunate enough to sit through the greater part of the three-day debate on our entry to the Common Market and not catch the eye of the Chair. Although I very much regretted that, I regretted still more the fact that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor any other Minister seemed to appreciate that the conditions for Scotland's entry are somewhat different to those for England's.
For example, we are an exporting country of agricultural products, and in many other ways our economy and general conditions are very different to those of England. It is often overlooked that by the Treaty of Union of 1707 two kingdoms, two equal partners, were joined as the United Kingdom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are important remarks, but I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman relates them to the Motion. He must do that.
Mr. Davidson: My relation to the Motion is precisely that of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. [Laughter.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I called the attention of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire to the fact that he was getting out of Order.
Mr. Davidson: I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My relation to
1756
the matter of the adjournment of the House is that before it takes place I should like to see not only a full statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland but an undertaking, which perhaps the Leader of the House will obtain from the Secretary of State, that at a very early opportunity we shall have a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the effects on Scotland of Britain's entry into the Common Market. This is absolutely essential.
May I just revert to the position about the Union? The point has been made by a leading Scottish judge that the whole Treaty of Union would fall to be re-examined in the event of the United Kingdom's accession to the Common Market.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that that should take place before the Recess?
Mr. Davidson: It should certainly have taken place in the course of Ministers' answering two points raised during the debate on our entry into the Common Market. During that three-day debate only three Scottish Members were called. One was speaking as Front-Bench spokesman for the Official Opposition and, therefore, did not particularly treat the Scottish side of the question; one other Scottish Member just spoke very briefly on the matter of Scotland's position on our entry; and only one member from the Government side spoke on the question of Scotland's entry—and that occupied only a paragraph or two of HANSARD. The question should be examined carefully.
I do not agree with the contention of the judge to whom I referred that the Treaty of Union would fall to be renegotiated in the event of the United Kingdom's accession. I studied the Treaty from end to end very carefully once again at the weekend. But this is a point of dispute in Scotland. It will be put to Scottish Members during the three weeks of the Recess, and we should have some statement on the matter.
I hope that the Leader of the House will forcibly put to the Secretary of State for Scotland that there is a real need for a separate debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the effect on Scotland on entry to the Common Market.

1757
I was one of those who voted in favour of entry, but we should be able to impress these points about Scotland's position on those who will be starting negotiations, or starting basic work for their negotiations, during the three weeks that the House is in Recess.
5.48 p.m.
Mr. John Fraser: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I do not think that the House should adjourn until there has been a clear and unequivocal statement by the Government about affairs in Greece. The Government should not stand mute when a democracy dies.
There are two very special reasons why a statement should be made at an early date, before we adjourn, and the point was put succinctly in an editorial in the Observer. First, the discreet attitude adopted towards the Greek coup by both the British and American Governments, in contrast to the forthright condemnation by the Danes, is being exploited by the new régime and is giving no comfort to the Greek democrats, by whom it is being treated as a betrayal. Secondly, the British and American Governments will have to find ways of bringing home to the régime in Athens that its action is not only politically disreputable but is also a danger to the Western Alliance. The longer repudiation is stayed the greater the encouragement to the illegal régime.
One should remember that, during our Recess, were it not for the coup on 21st April, democratic elections would have been held in Greece and would undoubtedly have resulted in the return of a Social Democrat Government. That is why the coup took place. The matters to which the Government should address themselves in a statement of opinion are the normal trappings of dictatorship: the forgery of the King's signature; the arrest of ex-Prime Ministers; the detention of at least one British citizen; the removal of all guarantees to personal liberty, including the removal of guarantees of non-execution for political offences, and the locking up of 5,000 to 7,000 political prisoners in an island which has been called the "Devil's Island" of the Mediterranean.
I recognise that it is normal in diplomacy, even where a Prime Minister or
1758
President democratically elected is executed, deposed or detained, to establish diplomatic relations with his successor within about a fortnight and to forget all about the tyranny of the new régime. I realise also that it is not usual for Her Majesty's Government to make statements about the internal affairs of another country—and therefore I am anticipating the reasons why the Government may not wish to make a statement.
Nevertheless, a statement should be made. We should, first, express the gravest concern that, for the first time since the end of the war, democracy in Western Europe has given place to a dictatorship in one of the countries.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Czechoslovakia."] I said Western Europe. I am referring to the N.A.T.O. countries and those associated with them.
One would have thought that the lessons of the 1930s—of Spain, Italy, Germany and of Greece itself in 1937—would have been sufficient warning. The fact that we had to fight a war in which millions of lives were lost in order to defend political democracy in Western Europe should surely have been a lesson.
Secondly, Greece is a member of N.A.T.O. It seems that every time a military coup takes place—this happened in Turkey as well—the first thing the new régime says is that it will be a loyal member of N.A.T.O. But being a loyal member of N.A.T.O. surely does not automatically give a certificate of political virginity. It does not involve dispensation from democracy but obligations towards it. The Preamble to the Treaty says that the parties to it
"… are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law."
Article 2 says that the parties to the Treaty, in order to strengthen N.A.T.O., undertake to strengthen their own free institutions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into far too much detail. He is debating the merits of the subject, which is not relevant to the Motion.
Mr. Fraser: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to anticipate the reasons that the Government may advance for not making a statement about

1759
Greece before the Recess. Nevertheless, I submit that they should make a statement because this is a test case for freedom. Many things have been done by N.A.T.O. countries in order to keep our freedom. Vast sums of money have been spent and very many people conscripted into the Armed Forces. We are now at a great test of democracy and I submit that we should have a Government statement about the ending of democracy in the country which gave the very word to the world.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: I submit that we should not go into recess until two matters have been cleared up. One is personal to me and the other is general. The personal is the least important and I take it first. I was asked yesterday to do a broadcast on the subject of defence today and, for that reason, I missed Question Time. I returned at 5.30 p.m. to receive a letter from the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds).
My whereabouts during the morning and the early part of the afternoon were well known to my secretary, and if the hon. Member had wished to get in touch with me he could have used the telephone. I understand that he accused me at Question Time of making an illegal broadcast over Radio 270. I understand that the Postmaster-General said that it was not illegal.
It is, therefore, only right that this matter should be cleared up before the House goes into recess. We have an hon. Member accusing another hon. Member of an illegal act and the Government saying that it was not illegal. I have heard no further information from the hon. Member for Smethwick. I hope he will follow the normal convention of the House and apologise for making this comment when I was not present.
The second issue that the House should discuss before the Recess and the reason why we should not go into recess until we have had a statement concerns the subject of my broadcast over Radio 270—the future of our relations with Rhodesia. During this Recess, the campaign of sanctions will presumably continue. They are certainly having a certain effect in Rhodesia and are affecting the majority of Africans more than the minority of Europeans.
1760
During the Recess, undoubtedly our economy will again be hampered by this campaign of sanctions, which it is estimated will cost the country about £150 million by the end of the year—and this at a time when we are trying to put the economy in order before entering the E.E.C.
The Government should make some statement that they are willing to try and resume talks with Mr. Smith's Government in Rhodesia. If they do not do so, this long war of attrition will continue until such time as the United Nations demands the imposition of sanctions on the whole of Southern Africa and the dispute has escalated to the grave damage of this country and of Rhodesia. But I must admit that that will happen after the Recess and not before it.
If the Government say that negotiating with so-called rebels would be appeasement, I would reply that it has happened once before during this dispute. The Government changed their tune between January and November last year and it would ill-become the Treasury Bench to talk about appeasement in view of the statement about Aden today.
Both from the personal point of view and from the point of view of the honour of the country in our relations with the South Arabian Federation and our moral obligation to the Government of that Federation, and because the people of this country are getting increasingly worried about the campaign of sanctions against Rhodesia, these matters should be cleared up before the Recess.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. Frank Hooky: I want to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) when he said that events far from this country could have grave consequences for our people. I do not wish to follow his remarks further on the subject of Vietnam, although I do not dissent essentially from what he said. But I believe that we should not adjourn for the Recess until a statement has been made about an event of considerable importance which this House, to my knowledge, has passed over in silence or has almost completely ignored.
This is the special meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations which has taken place during the last

1761
fortnight on the subject of South-West Africa. That area is about as far away from here as it is possible to get in the inhabited globe and it may seem to be a remote and inconsequential matter for us in this kingdom to trouble ourselves about the affairs of the inhabitants of that territory.
I suggest that the case is very much otherwise. The Government have, rightly, repeatedly declared their support for the United Nations and the importance they attach to it as an instrument for the promotion of the rule of law and the harmonious development of international relations. I agree with that declaration in principle and with that general policy and I welcome the fact that today some edge and sharpness were given to that policy by the statement on Aden by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The Government cannot applaud and use and support the United Nations in certain matters when we seek its help and support only to shrug off the opinions and machinery of the United Nations when, in a subject or dispute, they happen to be inconvenient to our interests.
I should be out of order if I went into all the inequities of apartheid. I need say only that they have been summed up in six searing words by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who described them as morally abominable, intellectually grotesque, spiritually indefensible. They could hardly have been more succinctly and more exactly damned than that, and I agree with every one of those words. I therefore believe that before the House adjourns it is entitled to some statement, some resume, some indication of the Government's appraisal of the discussions in the recent special meeting of the General Assembly.
This is not an odd townsmeeting in a village somewhere in the world. This is the great international forum of the only international organisation to which we belong and which is specifically and precisely dedicated to upholding the rule of law. We are entitled to some reasoned statement of what the Government consider to be the progress of the deliberations on South-West Africa. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) referred to an example of the violation of human rights in Guyana. I agree with him that it is important, and if he wishes
1762
to raise it in the House, I shall support him in an investigation of the matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a long way from the Motion. He must come to the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess.
Mr. Hooley: I am sorry. I will forbear to wander into these fascinating bypaths.
But if it is right for an hon. Member to raise an individual question of human rights, and I believe it is, it is equally right that I, or any other hon. Member, on this Motion, should raise a question touching the human rights of 500,000 people in South-West Africa, a territory governed under a mandate conferred upon His Britannic Majesty 40 years ago and which, although now exercised by a sovereign State which, alas, is no longer a member of the Commonwealth, is a mandate solemnly conferred and to be exercised strictly on behalf of the well-being of the inhabitants of that territory. As the special meeting of the General Assembly has been concerned——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into far too much detail. He must argue in favour of or against the Motion.
Mr. Hooley: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept your Ruling.
This meeting is of such importance and of such consequence to the whole peace of Southern Africa that the House is entitled, before it adjourns for the Whit-sun Recess and we forget about these things and allow them to slip out of the minds of the public, at least to a resume of the Government's opinion of the progress made in this matter within the machinery of the United Nations.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Brian Harrison: Over the last 24 hours and, we understand, tomorrow, we have had a spate of Government statements all of which have been statements of the sort which ought to be debated in full. For instance, the statement on Aden this afternoon should have been debated in full. Time should have been given for it. For instance, we want to know what information and advice the Minister without Portfolio brought back from Aden and gave to the Foreign Secretary. We want to know

1763
whether that advice was rejected by the Foreign Secretary and, if so, whether the Minister without Portfolio will resign, as could easily happen if our understanding of what was brought back is correct.
I cannot believe that the Leader of the House, who is responsible for looking after the rights of all hon. Members, cannot assist us to have a statement tomorrow about Stansted Airport, a matter which vitally affects a tremendous number of hon. Members, mostly, I admit, on the Opposition side. It would be an absolutely scurrilous dereliction of duty if the right hon. Gentleman were a party to any movement which did not enable a statement like that to be made.
The statement by the Secretary of State for Defence earlier today should have been debated. We want to know whether he intends to try to introduce a corps of infantry, for example. These matters were only vaguely covered by his statement, and they should have been debated.
There is also the issue which I raised with the Leader of the House in business questions on 27th April. The right hon. Gentleman has given facilities for a very important and wide-ranging debate concerning the interests of one animal. I want to know whether he will give equal facilities to a Bill, introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), which is concerned with children, who are at least as important as animals. The right hon. Gentleman could give time for debating that important Bill if he reduced the length of the Recess.
We should have answers to those and other questions before we adjourn, or we should come back earlier to deal with them.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. Roy Roebuck: The House ought not to adjourn without clarification about the nature of the application, made this morning, to join the European Economic Community. It is widely reported in the Press that this is a clear and uncluttered application, but the application follows the Motion which the House passed last night and which provided that an approach should be made on the terms of the White Paper which, in effect, repeated the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 2nd May.
1764
In that statement, my right hon. Friend said:
"… the Government would be prepared to accept the Treaty of Rome, subject to the necessary adjustments consequent upon the accession of a new member and provided that we receive satisfaction on the points about which we see difficulty. It is in this spirit that the Government intend to embark on the negotiations which must precede entry."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 311.]
Far from that being a clear and uncluttered application to join, it is hedged about with a number of safeguards. I am fortified in that belief by the speeches from the Treasury Bench——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure how this is related to the Motion and to whether we should adjourn. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Motion.
Mr. Roebuck: I am saying that a reason why the House should not adjourn is so that we can have clarification about the nature of the application which was made this morning on behalf of the Government to join the European Economic Community. My point is that it is widely reported that this is a clear and uncluttered application, which is not what the House approved last night.
I am fortified in that belief by the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. No one could suggest that his speech, with all its reservations, indicated that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a clear and uncluttered application. I am further fortified in my contention by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary, who said that if certain safeguards were not forthcoming there would be a withdrawal——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing the same line which I suggested to him was out of order. I must insist that he comes into order and addresses himself to the Motion.
Mr. Roebuck: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had sought to argue my case and to seek your guidance.
This matter is a cause of great alarm to the country as a whole, and it would be very wrong if we were to adjourn

1765
with this great constitutional issue hanging over us. This House came to a decision last night that an application should be made to join, but hedged about with certain safeguards. There are reports in the Press this morning that a clear and uncluttered application to join has been made. My contention is that the House should not adjourn until we have clarification from the Front Bench as to the precise nature of this application. I have sought to demonstrate the difficulty ill which I am placed, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to assist me.
There is a further reason why I believe that the House should not adjourn, and that is because I feel that we ought to have some discussion about Commonwealth trade in the light of the communiqué issued after the last Commonwealth Trade Ministers' meeting last year. In that communiqué there were indications that a big effort would be made to expand Commonwealth trade. In view of certain speeches which have been made, there is great doubt in the Commonwealth about whether that is now the Government's intention. I earnestly seek reassurance on these matters before the adjournment of the House.
6 12 p.m.
Mr. John Biffen: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has spoken with great force about his anxiety that there should be some assurance on certain points concerning the negotiations over the Common Market before the adjournment of the House. I have great sympathy with him, and I am sure that this sympathy is felt by the Leader of the House because I recall the right hon. Gentleman in 1962 arguing with great force about the indispensability of the statutory Milk Marketing Board. It is precisely those kind of points on which one would like greater clarification, as they concern the move towards negotiations.
It is not on that point that I wish to address my brief remarks. The Motion says that the House, at its rising tomorrow, should adjourn till Wednesday, 31st May. I have very serious reservations about passing such a Motion, and my reservations arise from the fact that it is absolutely essential that the House should be in Session at various point in the development of the Government's
1766
prices and income policy, when issue of great significance may be decided, not by law but by Ministerial exhortation. Ministerial nodding or winking.
Such a point of vital development is undoubtedly before the House today. There are events which have occurred today which to my mind, give special moment to the argument that we must have the maximum clarification from the Government about the development of the prices and incomes policy. The first point arises from the performance of the Minister of State at the Department of Economic Affairs during Question Time when, confronted with a variety of questions, from both sides of the House, concerning the prices element of the prices and incomes policy, he went out of his way to assure the House that he relied upon the Confederation of British Industry to be the main agent in voluntary policy.
A reason why he must go one stage further and clarify this statement to the House, certainly by tomorrow, is because the Confederation of British Industry, by its charter, excludes the retail trade. Most of the Questions directed to him earlier today concerned the movement of retail prices, and this is a movement for which the Confederation could, with every justification, disclaim any responsibility.
The second point arises from a newspaper article. I quote from today's Financial Times, which says:
"A pay claim on behalf of the 50 ushers in London's Royal Courts of Justice goes to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, today. The Civil Service Union want the maximum pay rates to be increased from £14 7s. 6d. to £16 15s. 6d. The union blames the present shortage of ushers on low pay."
What is significant in relation to the Motion before the House is that it is today that this claim goes to a Government Department.
It is not sufficient to say that this is a matter of a mere 50 people. We know that the House was enjoined to invoke the law against 20 people who were the employees of the Crown Bedding Company. The point of immense significance is the figure of £16 15s. 6d, because the movement to that figure passes through the magic figure of £15, which we know is advanced by Mr. Frank Cousins—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot now discuss the details of the case which he wants the House to debate.
Mr. Biffen: As our whole knowledge of what constitutes a lowest-paid worker depends on Ministerial statements, either to the public or, more happily, to this House from the Dispatch Box, and in the light of the fact that, on previous occasions, reference has been made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to Mr. Cousins's figure of £15 in connection with what constitutes a lowest-paid worker, it is of immense importance that we should know what is the Government's reaction to a claim of this character, which has gone to them today?
If we do not get some reassurance within the immediate future, there is the danger that new attitudes will develop, new nuances will proceed in the prices and incomes policy during the period that the House is in Recess, between tomorrow and Wednesday, 31st May. This will be in a time when there may be Government operating not through law, but from White Paper and indicated Ministerial wishes. It is very perilous indeed for the House to allow this situation to pass unchallenged.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Barber: I rise at this stage, because, although at least one of my hon. Friends still wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a proposition to the Leader of the House and give him time to consider it. I shall be as brief as I can, and will not attempt to refer to all the points that have been raised on this Motion. I want to endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) had to say about some observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). The right hon. Gentleman was referring to a former Speaker, and he accused your predecessor of, and I took his words down,
"a serious dereliction of duty."
I will not go over the merits of the case again—they were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. All that I wish to say is that I believe that those words
1768
were wholly unjustified. I know the right hon. Member for Leeds, West well, and I have a high regard for him. Having made my point I want to say, as did my right hon. Friend, that I hope that the right hon. Member will, when he reads HANSARD, reconsider what he said an hour or so ago. I would urge him to reconsider this unfortunate and totally unjustified phrase.
Reference has been made to the need for further clarification before we rise for the Recess of the Government's policy concerning Vietnam. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) put the point very clearly when he said that he would like a reaffirmation by a member of the Government of the Prime Minister's statement about the bombing of North Vietnam—a statement which had previously been made by the Prime Minister and which, in the words of the hon. Member, was "now being violated". In the light of all that has happened in the past few days, it is a very strange assumption to make that the Prime Minister adheres to a policy statement which he made some months ago. In any event, as is clear from what the hon. Member for Penistone said, whatever the answer he gets today, he is determined to go away for his fortnight's holiday.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames raised the question of the London borough elections. He said that he would be happy to forgo the fortnight's Recess if the Government, in the light of all that had happened, were prepared to introduce legislation to allow the normal elections of the London boroughs to take place. We know that the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to my right hon. Friend's very sensible suggestion, but I believe that he had a very good point. If political opinions in the country had not changed, one might say, "It does not matter very much if these people are not allowed to choose their councillors this year" However, we know that throughout the country Labour candidates are being trounced and, therefore, I believe that my right hon. Friend was right to make his request.
Mr. Roebuck: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it has always been Conservative Party policy to postulate that local elections should be concerned

1769
with local matters? What is happening in the country as a result of the Government's general economic policy, and so on, should have no bearing whatsoever on local elections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not be tempted to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Barber: May I be allowed to say that if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the electorate in the local elections are not satisfied with the Government's policy, I entirely agree with him.
I refer, in passing, to two matters which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—the very sad case of a Mr. Wilson, of Guyana, and another very unhappy case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I hope that the Leader of the House will say something about those two cases. There have been references to Aden and to the Foreign Secretary's statement today, but I think that the least said about that the better.
I turn to a matter which has been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), Ormskirk, Chigwell and Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. It concerns the possibility of a statement being made before we rise for the Summer Recess about a new airport at Stansted. I should like to say in no uncertain terms that if it is the Government's intention, as has been suggested in this morning's newspapers, that a statement on a matter of this importance should be made tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock, that would be quite intolerable. Whatever the merits of the Government's ultimate proposals, the fact is that what they are to decide and announce will affect hundreds of thousands of people in London, Essex and in the area concerned.
The Government have behind them a majority of 100. Therefore, there is no point in my right hon. and hon. Friends dividing the House on this Motion; we have other very important business to get on with. However, I hope that the Leader of the House will note the very strong feeling which there is on this matter. Certainly, hundreds of thousands of people in London and Essex will know
1770
that if the statement is made tomorrow at 11 o'clock the Government are doing everything possible to avoid critical examination of their proposal by the House of Commons. We know that the statement is ready, and we do not want the making of it to be delayed until after the Recess.
Therefore, I conclude by making a proposal to the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that it would be possible in the course of today's business, in between the Orders of the Day, for him or any other member of the Government to move, "That this House do now adjourn". The statement could be made and then the Motion could be withdrawn. That would mean that we could this evening, when there are plenty of people around the House, have a statement on Stansted Airport and we would be able to examine it. I am sure that the Opposition Chief Whip will support me when I say that if the Goverment make this statement tonight instead of at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning we will do everything in our power to ensure that undue time is not wasted.
Mr. David Winnick: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way before he sits down?
Mr. Barber: I have sat down.
6.26 p.m.
Sir John Langford-Holt: I apologise for not being in the House for the earlier part of the debate. I doubt whether I should have intervened if the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) had not rather goaded me into action.
I have been here long enough to have heard Members press for debates on subjects in which they are interested—Greece, Vietnam, Rhodesia, South-West Africa, and so on—over many of which the Government do not have direct control. The hon. Member for Penistone, whom I am glad to see present—I should not have liked to comment on his speech in his absence—asked for a Government statement that if there were any escalation of the war in Vietnam we should be recalled. This brings me straight to the question of what is escalation.
Mr. Mendelson: I said that if the escalation which seems to be proceeding were to create such a threatening international situation and other Powers

1771
looked like entering the war, the House should be recalled.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: It is a matter of definition. Assurances given by the Government at the end of debates on Motions like this are very risky things.
We have only to look at the Order Paper every day to see reasons why the House should not adjourn for the proposed length of time. Many questions are never reached. Ministers are quite inaccessible—and the Leader of the House knows that I have views about that. Day after day we hear hon. Members giving notice that they will raise a matter on the Adjournment and we all know that it is little more than a joke because there just is not time to deal with it. These are some reasons why, in my view, we should not adjourn for this length of time.
I should like to have a specific assurance from the Leader of the Opposition on a matter in which we have a direct interest and a direct responsibility—Gibraltar. We have heard about flight restrictions, which I regard not only as unjustified but as dangerous to life and limb. We have heard that travel agents, on the basis of some threat which may or may not have been made by the Spanish Government, propose to route their tours, not through Gibraltar, thus doing damage to Gibraltar's trade and industry, but direct to Spain.
We understand that a threat has been made or is on the verge of being made by the Spanish Government, and the specific undertaking which I want from the right hon. Gentleman before I assent to this Motion is that the House will be recalled immediately if any further restriction is placed by the Spanish Government upon travel between Gibraltar and Spain. In those circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to give me that assurance.
I have been in the House for as long as the right hon. Gentleman, and I have seen similar Motions debated many times. He and I have both seen the shadowboxing and the paper tigers; indeed, we have both been paper tigers in our time. The hon. Member for Penistone suggested that I had come into the Chamber for a bit of fun and did not intend to do anything. I do not ask for ten hon. Gentle-
1772
men opposite to accompany me through the Division Lobby. If I can find one to tell in a Division, I personally will divide the House.
6.31 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): At the end of this debate, it is difficult to reply to all the points which have been raised. I must try, but I would ask hon. Gentlemen for patience and endurance while I am doing so.
This has been a characteristic Adjournment debate, but rather more so than some, because few Members have complained about the extra day which we have and given the impression that they do not want a holiday. I must say that I share their view.
I shall deal with individual cases first, because, by tradition, we give priority to special cases in this debate, and the hon. Members who have raised them have a right to answers.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) raised a case which I must say, quite frankly, was not in my brief. I have obtained a "hot" brief from Whitehall about Mrs. Wilson—the other Mrs. Wilson. My information is that she has not been served with a deportation order by the Government of Guyana. Her home is in that country, and she has not asked to be brought to this country. I might add that, shortly before Mr. Wilson left Guyana, he wrote a letter to our High Commission staff expressing his thanks for what had been done for him and his wife. That may not be the last word on the episode, but it is the best answer that I can give at the moment. I believe that we have the full information, and I hope that it is right, in which case we have less ground for alarm——
Sir D. Glover: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say how grateful I am for that reply, because I had not given him notice that I intended to raise the matter. However, I am still uncertain and unhappy about the position between this man and his wife, and I hope that the Commonwealth Office will make further inquiries.
Mr. Crossman: The position between the man and his wife is something into which I did not inquire.

1773
I turn now to a matter of which the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) did give me notice. The position in Zambia is extremely disconcerting. I am glad he mentioned the Daily Express reporter John Monks, who went to Lusaka for the hearing and who has now been declared a prohibited immigrant, for reasons which we should be unlikely to find justifiable. All that I can say is that our High Commissioner has drawn to the attention of the Government of Zambia that it is wrong in inter-rational law to detain citizens of another country except for the purpose of instituting criminal proceedings or deporting them. We are applying all the pressure that we can. However, it should be remembered that Zambia has the right to protect her public security, and I should hesitate to judge the acts of an independent Commonwealth Government until we know the full facts. We are not prejudging the issue. The Zambian Government claim that they have a case. However, we have a duty to look after our citizens, but I think that we must wait and see if there is a substantial case made out against them, as the Zambian Government assert there can be.
I turn now to the foreign affairs subjects raised by different hon. Members, and I deal, first, with Greece. I am glad that reference was made to the impression that Her Majesty's Government view with complete indifference what is happening in Greece. That is completely untrue, and I am sorry that impression has been created. I personally am deeply shocked and profoundly alarmed at what is happening there, as are all members of the Government. Not only is Greece a democracy, but a traditional friend of this country which many of us like in modern as well as ancient times. It is a shock for us that Greek democracy should be treated in this way.
However, shocked as we are, it is important to proceed in company with our N.A.T.O. allies. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkin-sop) referred to the attitude of Norway and Denmark. He is not quite right in what he says. It is true that the Danes took a strong view at first, whereas the Norwegians took our own view. It is clear that, although our N.A.T.O. allies feel that there is no question of recognising formally this new group of colonels, it is important to put on all pressure to get
1774
a restoration of democracy without civil war in Greece; and everything conceivable is being done to ensure that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penis-tone (Mr. Mendelson) referred to the report in the Greek Press issued by the Greek Government that the British Ambassador had spoken as though he approved of the régime. The most strenuous objection was taken by the Ambassador at once, and I think that it will be found in tomorrow's newspapers that it has been made clear that the Ambassador did nothing of the sort. If he had, he would have been acting against the instructions of the Government. I am glad that the point was raised, so that it could be put straight.
So much for Greece, about which hon. Members on both sides are deeply concerned. I turn next to Vietnam, where there is the gravest danger of escalation. The situation is extremely dangerous at present, in view of the attitude of both sides. I can only give the precise assurance for which I was asked. Of course, the Government would ask for the recall of Parliament if the situation in Vietnam developed in such a way as to endanger world peace.
But there is no change in the Government's attitude. There are differences between the Government and my hon. Friend. The Government are convinced that our present attitude is right and that our rôle is the correct one. If a chance came of achieving peace, we think that that rôle could be used to good effect. However, if there was a serious change in the situation and the threat of world war, Parliament would be recalled at once.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) spoke about Rhodesia. I do not think that there is very much to reply to in what he said except to recall that he makes his points with great persuasion.
I was touched and moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about South-West Africa. He was right to remind us. Certainly, it reminded me that we need to debate this kind of subject, and it is a good thing that we have such occasions as the debate on the Adjournment for the Whitsun Recess to hear such a good speech on a very important subject.

1775
As for Gibraltar, the Government are as concerned as my hon. Friend about what is happening there and about the effects of British companies suddenly deciding to put their tourists through Spain and not Gibraltar. This is being taken with extreme seriousness by the Government, but I am sure that my hon. Friend does not really think that, with the present Foreign Secretary, much will be given away in Gibraltar while we are in Recess at Whitsuntide.
I turn to procedure. My old opponent the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Ormskirk both raised this matter, and I will give them the assurance which they do not want. Our Sessional Order will remain in action throughout the Session. We agreed to have an experiment which lasted for the Session, and it would not be much of an experiment if we did not try it out for a period of time to see how it went. There are already signs of improvements which can be made, but we shall not modify the Sessional Order. We shall carry on with our Monday and Wednesday beanos just as happily after Whitsun as we have so far.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Must that necessarily cover the almost accidental arrangement by which the main debates on Mondays and Wednesdays end at half-past nine? I think that this has proved to be very unsatisfactory.
Mr. Crossman: I think that it is worth considering whether we might say to ourselves, "This could be changed, as it is a nuisance to us". I would like to be able to do this. I shall think about it, and discuss it through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman implied that we were anxious to use the Guillotine on the Finance Bill. I know that this was said in debate, but the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the aim of both sides of the House is not to do so. There is no intention to use it. I think that the negotiations about this are starting today, in the normal way that these things are done. I am convinced that we shall do this by means of a friendly arrangement, and that the safeguard will not be brought out of the cupboard into the open, because this is the last thing that I want. It will, in a
1776
sense, demonstrate failure if that happens. There is no immediate threat of the Guillotine, and I would like to think that it will not have to be used to get a reasonable timetable this year, which was the object of the debate.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that we had had an unsatisfactory debate, and not enough procedural change. We are not doing too badly. It took a long time before those who thought that we ought to go forward cautiously with the Finance Bill got their way. We got there after three attempts, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and one at night, and finally, we carried the important experimental Order.
The hon. Gentleman also said that I did not believe in extending the powers of back benchers. I think that he is wrong. I do believe in it, and I think that the way to get it is through specialist Committees. Perhaps he did not notice what happened this morning—something small, but unprecedented. For the first time a Minister gave evidence before one of our new Select Committees. He was summoned by the Committee, and cross-examined. I say that it is giving increased power to back benchers if we create and encourage institutions by means of which back benchers can summon Ministers to appear before them and be examined. I think that by the time I have done my job I shall convert the hon. Gentleman not only to believing that I mean to get something done, but liking what is being done by this side of the House to step up continuous control of the Executive by the House, both on the Floor, and in specialist Committees.
I come now to the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames for the repeal of the London Government Act. The right hon. Gentleman revealed a secret when he said that I would say, "No". I do not think that we shall find time to debate this before or after the Whitsun Recess, or before the end of the Session, or at all. I do not think that the question of who wins and loses any set of elections should be the deciding factor as to whether there is a certain form of constitution. I think that, on merit, we should split and have the G.L.C. elections at one time and the borough elections at another.
There are, of course, two views on this. Some of my hon. Friends have said it

1777
would have been better for us this year if they had been run at the same time, but this is a question of political advantage. I think that we have to measure the changes we make on some basis of constitutional merit. That was the basis on which we worked, so I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman said was particularly relevant.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to refight that old battle, but the right hon. Gentleman will recall that an alternative method was offered to him of splitting the G.L.C. and borough election dates, without continuing the mandates of councillors in office. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, that who wins is not necessarily decisive, but when, by an Act of Parliament, we postpone an election, we keep people in office, and it aggravates the situation when we know that by so doing we are keeping in office a party which would not be in office if the electors had the right to exercise their vote at the normal time.
Mr. Crossman: We are in danger of fighting that battle again. I think that I made my point clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked whether, during the Recess, I would reflect on the possibility of abstention, not casual abstention, but deliberate abstention, being recorded in the Division Lists. I hear that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) took an interest in this. I am like the Alhenians: I like new ideas. The idea of enabling Members to show different flavours appeals to me, and we ought to think about this.
My hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is away at the moment. I have not been in touch with him, but his view is different from mine, and I would not, therefore, like to commit myself. However, like the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, I am attracted by the idea, and I am prepared to go away and, without consulting the Patronage Secretary, to reflect on the matter for a fortnight and then see what he says about it. I hope that if I give my hon. Friend that assurance he will let us have the Whitsun Recess unreduced.
Sir D. Glover: I am not saying that I support that proposal, but it is the official practice at the United Nations.
Mr. Crossman: Of course it is, but can all good ideas at the United Nations be grafted on to House of Commons procedure? That is a large assumption.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Including the veto.
Mr. Crossman: Yes.
My hon. Friend also said that during the three-day debate on the Common Market the House did not get a fair picture of the effect which joining the Common Market would have on Scottish milk farmers. I am interested in the possible effects on milk farmers in the Midlands, and there are many English Members who have certain regional milk interests. I would remind my hon. Friend that it is not only in Scotland that people like to know about these things. Occasionally, English people think that they should have the kind of investigation into their special local difficulties which the Scots instinctively demand for themselves. If my hon. Friend thinks that this matter should be debated in the Scottish Grand Committee, perhaps I might suggest that we should have a Mercian Grand Committee to debate the interests of farmers in the Midlands, and perhaps we can bring in farmers in Shropshire and North Oxfordshire.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) raised the question of prices and incomes. He is right to remind us that this is a continuing process in which big decisions are taken all the time. I cannot think of a Measure which has been better policed than this Act. We have had many debates between 10 and 11 o'clock at night, and there have been some interesting discoveries about our way of life. I do not think that if we leave for a fortnight without close attention to the detail of the Act there is any danger that something disastrous will happen, or that there will be a lapse into what the hon. Gentleman described as ministerial dictatorship.
Mr. James Davidson: In a slightly different context I raised the same subject as that raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I asked for an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would press his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to have a full debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the effect

1779
which entry into the Common Market would have on Scotland. I referred to the controversy which there has been over the effect on the Act of Union.
Mr. Crossman: Looking at my notes, my eye leapt to the notation, "Aberdeenshire, West—Scottish Grand" but I got to it in connection with Ayrshire. I will, however, put to my right hon. Friend the point made by the hon. Gentleman, and impress on him that it was made.
I turn now to the important issue of Stansted. This is a House of Commons matter, and I want to explain what happened because I think that hon. Members have a right to a full explanation. The decision was taken comparatively recently by the Government, and I had the choice of trying to postpone it until after the Recess and announcing it on the first day we came back, or doing so before the House rose. I would have done it this afternoon, but I was told that the White Paper could not be got out in time. I had to decide whether to have a statement without the relevant White Paper, or at the same time. It will be made tomorrow morning, and the White Paper will be available. I am sure that the matter will have to be debated. It is one of the most important issues of the time, so if the Opposition say that a mere statement at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, followed by a few odd questions, is not enough, I shall say the same.
I happen to be an ex-Minister of Housing and Local Government and I know a good deal about this subject. I quite agree that this is a major issue, not only in respect of amenity, but of planning and air travel. It is a decision which, whichever way we make it, will influence the whole development of southern England for many years to come. I shall certainly look at it seriously in terms of a debate. I could not have a statement made alone; it would be a contempt of the House. The statement will have to be made tomorrow, not this afternoon, because we could not get the White Paper out in time.
I hope that this will be accepted by all those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on the subject of Stansted.
Mr. Roebuck:Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about the terms
1780
of our application to join the Common Market?
Mr. Crossman: The terms of our application are important, but my hon. Friend will have to find out—if he wants to find out—the form in which the application is being made. I should like to find out myself. We had better find out together, and discuss it. I cannot see how we can postpone our Whitsun Recess because of this.
I now turn to the subject which started our debate. A very considered speech was made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who has sent me a note apologising for having to go to a Committee upstairs. He will be able to read my reply in the record. I shall also reply briefly to the points made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell).
I have not changed the pledge that my predecessor made, and that I made, that the House should debate this question. My right hon. Friend was quite right in adding that the nature of the debate has been widened by what has happened. A year ago we were thinking about an inquiry. One of my hon. Friends said that he thought that an inquiry was not now necessary because we probably knew most of the facts and wanted to assess their significance for Government and Parliament.
I agree that two aspects are involved—one of them being the propriety of publication. This is a new and undoubtedly important factor, because a breach of confidentiality in our relations with Government could only undermine the principles of Cabinet Government, but if we deny anybody the possibility of ever publishing anything we stifle debate, and we have the difficulty of making a fair and workable arrangement which does not favour the great, and the top ones against the lesser ones. These are relevant factors which, I hope, will be fully discussed in any debate we have.
About half an hour ago, in another place, a Second Reading was given to a Bill to reduce from 50 years to 30 years the period during which secret documents

1781
were classified. A small step is being taken by both parties to see that more documents are released. Thirty years is much longer than 10 years. This issue needs careful thought and discussion, in terms of the period after which documents can be released.
There is also the issue of the relationship between Governments and the House of Commons, and the propriety of Government action. I shall not intervene in the conflict between the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West on the question whether or not the Profumo case is relevant to a debate on Suez. This is exactly the sort of thing that I presume we shall discuss when we have a big debate. That is an issue that we should talk over frankly with each other. I give the simple pledge that in my view there will be a debate.
I would, however, tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West that in the course of my replies to business questions I said two different things. I said on the first occasion that we had better wait until the publication of the book, and then, I notice, on the second occasion I said that it was
"not unreasonable to wait until the book is published, or at least until the serial is completed in The Times … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 753.]
We shall have to discuss the question when we should have this debate. It might be in July, or earlier. There is no point in rushing it. We want a serious debate.
Mr. Pannell: What my right hon. Friend said is not a qualification. I do not want to judge Mr. Nutting or the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) out of context. We want to see everything that was said on the subject. This is the sort of difficulty that arises. I do not want to say any more than that at this stage.
Mr. Crossman: The second time I referred to it I gave myself the alternative of waiting for the completion of the serial in. The Times or the publication of the book. I shall bear in mind what my right hon. Friend has said. I do not want to rush into this debate. The House must seriously judge the issue, and face the problems of responsible Government
1782
in a responsible way. We do not want to rush into it in order to make propaganda speeches against each other.
On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, in my view in such a debate anything relevant to Suez would be discussable. The conduct of the Leader of the Opposition could be discussed as well as that of the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South asked about the sanctity of the Charter of the United Nations. That would certainly be an area of discussion. One relevant aspect in this respect is the relationship of Suez to the United Nations Charter.
I was pleased with the tone of the speeches on this subject. It was clear that the matter was being treated in the proper way, which showed that hon. Members appreciated its importance in respect of the life of this House. With those provisoes I ask the permission of the House——
Sir J. Langford-Holt: I am trying to understand the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman about Gibraltar. What action will he take in the event of further restrictions being placed by the Spanish Government on travel between Gibraltar and Spain?
Mr. Crossman: I cannot any more than the Foreign Secretary could—give a purely hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn till Wednesday 31st May.

MALTA (GIFT OF A BOOK-CASE)
6.58 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Richard Crossman): I beg to move.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a book-case containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books to the House of Representatives of Malta, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if, in moving this Motion on the gift to Malta, I also referred to the Motion which I intend

1783
to move relating to the gift to Zambia. These Motions are in the now established tradition of the House that we send a gift to the Legislature of a Commonwealth country to mark that country's entry into the Commonwealth. It is a tradition which we are glad to honour.
The House may recall that in July, 1964, the Prime Minister, in reply to a Question, informed the House that Her Majesty's Government would propose that the House should offer to the House of Representatives of Malta a gift of a book-case containing Parliamentary and Constitutional books of reference. In June of that year the Prime Minister also approved a suggestion that the House should offer a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Zambia. The Parliamentary authorities in Malta and Zambia, whose wishes were naturally consulted, welcomed this proposal and both gifts were specially designed and manufactured.
The gift to Malta is on display within the Palace of Westminster and the gift to Zambia will also be displayed shortly for Members to see.
If the House accepts these Motions, as I feel sure it will wish to do, arrangements will be made by you, Mr. Speaker, for small delegations from the House to present these gifts. We understand that presentations could conveniently be made in July.
I therefore commend these Motions to the House in the expectation that they will be accepted as an expression of our friendship and good will towards the
1784
House of Representatives of Malta and the National Assembly of Zambia.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a book-case containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books to the House of Representatives of Malta, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ZAMBIA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Zambia, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.—[Mr. Crossman.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

O.E.C.D. AND N.A.T.O.
Queen's Recommendation having been signified.
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the costs of travel by thirteen Members of this House and seven Lords to Paris for the purpose of visiting the Headquarters of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.—[Mr. Crossman.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY BILL

    Clause 4.—(LOANS.)
    7.3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker: The House will know that I have had posted up a list of the Amendments which I have selected for consideration. I suggest that with Amendment No. 1, we should also discuss No. 2, in page 3, line 14, at end insert:
    (iii) the construction and layout of a new shipbuilding yard or the construction of new building docks in an existing shipyard.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 10, at the end to insert 'structures, works'.
    Hon. Members who were on the Committee will remember that, in Clause 4 (2,a) and (b), we defined the circumstances in which loans might be given in the case of grouping schemes and non-groups. In considering the debates on these matters in Committee and observing Amendment No. 2 in the names of Members of the Opposition, we considered that it would be right to extend the circumstances in which loans might be made in the case of non-groups. We would achieve this by Amendment No. 1.
    I should make it clear, however, that we have in mind merely minor structures and works. We are thinking, for example, of the provision of a new crane, which might involve laying a new track, which would be a structure or a work, and we are also thinking that structural work may be necessary, for example, to modernise an existing quay or fitting-out yard.
    If the Amendment is carried, the object of Amendment No. 2 would be achieved in law and it would be possible for loans to be made in the circumstances described. I should make it clear that it is not likely that the power would be used in that way. I do not want to comment any further on that without hearing the Opposition's argument for Amendment No. 2, but I suggest that, as their
    1786
    case is met in law, they might not want to press the Government on their intentions. If they do, it might be better if they move the Amendment.
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: In the circumstances, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 14——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House can take only one Amendment at once. The hon. Gentleman may, however, speak about his Amendment.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: I do not think that it is necessary, in any case, for me to move my Amendment, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. It is clear that it went some towards meeting our point, although I am not sure that he has the same circumstances in mind.
    We have in mind—I think that this is the feeling in the industry, too—that, whereas, in Japan, about 60 per cent. of the tonnage is built in building dry docks, that is not the case here. Indeed, they hardly exist. This is because our shipyards were laid out in the past. The most modern of all, the Furness Yard, was constructed only at the end of the First World War, and hon. Members may have noticed that its financial results have not been particularly good. It might be necessary for us to move forward to some of the new conceptions, and it would be a pity if the loan money were not available for that.
    Hon. Members may have noticed that a recent report of Charles Clore, Seers Holdings, said that no less than £6½ million was provided in the accounts for losses in the Furness Yard, of which no less than £3½ million was for contracts which had not been begun on 31st December last. That is the measure of the problem.
    We must note that our foreign competitors have not only laid out completely new yards—partly, it is true, because of war bombing—but also that they have gone in for building docks, which are very useful for the construction of the giant tankers and very large ore carriers to which we are becoming accustomed.
    Although it may be difficult, in any of the mergers envisaged under the Bill, for such total reconstruction to take place, in

    1787
    the case of a merger of two or three yards, it might be necessary to have fairly complete reconstruction of one or two and to include this new form of building docks, which is in many ways superior to a slipway.
    I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary can go a little further and tell us that this would be covered by his Amendment, as we thought, at first sight, that it was.
    Dame Irene Ward: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). The Parliamentary Secretary did not give a wide enough definition. His example of what would be included under his Amendment was restricted. I wonder whether he could respond to my hon. Friend's case, to take the discussion into a much wider aspect of the problem. I hope that the Government's Amendment is not restricted to the extent that it appears to be. The hon. Gentleman's explanation covered only a small part of what we have in mind. I hope that he will go much further, as his point was not particularly expensive.
    Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). I hope that the Minister will deal with this point, which was covered at length in the Geddes Report.
    It was admitted in Standing Committee that the building of ships here is largely out of date, compared with that of our principal competitors in Sweden and Japan. Slipway building is not as efficient as the building in new docks. Many of our yards, including Harland and Wolff, in my constituency, want such a dock. There are no such docks at Harland and Wolff and the managing director and the chairman have both said recently the addition of such a building dock would greatly increase the yard's competitiveness. As this is the biggest yard in the country, some attention should be paid to the view expressed by Dr. Denis Rebbeck and Mr. J. Mallabar.
    I therefore hope that the Minister will say that "structures, works" is a wide enough phrase to cover this point.
    Mr. Dell: As I said, in law the words "structures, works" probably cover
    1788
    what hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind. I thought it right to make it clear that it was not at present the intention of the Government to spend on such projects as hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind the large sums of money which would be involved. If this were done, a major part of the loan provision under the Clause might go in such projects.
    The building of a big building dock could cost £15 million. It might be less, but it would be a substantial sum and we think it inadvisable and inconsistent with the recommendations of the Geddes Report that money should be spent in this way. The House will remember that paragraph 558 of that Report recommended that loans for all capital projects for ungrouped yards should not exceed £2 million. I specifically mention "ungrouped yards" because the effect of the Opposition Amendment would merely be to extend the possibility of making loans in respect of ungrouped yards. But the provision is already drafted in such wide terms that, in law, their intention is covered.
    However, the main object in providing these loans, in the view of the Government, in pursuance of the Geddes recommendations, is to assist in the restructuring of the industry. It is for this purpose that we expect the money to be used, rather than for the building of large building docks of the type recommended in the Opposition Amendment.
    I also draw attention to the fact that the Geddes Committee considered the sort of propositions hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind. It considered whether it would be advisable to build such docks and it was very cautious indeed in its response to this idea. The Committee looked at the likely profitability of the sort of ships that would be built in such docks and at the likely market for those ships and it came to the conclusion that the market was not likely to justify the expenditure.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even since Geddes looked into this matter there has been a tremendous development in the building of large tankers? Is he aware that even during the last 18 months, since the Committee examined the matter, the position has considerably altered?
    Mr. Dell: I agree that there have been many changes, of which that is one. Nevertheless, the question whether this part of the market is likely to be profitable—and produce a return on the sort of capital that would be likely to be expended on such a dock of this kind—is open. Geddes did not say that this should not be done, but that the matter would have to be looked at carefully before it was done and that a real assessment of the position would have to be made first of all.
    One can build quite a small, sophisticated ship and its value and likely profit can be greater than for one of these large tankers. There is here a question of commercial judgment and our view is that a judgment cannot be made yet about whether or not this would be the right course. Even if one disagrees with Geddes on this matter, the fact remains that under the Clause we have £32½ million of loan money, only part of which will go to non-groups. The Opposition is proposing what might be very large expenditures indeed, amounting to such a proportion of that £32½ million that the real purpose of the loan money—the restructuring of the industry—would not be achieved.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does that mean that the Government and the Shipbuilding Industry Board will try to deflect firms which want to do this with the money they raise themselves?
    Mr. Dell: By no means. If a firm makes its own commercial judgment as to the profitability of this sort of expenditure, that is up to that firm. We are envisaging circumstances in which it would be advisable for the loan money from the Government to be used under Clause 4, and I have been explaining the intentions of the Government.
    If one considers what the law will be if the Government Amendment is accepted, then in all probability the intention of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be covered. In the light of this explanation, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press their Amendment.
    Mr. McMaster: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he make the position absolutely clear? He said that it was the intention of the Government that,
    1790
    because of the amount of money available, it would not be adequate for such a building dock. Is it the intention of the Government to issue a direction to the Board that it should not use this money for this purpose? After all, building docks are extremely useful and——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. An intervention after the Minister has sat down must be an intervention and not a second speech.
    Mr. McMaster: Would the Parliamentary Secretary make it clear that the Government do not intend to issue such an instruction to the Board?
    Mr. Dell: It would not be necessary in this respect for such a direction to be issued because, under subsection (5), any loan requires the approval of the Minister. The Minister would, therefore, have the final say in respect of such a proposal made by the Board and, in this case, I think that the Minister would have to be very powerfully persuaded.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Dell: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 22, to leave out from 'that' to 'and' in line 25 and to insert:
    'the person carrying on that undertaking—

    (i) is putting into effect a reorganisation of the resources used by him for the purpose of carrying on that undertaking; or

    (ii) has since the date of the commencement of this Act put into effect such a reorganisation as aforesaid (including a reorganisation begun but not completed before that date)'.

    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, at the same time.
    Mr. Dell: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
    In our usual, helpful way, these three Amendments show that the Government have taken account of the sense of the discussion in Committee, when concern was expressed as to the width of the circumstances under which loans under Clause 4, or guarantees under Clause 7, might be given, in respect of the date on which a reorganisation scheme might have been commenced.
    Some hon. Members were concerned that schemes of reorganisation might be ruled out if the effective date was the date of the passage of the Measure.

    1791
    We explained in Committee that this was not likely to happen, that reorganisation was a continuing business and that continuing reorganisation schemes would benefit, even if they had begun before the coming into operation of the Bill. To place the matter beyond doubt, and so that hon. Members and noble Lords in another place might be persuaded of this fact, we have tabled these Amendments, the effective words in Amendment No. 3 being:
    "… (including a reorganisation begun but not completed before that date)".
    The same arguments apply in respect of Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
    Mr. David Price: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for tabling this Amendment and I hope that the House will accept it. I realise the difficulties every Government have with this sort of Bill in drawing the line for a starting point—there are always hard luck cases going further back in time. The Government Amendment goes some way to meeting some of the anxieties of the industry without, I hope—seeing on the Treasury Bench the Chief Secretary—giving an open-ended commitment for the taxpayer as regards the past.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7.—(GUARANTEES IN CONNECTION WITH LOANS FOR SHIPBUILDING.)
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 24, to leave out from the third "the" to "any" in line 25 and to insert "payment by".
    Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it would be convenient for this Amendment and Amendment No. 6 to be considered together, as they hang together.
    Mr. Speaker: They will be grouped together.
    Mr. Diamond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Clause 7 at present enables the Minister to guarantee the repayment of loans in respect of orders placed by British owners with British shipbuilders, and the effect of these two Amendments is to enable him to guarantee the payment of all money due for the financing of such
    1792
    orders whether the liability arises under a loan agreement or otherwise. Perhaps I could therefore explain why it is necessary to have this alteration in the wording. The explanation will, at the same time, afford me an opportunity to give some information for which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked in Committee.
    At the request of the Government the London clearing and Scottish banks have agreed to provide finance for United Kingdom shipowners' shipbuilding contracts with British yards, within the limits set by the Clause, against Government guarantees for the full amount of each loan and of interest on it. The rate of interest payable on these loans will be a fixed rate of 5½ per cent. per annum payable half-yearly. This rate will be subject to review at the same time as the corresponding rate of interest under the export financing arrangements.
    A commitment Commission of 1 per cent. on the amount of each loan contract will be payable by the shipowner when the contract is made. Loans will be repayable by equal half-yearly instalments, normally over a maximum period of eight years. The promissory notes which will be held by the banks under these arrangements will be refinanceable at the Bank of England—subject to prior discussion with the Bank of England in any case where recourse to financing is sought; they will not be marketable, but will be negotiable among the banks participating in the scheme.
    It will be for the Government, of course, to decide what contracts shall be eligible for credit under these arrangements and for the associated guarantees. As the House knows, the Bill provides power to the Minister to guarantee loans up to a total of £200 million, and the Minister has arranged for the Ship Mortgage Finance Co. Ltd. to act on his behalf in assessing the creditworthiness of buyers and in advising on the necessary documentation on which guarantees will be issued.
    I should like to say that the Government are grateful to the banks for agreeing to co-operate in these arrangements. The banks regard their primary lending functions as being to meet the normal requirements of industry and commerce

    1793
    for short-term finance and do not want their capacity to discharge that function to be inhibited by too great a volume of longer-term commitments. For this reason, the Government did not lightly ask them to undertake such a considerable volume of additional lending for a relatively long term and at a rate of interest which would not vary with changes in short-term rates, even though the credit was to be fully guaranteed by the Government. Indeed, the Government would not have made this request had it not been for the exceptional nature both of the position and problems of the shipbuilding industry, with which the House is familiar. It is with the knowledge that the situation and the request are alike exceptional that the banks have responded to the Government's request.
    From a layman's point of view, the essence of the transactions I have been describing is that we have a bank lending money. From a layman's point of view, a loan is a loan, but under the arrangements which I have described one can contemplate one of three sets of circumstances: either a plain loan, or a loan with promissory notes issued as collateral security, or a financial transaction which consists of cash being issued, on the one hand, and a promissory note issued on the other, and therefore regarded in legal terms, not as a loan but as the purchase of promissory notes. As any one of these three arrangements might be made by the bank in the case of a particular loan it is necessary to widen the terms of the Clause, as these Amendments jointly do, in order to permit that facility which, I hope, will be acceptable to the House.
    Mr. David Price: These Amendments are entirely agreeable to this side of the House. I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for his kindness in letting me know what was involved in all this, and I am sure that his explanation will have put over to the House the reasons for the Amendments.
    The right hon. Gentleman made the very proper point that it is one thing for the. Government to ask the banks to cooperate in short-term financing but as most of the joint stock banks tend to be in the short-term lending business, one cannot ask them to co-operate with the
    1794
    Government in providing such loans over too long a time scale. This raises the point we were able to discuss in the Standing Committee—when some of us were possibly considered to be pessimists—that it might be necessary to have a credit scheme for rather longer than we may now anticipate. I said in Committee that as long as our creditors run credit schemes it is very difficult for us not to do so, and that is the real justification for the Clause.
    That being so, the problem relates— and I would not pretend for a moment to know the solution—to the long-term future. The Government have left the position flexible, but I am sure that they are right in not asking the banks to commit themselves over too long a period. I join with the Chief Secretary in thanking the banks for having been prepared to commit themselves for as long a term as they have.
    I am also very pleased that the Government have tied their arrangements with the banks for shipbuilding schemes to the general arrangements that successive Governments have had with the banks for the general support of export finance. It would be wrong to deal with the shipbuilding credit on different rates and terms from those with which we deal with the general support of exports.
    An important point, with which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, is this. When any Government, of whatever party, ask the banks for special arrangements for something that is identified as being of national interest, we want stability for interest rates so that industry can know exactly the terms on which it can get money. If those rates are very preferential against the going rate on the market, there is a hidden subsidy which is not in this case carried by the taxpayer in the Consolidated Fund but by the commercial banks. In so doing, the commercial banks are withdrawing a bit of their total funds of cash available to the generality of British industry and trade. The House should remember this. That is why we are so grateful to the banks. But the Chief Secretary will agree that for the Government to ask this of the banks, and for the banks to respond, we must use this good will from the banks sparingly. If we did so on a large scale we could be reducing and prejudicing

    1795
    the flow of funds into the generality of commerce and industry to its detriment.
    I thank the Chief Secretary for the way in which he introduced the Amendment, and I commend it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 6, in page 4, line 28, leave out' for the purpose of' and insert:
    'of any sum payable by that person in respect of principal or interest under arrangements (whether by way of loan or otherwise) entered into by that person for the purpose of financing'.
    No. 8, in page 4, line 40, after 'since', insert 'the date of'.
    No. 9, in page 4, line 42, after 'undertaking', insert:
    '(including a reorganisation begun but not completed before that date)'.—[Mr. Diamond.]
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. David Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 11, at the end to insert:
    (c) that any reorganisation agreed or proposed includes a formal agreement with representatives of the workpeople concerned, to promote higher productivity, to remove obstacles to increased efficiency and to ensure continuing consultation between management and workpeople.
    The object of this Amendment is to follow up a discussion we had in Committee on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). The wording of his Amendment did not commend itself to the Committee, but I gained the impression that the spirit of what he was trying to get at received a certain agreement in principle in the Committee. It is simply that the shipbuilding industry is an industry which has had a very hard history in human terms and it is also an assembly industry. Therefore, if this Bill is to succeed and if the sort of groupings we are aiming at are to be successful, it is essential to have the good will and co-operation of those working in the industry. This is common ground.
    In Clause 7 we are dealing with the criteria that will be open to the Shipbuilding Industry Board in recommending to the Minister that he should give his guarantee and warranty for a credit. I am sure the whole House will agree that
    1796
    firms which do not receive that guarantee will be in a very difficult competitive position—I do not say an impossible position, but an extremely difficult one—against firms which get the support of the S.I.B. and of the Minister. In this Clause we have two major criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford proposed to add a third dealing with staff relations and reorganisation as they affect those working in the yards. His Amendment did not commend itself because it referred to the trade unions and, as the Parliamentary Secretary said when commenting on the proposal, it raised issues which, as the Geddes Report pointed out, were far wider.
    The Amendment I am moving will, I hope, meet the spirit of the discussion which I detected as being the l.c.m. of the Committee without falling into errors of draftmanship and raising the wider and more controversial issues which were in my hon. Friend's Amendment. I should have thought the House would agree that nowadays in our desire to increase productivity it is important to have formal agreements between staff and workpeople in the yard.
    My Amendment does not raise the question of trade unions. We had an interesting discussion about whether more trade unions would emerge in the industry or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) pointed out that although they may have merged there was still the question of trades within the trade unions.
    The phrase in the Amendment,
    "to remove obstacles to increased efficiency"
    deals with the problem of old established practices which in human terms may have sound reasons but which events have gone beyond. Then the Amendment refers to ensuring
    "continuing consultation between management and workpeople."
    I am sure the Minister will agree that continuing consultation is of the essence of this matter. I am also sure that the House will agree that this must be both on the formal and informal levels. Seeing the Minister present on the Front Bench, I do not think that I need give further explanation.
    It is clear from a reading of the Geddes Report and from mv limited ex-

    1797
    perience of the industry that the biggest obstacle to progress is not scientific or even financial, but human. Conversely, if we get human relations right we can get remarkable results from limited resources. This is the essence of the problem facing the British shipbuilding industry. My motive in moving this Amendment is that I do not believe it sufficient to get the groupings and finance right unless we get the human relations right.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) for moving this Amendment and for the way in which he moved it. One of the difficulties which my hon. Friend and I have had during the passage of this Bill has been the attractive character of Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite. When attractive Amendments are attractively presented it is doubly difficult for a Minister to resist them, but in this case I ask the House not to put this provision in the Bill.
    I ask that, not because I think the spirit behind the Amendment is not good—I think it is good—but because the hon. Member answers the Amendment in the latter part of his speech. He was quite right in saying that human relations in this industry will be of critical importance if the Geddes reorganisation is to succeed and if the industry is to have a long-term future. But to make statutory provisions for good human relations as incorporated in an Amendment of this kind would create real difficulties. I shall not make anything of the point which occurred to me that in earlier stages the hon. Member sought to remove some conditions and now he wishes to insert other conditions.
    The difference is that the other conditions put on the Board the necessity to take into consideration certain things whereas in this case there would be no discretion left to the Board at all. The phrase, "a formal agreement" is very rigid. I can envisage a case where the unions and the management were in a state of great excitement over a new group and discussing productiviity arrangements and all the things covered by the Amendment and, because nothing had been written in the formal agreement, the: S.I.B. would be precluded from providing the credit arrangements which a group needed to get its orders. There is a
    1798
    serious danger here that, with the best will in the world, the Amendment, were it put into the Bill, would be too rigid. It might actually delay certain things we would all like to see done and it might be counter-productive, to use the current jargon.
    If it would help the hon. Gentleman, I am certainly very happy to make a declaration, as it were, that the spirit of the Amendment will be very much in the mind of the Board as it approaches the task which the House is shortly to lay upon it. When I say "the spirit of the Amendment", I mean both in its positive and its negative senses. Negatively, if there is no response on this matter of relations between management and workers—or "workpeople", to use the phrase incorporated in the Amendment—clearly this would be a factor disinclining the Board to take the view that the proposed reorganisation was likely to be effective. More positively, the Board will be looking for, and seeking to encourage in every way possible, the considerations incorporated in the Amendment.
    If this can constitute a Ministerial declaration in lieu of a statutory addition to the Bill, I am very happy to give it. I am sure that I carry the Board with me in doing it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity for saying how the Board and my Department regard this problem.
    Dame Irene Ward: I find the Minister's answer to the Amendment both disappointing and encouraging. It is difficult to know from what he said on which side to come down. On reading the Amendment, having for many years as a Geordie moved in and out of many shipyards, I regarded it as very satisfactory, because it is tremendously important in the creation of human relationships in industry for those engaged at all levels in industry to feel that it has been possible in a Bill to arrive at a form of words which states in formal terms the best of what those concerned in the industry want.
    In a way, this is perhaps an old move to try to get into a Bill a relationship which could revolutionise the productivity and the interest of those concerned on both sides of the industry. Those who have been in the House for any length of time will agree that any new development

    1799
    is always difficult. As we all know what we want, as both sides of the House are agreed on it, and as it applies to all sections of industry, it is devastating to learn that it is impossible to find words which will not create difficulties. I regard it as fantastic that when we are entering upon a new era, particularly after the Geddes Report and after the introduction of the Bill, which has been so well received on both sides of the House, words cannot be found to interpret in the Bill the spirit of the Amendment. Those engaged in the industry on Tyneside to whom I have spoken would be delighted if we could write into the Bill an acceptable form of words embodying the spirit of the Amendment.
    7.45 p.m.
    It would be of inestimable value in the creation of more modern relationships if we could arrive at a form of words which one could point to as being the agreement of both sides of the House. With the best will in the world, it will not be nearly as easy to explain a Ministerial declaration. The people in my part of the world are of a suspicious nature. Declarations are not regarded in exactly the same way as words which can be read. I am disappointed at the period which has elapsed between Committee and Report stages. I hope that the Amendment has been on the Notice Paper for some time. With skill, especially in view of the support the Minister has given to the spirit of the Amendment, I should have thought that a form of words could have been devised to create a movement forward in this new era of co-operation in the industry.
    As the right hon. Gentleman has refused to accept the Amendment in its present terms, we shall not be able to get it into the Bill. I am not all that keen on Ministerial declarations of intent. I suppose that I am, coming from my part of the world, a bit suspicious. However, we have brains in this country. It is ridiculous that we should be unable to find an appropriate form of words. I press the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Board. I should hate the Board to be restricted in any way. Those on the Board will be just as keen as everybody else to put the spirit of the Amendment into operation.
    1800
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult all these great brains and not let it be said that on a matter such as this we cannot find proper words to embody the spirit of the Amendment. It is important that we give encouragement and inspiration to those in the industry who are trying to make a go of it. They must make a go of it, in view of the rather devastating state of the industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and to find an appropriate form of words so that in another place a declaration of intent can be transformed into statutory reality.
    Mr. McMaster: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), I was sorry to hear the Minister refuse to accept the Amendment. One of the great difficulties which have faced our shipyards in their attempt to remain competitive as an international industry has been the number of trade unions involved in our shipyards. There are seventeen or eighteen trade unions represented in each of our yards. There have been some notable examples of getting together, particular in the metal working trades. The boilermakers and the shipwrights have recently got together, and their amalgamation is most encouraging for the industry as a whole. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) said, there are still many trades and many problems arising from demarcation between trades. I am sure, therefore, that action by the Minister to encourage the trade unions to get round these obstacles, obstacles arising from demarcation and other restrictive practices, would help the industry to become competitive.
    The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. The Geddes Committee went to some length in considering this problem. It is not too much to ask the Government to go further than the Minister has. I was glad to hear his declaration encouraging trade unionists to get together, but it must be remembered that very few trade unionists will read the report of this debate. What they will refer to is the Bill itself. It ought to be possible to incorporate words—perhaps leaving out the expression "formal agreement" if that has particular significance—drafting a provision so as to encourage the trade unions, which have al-

    1801
    ready shown themselves to be co-operative, to be more co-operative.
    In the industries with which our shipbuilding industry competes, for example, in Scandinavia, Germany and the Far East, there is only one union per industry to negotiate with the management, when a dispute arises here, on the other hand, we often find several unions involved. Sometimes, the management itself is not involved, but there is a dispute among the trade unions themselves. This slows down work in the yard and tends to make the British industry even less competitive because it is more difficult for us to meet the prices and delivery dates quoted by our competitors.
    Will the Minister go a little further than his declaration, therefore, and say that he is really behind the purpose of the Amendment? Even at this late stage, will he consider whether there is another step he can take to deal with this aspect of the problem and help to make our industry competitive? He would give much more satisfaction if he did.
    Mr. William Small: The intention of the Amendment is good, it is an expression of every good will, but it would be quite impracticable. There were distress signals out for our shipbuilding industry, as we all know, and then we had Geddes. One remarkable feature was the acceptance of Geddes by the workpeople; they were the first to welcome the Report. They made their arrangements known in April or May, immediately following the Report. We now have a new atmosphere in the shipbuilding industry. Everyone feels an identity of interest in wishing to salvage the industry out of its difficulties. To that end, the Government have brought in the Bill.
    But let us look at what is going on now in terms of reorganisation, reorganisation being the operative word. There may be one yard with excellent labour relations. I can quote the example of Yarrow's in Scotstoun, where the shop stewards actually called a Press conference to express a vote of confidence in their own management. If we make things restrictive and embody the intention of the Amendment in the Bill, there will have to be agreement with workpeople in other yards. This is difficult enough now. On the Clyde, for example, we
    1802
    have what we know as "Y.C. & S.", Yarrow, Connell and Stephens. Then the principle is extended to include Fairfield's and Brown's. It will be necessary to take this broader mass of trade unionists along in negotiation.
    On the Clyde, they got through the Prices and Incomes Board with the Clyde agreement—that is actually agreed now—and it has been accepted as a generality throughout Britain's shipbuilding yards that the workpeople would relax working practices. The initiation of such developments would be made more difficult if we put an added restrictive burden on those who are ready to reorganise and reconstruct.
    It is simpler to have a declaration of intent from the Minister, leaving the thing where it is in the present atmosphere of general acceptance of a desire to salvage the industry. However long the life of the Shipbuilding Industry Board may be—the Opposition want to extend it for another year—it would be much better to have this left on a voluntary basis, without prejudice to the negotiations which will take place with the management on mergers, rather than adopt the restriction of a unanimity rule. This is what we should be asking for if we incorporated the Amendment in the Bill, and one particular leader might not be prepared to give way in the trade unions, on the works councils, or whatever it might be.
    Mr. Benn: May I have the leave of the House to speak again?
    The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) spoke movingly and urged me many times to follow her advice. The Ministerial declaration is not, perhaps, as meaningless as it may seem to her at first sight. Under the terms of the Bill, the Minister will have to approve all these things. Therefore, when I said what I did in answering the Amendment, I was giving some public indication of the way in which a Minister would look at this matter. I have no reason to doubt that the S.I.B. would look at it as well before the question came to me, but my declaration has a little more meaning in that the action is Ministerial action in the end. The Minister gives the guarantee in this case, and I suggest that the Board does not need a statutory provision.

    1803
    My real anxiety is this. We all want a new spirit, but I doubt that the new spirit will spread as much as it should if it is confined in a statutory bottle. My fear is that, if we have a statutory bottle for the new spirit, there may well be circumstances in which harm will be done to what hon. Members have in mind. There are all sorts of practical difficulties.
    On the question of publicity, I am much taken by what the hon. Lady said, but I can only say that not many people read Acts of Parliament. I do not know how many Acts of Parliament circulate in the pubs and clubs of the North-East, but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never seen an Act of Parliament anywhere except in the House of Commons, save, of course, in the offices of those who are concerned from a legal point of view. I am sure that Acts of Parliament are less read even than HANSARD, which is a shame when one remembers how much work goes into them.
    The hon. Lady spoke of the impact which what has been said in the House would have on people working in the shipyards. The pamphlet, "A Fresh Start in Ship Building", of which 100,000 copies were printed and circulated, deals very fully with better industrial relations, and I am not sure that that does not mean rather more than acceptance of an Amendment in the Bill.
    I hope that the House will feel that there is no division of opinion in what we seek to achieve but will, for the reasons I have given, accept that a statutory provision for a formal agreement in each case, might actually harm the purpose which hon. Members have in mind.
    Mr. David Price: The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but, before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I put this point to him. I am sure that most of us entirely agree with the spirit of what he and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) said, that these things are better done informally. Nevertheless, I believe that we have reached a stage in several industries at which one needs a formal agreement as a minimum. I have for years preached the same doctrine as the right hon. Gentleman has enunciated, but, over the years, I have begun to have my doubts.
    1804
    8.0 p.m.
    I take an example from a sphere closely related to this, in which the same argument arises, namely, racial discrimination. All of us present tonight would agree that one cannot make people of different races like each other by passing laws. At the same time, I suspect that most of us would also agree that it is necessary to have minimum statutory safeguards against gross racial discrimination. With great respect to the experience of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun I believe that in an industry with as long a history of indifferent industrial relations, and sometimes of sheer hard times for owners, managers and workpeople alike, it is necessary to formalise part at least of what is agreed informally. I have always said that what is agreed informally at the yard level is more than what is formalised. I believe that the Amendment, by introducing formal agreements, will assist shop stewards, members of trade unions, members of workers' committees, managers, directors or whoever has to put over to the doubters amongst the people concerned that change really makes sense and is fair.
    I have seen this in my own experience in the heavy chemical industry, as has the Parliamentary Secretary. As an old work study man with a stop-watch, I know that my task was made easier by the fact that my masters and the leaders of the trade unions affected in the plant in which I was working had made a formal agreement about how we operated work study and that arrangements had been made and formalised about redundancy. We were jolly certain that in practice there would be no redundancy, because we were an expanding industry. But the agreement was there as a formal safeguard. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government, as I do to my colleagues, based on substantial experience in these matters, that although we want the voluntary spirit I believe that we can promote a better voluntary spirit if there is, in cricket terms, the long-stop of formal arrangements.
    With those final thoughts I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Dell: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 15 to leave out from 'agreement' to the end of line 16 and insert:
    'or agreements relating to the giving of the guarantee'.
    I foreshadowed the Amendment in Committee. Subsection (4) requires Treasury approval of the terms of any guarantee and makes it clear that the Minister is to be entitled to make a charge for giving a guarantee. It assumes, however, that all the provisions relating to the guarantee, including any provision for a fee for giving it, will be in one agreement—
    "… the agreement under which the guarantee is given"
    —to quote the Bill.
    In practice, this will not be so. The guarantee will be contained in an agreement between the Minister and the bank, and the provision of a fee, which may be known as a premium, and other provisions imposing obligations on the purchaser towards the Minister will be contained in a separate agreement between the Minister and the purchaser. Accordingly, the Amendment provides that the terms and conditions are to be prescribed in the agreement or agreements relating to the giving of the guarantee rather than in the agreement under which the guarantee is given.
    Mr. Price: The House is grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that explanation of a technical Amendment. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9.—(DISSOLUTION OF BOARD.)
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 25, to leave out '1971' and insert '1972'.
    As the Bill stands, the Shipbuilding Industry Board will come to an end at the end of 1970, and the Minister has power to prolong it for one year. The object of the Amendment is to give him power to prolong it for a second year. That does not mean that we hope that this will happen, but we think that it is, possible that it may be necessary and we realise that it might be difficult for him to return here for the power to do
    1806
    so. We therefore think it more prudent to put this into the Bill.
    As I have said before, we believe that conditions have changed since Geddes reported, and I regret to say that I think that they have changed for the worse in several respects. I wish to quote three cases, starting with freight rates. They normally tend to rise at the end of the year, but last year they continued their decline and they have done so up to the present moment. Today's Fairplay International Shipping Journal says, under the heading, "Tankers Might Spark Off Freight War":
    "Dry-cargo tramp shipowners fear that the large number of tankers now becoming redundant in the seasonally depressed oil market will spark off a freight trade war in the major grain trades."
    There is no doubt that there is a little anxiety in the freight market, and when freight rates are low in this industry people order fewer ships. Perhaps the tragedy of the industry in the past is that there have been these ups and downs.
    Secondly, we have had a number of company reports recently, and they have not been very satisfactory. Speaking to an earlier Amendment, I mentioned the case of the Furness shipbuilding yard which, although the most modern in the country of the bigger yards, is having to make provision for no less than £6½ million of losses in the current year.
    Thirdly, there is the case of the order book, which is disappointing. It is perhaps significant that that does not apply only to this country. Even in Japan shipbuilders are viewing with some alarm the decline in orders. In the first quarter of this year 34 ships were ordered of a gross tonnage of 131,000 tons, compared with 43 ships of 143,000 tons in the first quarter of 1966. The total order book now stands at not very much more than 2,000 million tons.
    We get very much the same story when we look at the history of the launches. British shipbuilding has sunk to fourth place in the league with just over 1 million tons launched, against the rather staggering figure, admittedly rather boosted by tankers and so on, of 6,685,000 gross registered tons in Japan. I think that all those factors point to a rather longer and tougher job for the S.I.B. than we should like to see and than we had hoped. I therefore suggest that it

    1807
    might be prudent to make it possible for it to continue if necessary to make its full term 4½ years. But I repeat that I hope that that will not be necessary.
    Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am not sure that the points made by the hon. Member are in favour of the Amendment. In some respects one would suggest that his anxiety, which many of us might share, would suggest that the vital necessity for even more rapid attention to the problems of the industry and the kind of action which is recommended in the terms of the Bill, and more speedy action by the Board than might otherwise have been thought to be required.
    Whilst I see the need for a continuing period for very careful examination of the industry, I think that sometime before the end of the time provided for in the Bill, we shall need to decide what further action, if any, is required. It may be a very different kind of action and a different kind of Board of Inquiry.
    I therefore feel that the Board is not the right body for that very specific type of urgent and rapid job, and that should anything further be necessary it may need to be something quite fresh after we have had experience of the next two or three years.
    On that basis, I tend to feel that, while I appreciate the problems we are facing in the shipbuilding areas, the Board should have a definite date of termination and that the date in the Bill is probably as good as any.
    Dame Irene Ward: I support the Amendment. I believe that the time specified in the Bill is too short. I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that, in view of the anxieties, it is necessary to move with great speed. But, after all, extension of the life of the Board from 1970 to 1971 in any case needs permission from the Government. Presumably, the Board would have to make a case before such an extension was granted. In this Amendment, we merely take time by the forelock and give the Minister power to extend the life of the Board for a further year, to 1972.
    I do not wish to be particularly uncomplimentary to the Government. I would be just as uncomplimentary if my
    1808
    Government were sitting on that Front Bench. What worries me so often about Government is that it takes an enormous length of time to act. We know from the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman has stressed it, that, in the final analysis, whatever the agreements made or the recommendations put forward by the Board, the power to agree to loans, etc., rests with his Department.
    I have not noticed that the present Government move any more speedily—in fact, I think that they move less speedily—than my Government. It is all very well to talk about the Board and how necessary it is that it should move with speed, and I hope that it will do so. But there is the channel of communication and the length of time that elapses before one can get answers out of Government Departments. This takes so long that it is very alarming. Here we are in the middle of 1967 with a vast programme. We have not really yet had presented to us in detail how the Government and the shipbuilding industry see the future of the industry.
    So many factors are now emerging in world affairs that it is difficult for anyone, even with the greatest knowledge, to assess the future. The Bill will not become law until July and there is little time for all the details which have to be arranged in the reorganisation that must be carried out after it becomes law.
    I believe that this is a wise Amendment. I know that the hon. Member for South Shields feels that, by not including it, we should put a spur to the Board, but I am not so much concerned with putting a spur to the Board as with ensuring that, in all the discussions that take place, there will be adequate time to deal with all the problems which are bound to arise. The right hon. Gentleman is taking power to extend, if necessary, the Board's operations to 1971. I cannot see why we should not give him power to extend it to 1972 if that is necessary. No one knows what the situation will be. We might have to have a complete reorganisation or change to cover whatever may have happened by 1971. We might, for example, have to have another Geddes Committee. In such circumstances, we would need time for all the considerations which would be put forward and to discuss the position, both current and future.

    1809
    It is always a good thing to have time in hand. The right hon. Gentleman has been very nice about our Amendments. Now perhaps he might give us one. It is easy to be nice about Amendments and say how wonderfully we are doing, but I like a bit of reciprocity and action sometimes. I like to see some genuine recognition and not just words. I am tired of words. I want a little bit of action and something which will be acceptable to this side of the House, as I am sure it would be acceptable to the industry.
    In discussing these matters, there is a feeling, I find, that everything is being rather rushed. This is a new concept and a little more time in hand would be wise to have. I hope that the Minister, on this occasion, will not just say how nice we are, how well we have moved the Amendment and how co-operative and reciprocal we are. I hope that we will get something for our efforts in trying to get the best possible Bill for the benefit of the industry and all who work in it.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Rankin: I am sure that all the desires so ably expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for the industry are echoed on this side of the House and that we are all just as restlessly animated as she is by the desire for the welfare of this great industry. I do not quarrel with the Amendment. We have created the Board for the purpose of helping to bring about a new spirit in the shipbuilding industry and, naturally, the Board having been created for a special purpose, it has been given a date line for its existence.
    Obviously, it is in the interests of the industry that it should not be spoon fed too long by the Board. I have no objection in principle to prolonging the potential life of the Board if necessary, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend has all the powers he needs and that he will take whatever exceptional action may be required if he finds 1970 to be too early a date at which to terminate the activities of the Board.
    I have reason for my purpose in pointing out another aspect of the Amendment—and not merely the Amendment, but the termination date inserted in the Bill. As a result of the decision taken
    1810
    overwhelmingly by the House last night, Britain today applied for admission to the Common Market. Under the Treaty of Rome a Bill of this nature will not be allowed to operate. Subsidies and aids——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that subject on this Amendment, which deals with the question whether the Minister should have power to postpone dissolution of the Board from 1971 to 1972.
    Mr. Rankin: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely pointing out that, since the Amendment was tabled, a new situation has developed and, therefore, the issue as to whether or not we should prolong the date beyond 1971 is possibly somewhat unreal. The termination date of 1971 may not materialise as a result of our application, and if we are admitted to the Common Market——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but that argument is not relative to the Amendment.
    Mr. Rankin: All I am saying is that, in the circumstances and in view of what has happened, it seems unnecessary and at this stage unwise even to talk about extending the date to 1972.
    Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness): While we can have considerable sympathy with the motives behind the Amendment and regard the arguments advanced in its support as worthy of consideration, it would not be wise to support the Amendment as it now stands.
    It has been pointed out fairly and squarely that the difficulties facing the shipbuilding industry are not only short-term, but likely to be with the industry for many years. If it were to be argued that the Board should last as long as necessary to solve all the problems of the industry, instead of seeking to insert 1972, the Amendment would be seeking to insert 1992.
    The problems with which the Board and what will follow it will deal can be divided into short term and long term. The short-term problems are those to which the Geddes Committee addressed its inquiry, the basic structure which our shipbuilding industry requires in order

    1811
    to win a proper share of the world shipbuilding market. Unless these problems are tackled with the sense of urgency which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said was necessary, the long-term problems will not be solved at all.
    Therefore, to gauge the value of the Amendment we ought to consider Clause 9 in conjunction with Clause 11. In Clause 11(5) there is a reference to the Board's job, before its dissolution, of setting up machinery which will carry on the essential consultations which will be necessary to solve not only the continuing, but the changing problems of the industry.
    There is no one in the industry who imagines that by 1971 or 1972 we shall be able to set up an industry ideally suited to build any vessel required over the next 50 years. New techniques will come and new vessels will be demanded. Some importance should, therefore, be attached to this provision in Clause 11.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend, perhaps in response to the Amendment, will tell us the sort of job which he visualises this new machinery taking over when the Board is wound up. This is a job which will stretch beyond the lifetime of the Board and I think that both sides of the House would feel a little happier as we come to the end of the Report stage if we knew something of the Government's thinking on the continuity of change in the shipbuilding industry which the Government regard as being necessary.
    Mr. Benn: On the face of it, of course this is a very attractive Amendment. When the House seeks to press additional powers on a Minister, it is very hard for the Minister to resist. The Amendment says, "We like your Bill so much that we do not want it to stop when you want it to stop; we want it to go on longer". The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) says that she does not like my saying that I like her Amendments. I have been looking for years for an opportunity to be courteous to the hon. Lady, but when I am, all I get is a kick in the teeth. I shall have to say frankly that the Amendment is wholly misconceived, and I shall explain why.
    1812
    The longer we provide for the S.I.B. to stay in action, the slower the progress of the industry towards change will be. I go further and say that at the moment I have no intention of extending the Board beyond 1970—I am not saying that my view on this might not alter later. There will be three and a half years from enactment to the end of 1970 for the Board to do its job, and it would be a great tragedy and do a grave disservice to the reorganisation of the industry if the industry and the Board thought that they could go on and on because the Minister would go on prolonging the life of the Board so that there was no urgency.
    Everything the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) said when moving the Amendment about the urgency of the problem led in exactly the opposite direction—we want to put pressure on everybody in the industry and the Board to get on with reorganisation as rapidly as possible. There is also a danger of a statutory Parkinson's Law—that the business of doing what has to be done will fill up the statutory time provided for it.
    Moreover, by lengthening the provisions of the Bill, the same amount of money is spread over a longer time. If I agreed that the Bill should go on to 1971 or 1972, that would not increase the amount of grant available, nor increase the amount of loans which could be made available, nor increase the number of credits which could be guaranteed. All that would do would be to lengthen the period during which those measures could be brought into operation. In so far as the Amendment would ease the present pressure which, of course, is not Ministerial pressure but the pressure of events anyway, in certain circumstances that could actually diminish the amount of Government help to the industry in the critical years which lie ahead.
    Mr. David Price: I am sure that the whole House would agree with the right hon. Gentleman on everything that he said, were it not for the existence of Clause 7. What has been worrying my hon. Friends and myself most is that the credit scheme is tied to the continued existence of the S.I.B. I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about reorganisation and, of course, the industry

    1813
    should get a move on. I was attracted by his reference to a statutory Parkinson's Law and I am sure that he is right. However, it is the existence of Clause 7 which is the problem.
    Mr. Benn: I shall come to that, but in practical terms the credit scheme and the amount involved are more generous than the House expected when the scheme was published. The hon. Gentleman is rather optimistic if he thinks that it will last for five and a half years without being exhausted. It is much more likely to be used up before that.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the £200 million a once-and-for-all sum, or is it to be to the total amount outstanding? I thought that it was to be the total outstanding, so that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said would not be applicable.
    Mr. Benn: It is a rotating fund but in any known time-scale it is unlikely that it will meet itself coming round again, if I may put it that way.
    8.30 p.m.
    The other point is that we are engaged in looking at an industry which has serious problems, requiring urgent action; and an industry in which the Geddes Committee made recommendations and in which we are now trying out new machinery. This new machinery, under the provisions of the Bill as it is worded, will take 3½ years to operate from July of this year; we hope earlier if another place will pass the Bill rapidly, but say from mid-1967 to mid-1970. That is 3½ years. Contained within the Bill is the power of the Minister, me or my successor, to prolong it for one more year that is to 4½ years. Whatever may be said about the short-term problems, the House will almost certainly want to come back before 4½ years, and maybe, before 3½ years, to have another look at this industry in the light of what the situation was and our experience of working with the Shipbuilding Industry Board.
    I must resist the attractive invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), to say at the beginning what conclusions I would be likely to draw from the experience of the Board, in order to foresee what recommendations I would make as to how things may be handled in the future. I do not know; no one knows. The S.I.B. is
    1814
    a very interesting governmental technique. I want it to succeed and I think that it will succeed, particularly if it is kept under pressure, and if the industry and the Board have a time-scale. It is right that, by the time 4½ years have elapsed, we should have another look at the industry. I hope that by then it will be competitive. It is right that Parliament should come back and look at it again specifically.
    If the Amendment which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) supports, were to be accepted, we would be into 1972 without another Parliamentary look at the shipbuilding industry, and this is too long. It would extend beyond the next Election and the statutory life of Parliament. It is wrong that we should leave it so long, and I hope that I shall carry the House with me in saying that we should keep up the pressure, so that the Board has an opportunity of tackling the short-term problem, leaving the long term problem to be looked at in the light of the experience of the Board, and the state of the industry.
    Dame Irene Ward: At present practically no orders are coming forward at all. If no orders come forward within the next two years, to take advantage of the money that is available, nothing will have happened and it will be all the more important that the scheme goes on, and that the reorganisation provide a stimulus to build. What will happen if no orders come in?
    Mr. Benn: With great respect to the hon. Lady, if no orders come in in the next two years, the scheme that I am proposing would not be a very satisfactory way with dealing with what was left of the shipbuilding industry. If the hon. Lady wanted to achieve the effect she says she wants she should have moved an Amendment to say that the Board came to an end at the end of 1969, because this would concentrate the help available in a shorter period. This period would not be practicable, and I hope that on reflection, she will see that this is just about the right balance and that she will not help her cause by allowing this to move from a short-term drastic reorganisation—because it is drastic— into a long to mid-term approach by the Government, to an industry which really needs to move pretty fast.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he thought that the affairs of the industry should come back to the House about 1971 or 1972. There is a lot of force in the argument that he put forward, and in his theory that Parkinson's Law applies to legislation. I agree with everything said by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). Unfortunately I must point out that the mergers are not going as quite as fast as they might do. They have been described in the shipping papers as reluctant marriages. This is because the situation has deteriorated on account of the results of company reports and the lack of orders, in the way that I have indicated. Nevertheless, I can see the logic of the line that the Minister is taking on this. Because of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: I beg to move that the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I do not propose to detain the House long in moving the Third Reading. It seems that this is a Bill that meets most of the requirements of a Third Reading. It was born after very full consideration of the problems in an industry in an important report published just over a year ago. The scheme was warmly welcomed by all sides of the industry and was rapidly accepted by the Government.
    I accept criticism of delay, but not in this case. The Government very rapidly welcomed the report. It quickly brought forward a Bill which was sympathetically received by the House on Second Reading, rigorously examined in Committee, expeditiously returned to the House, and promptly dispatched on Report. In fact, so welcome was the Bill that we have had the curious situation, as has been pointed out, that Report stage has been attended by a smaller number of Members than Committee stage, which was not at all the intention of Erskine May in providing for our procedures.
    It is a Bill urgently required by the industry, and I do not think I can say more than that in recommending it to the House. However, if I may describe the Bill as a ship which we are launching, I would like to say a word about
    1816
    the waters into which it will be launched, namely the prospects for the industry. A year ago Geddes was optimistic about the world demand for shipping, but he recognised, and rightly so, that the estimates of world demand were themselves uncertain and that, in any case, figures based upon tonnage alone were not necessarily the best indication of what this would mean in terms of specific orders. In 1965–66 world orders were a record of 18 million tons. In the first quarter of 1967 we had about 4½ million tons, which is maintaining a fairly high pattern of orders. But there is anxiety about the future character, scale and volume of orders, which is obviously felt by the industry. Also, there have been some fairly drastic falls in the proportion of orders which have come to British industry. They went down from 9·6 per cent., in tonnage terms, in 1965 to, I think, 2·7 per cent. in 1966—a very sharp fall. The position in the early part of this year still did not give us much ground for immediate satisfaction.
    In addition, as was pointed out by some speakers on Report, the financial position of some shipyards is very serious. Some of the losses which have been reported in recent annual reports which have reflected losses on past orders—not the likely losses on orders which have been more discreetly taken on board more recently—are bound to create in the industry a psychological barrier to action —a sort of paralysis—unless we are very careful. The industry has been more hesitant as a result of the experience of the last few years at a time when it needs to approach the task of reorganisation more urgently.
    There will be a big management task for the industry. We have been talking about statutory and financial provisions, but I hope that nobody underestimates the task of management, not only in relation to labour relations but in relation to managing resources, which the industry has to take on board.
    The Shipbuilding Industry Board already has working groups working on different possible grouping schemes. We expect their reports to be made soon. The real test will come—and the House and industry should be in no doubt about this—when the working parties have made their reports and the industry is considering whether it is prepared to

    1817
    accept them. Against the background of a difficult situation, with a not easy financial situation for the firms, this will be the moment when we learn whether Geddes was just a pious hope or the beginning of a new start for the industry.
    Some people say—I have heard it said—"Is it worthwhile to engage in this operation in view of all the difficulties facing the industry?". I am not given to declarations of faith, despite what may have been suggested in response to an earlier point which I made. But I have great confidence in the future of this industry if, with the help of the Board and substantial help from the Government, it is prepared to take the plunge. It is not an act of faith alone, because the preparation of the schemes will have been done with great expert care. The conception of the Board has arisen from the Geddes Report and all that has followed and preceded it. The waters, though stormy, should not sink the ship which we are about to launch.
    In that spirit, I invite the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
    8.39 p.m.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: The Bill is of great importance to an industry which, if somewhat localised, was proud to lead the world for a very long time. Those proud traditions die very hard. I have every confidence that the industry can take a new lease of life.
    We have discussed some of the adverse factors which have arisen since the Geddes Report. There are other adverse factors in view—for example, the increasing competition from air freight. A few days ago, a seminar on containerisation was told that the volume of air freight was increasing by about 25 per cent a year, and that is just one more factor. At the same time, there are 2,000 ships being built in the world each year, and what we have to ensure is that the British shipbuilding industry is able to retain a reasonable proportion of that quantity.
    I agree that the Government have acted promptly in getting the recommendations of the Geddes Committee on to the Statute Book, but it must be remembered that what we find in the Bill which is receiving its Third Reading tonight is not exactly Geddes. There are some pluses and minuses. There is the plus of the
    1818
    credit scheme, and the Government are to be congratulated on it, although I should have preferred it not to be tied to the life of the S.I.B., but able to go on longer, like the credit schemes of other countries.
    Then there are omissions from the Bill. We have discussed trade union development into, it is hoped, five unions in the end. However, that is probably not a topic which would be suitable for inclusion in a Bill. Another omission which is of considerable importance is some preferential rate for heavy plates. That was one of the cornerstones of the Geddes Report and, for a long time, has been a fact of life of the industry. Only during the last few days, we have received Answers from the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Power indicating that it is now intended to reject this help to the industry and, in that rejection, there was a suggestion that the industry had agreed to it in some way.
    However, I do not believe that to be the case at all, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at it. After all, the steel industry has now been nationalised, and there can be little argument for not helping it in the national interest when the Minister of Power is in a position to do so.
    With the Third Reading of the Bill, we are handing over to the S.I.B. The task is now the Board's. We are all agreed that it has a difficult task to perform in the three and a half years which lie ahead of it. It has the advantage of being small and compact, and it has made a good impression wherever it has been. It has £5 million in grants and £32½ million in loans at its disposal. If that is spent wisely and quickly, I am sure that a great deal can be done, despite the new difficulties of the industry.
    I do not wish to end on too pessimistic a note, and I remind the House of some of the opportunities for the industry. We read a great deal about containerisation and the tremendous benefits which it has to offer to transport. The order for the first six special container ships has already gone out, though, unfortunately, only one has come to this country. However, there are new container ships to be built, and they offer a great challenge to our shipyards. In some cases, apart from ships, containers are being built in shipyards. Many containers will be required

    1819
    all over the world, and that is a further line which United Kingdom shipyards could develop with benefit.
    Then there are warships to be built. Unhappily, we have turned down orders for submarines from South Africa only in the last few months. The South African Government have gone to French shipyards instead, and no doubt other South African orders will be lost in the same way as long as the Government are not willing to accept them. It is a great pity that the lost orders cannot be replaced with an acceleration of the naval programme for our own use.
    Then there is the replacement of the Liberty ships which is coming up in a big way at present. I am told that, throughout the world, there are no fewer than 10 different types of replacement available for the Liberty ship. There are in this country ships like the SDH Austin and Pickersgill, which, on the face of it, compare favourably with what the German or Japanese yards have to offer. In this replacement of the Liberty ships there is a further opportunity for our shipyards and I hope that this is something which the Shipbuilding Industry Board will not overlook.
    It is a pity that the Bill does not do anything about steel, but it enacts the main provisions of Geddes. It has been unable to take account of the latest changes in conditions since Geddes reported, but I wish the Board very good fortune in the task that it has undertaken.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I think that everyone in the House regards this as a very important Bill. It is a good example of practical Government initiative, which we may find repeated elsewhere. It is a form of development which is exciting in its possibilities. The important thing is to try to keep up this sense of urgency if we are to make progress, and, indeed, if we are to have an industry at all within three or four years' time.
    One is to some extent concerned lest the initial interest which was generated when the Geddes Report was first published has waned, and there are some signs that this has happened. I have been a little disturbed at some of the meetings which I have attended, because
    1820
    there did not seem to be the same kind of fervour of excitement which was exhibited a year of two ago. It is, therefore, of supreme importance that it should be made very clear that there is no reason at all for any further delay. The Bill provides the opportunities which have been demanded from the Government for a long time, and further action must now come jointly from management and the trade unions. There must be no gainsaying this. There must be no excuses for not implementing immediately the projects which have been under discussion for a considerable time.
    In the groupings which are to come—we all hope very quickly—we trust that the forward-looking, thrustful managements will come out on top. It will not be easy to ensure that this happens, but I hope that this will be very much to the forefront of the Board's mind in the actions in which it will be involved in the immediate future. Already, I imagine, the Board has a good idea of what it wants to try to achieve in the industry. I hope, therefore, that there will be no delay on the part of owners in placing orders, because the Board will be able to give a good indication of the way its mind is turning. There should, therefore, be no excuse for further delay, particularly as an Amendment has now been made to the Bill to ensure that credit facilities for orders will be available from the date of publication of the Bill.
    I hope that everyone on both the management and trade union side will do all that they can to maintain interest and make sure that this potentially exciting and dramatic Bill has the effect which we all very much hope it will.
    8.50 p.m.
    Mr. McMaster: I am afraid that I cannot share the enthusiasm expressed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) for the Bill. I have no doubt that what he says is true and that we shall probably have other Bills of this kind. The longer the Labour Party remains in office the longer trade and industry will get into difficulty and require the bailing out that we find in this Bill. The Bill provides too little assistance for the shipbuilding industry, and it is being given much too late.
    I shall not oppose the Bill's Third Reading, any more than I opposed the

    1821
    Second Reading, because it is better to have half a cake than no cake. As the Minister of Technology said, however, the situation facing the shipbuilding industry has deteriorated quite a lot in the short time since the Geddes Committee reported just over a year ago. Since then the position of both naval and civil shipbuilding has deteriorated. The British share of world orders has fallen, and continues to do so.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there is no doubt about the importance of the industry. We are a maritime nation. We need our shipyards, first, for defence and then for trade. Our shipyards have been considerable money earners in the past, both directly, in that we have built boats for the whole world, and also indirecty, in chat we have been the main suppliers to British shipping companies, which have brought in a considerable amount of invisible earnings. The shipbuilding industry has been a vital contributor to our balance of trade, but assistance is needed.
    I do not want to weary the House with details at this late stage, but it is accepted that the industry needs help, and the £32½ million made available directly by the Government is not adequate. I was shocked when I heard the Minister say that building docks were not to be included in the assistance provided under Clause 4. The Minister referred to the building of specialised boats, implying that building docks were not required for the smaller boats. I would point out to him that a vessel built on an old-fashioned slipway has to be built at an angle. The more complex the boat the more important it is to build it in dock, where it is flat. Every bit of machinery installed before the boat is launched has to be installed at an angle, and an adjustment has to be made afterwards. It is, therefore, much better—and this is evident from the concentration which the Japanese are giving to the matter—to construct more building docks, and to provide not merely one or two but several per yard, as is done in Japan.
    I would have thought that this was one technological innnovation in respect of which the Government would have provided assistance and encouragement. The Government say that they cannot. Why?
    1822
    This bears out what I said in Committee, that too little is being done to help shipbuilding, and too late.
    Great play has been made of the £200 million to be provided by the banks, but in Committee the Minister admitted that he hoped that this would not cost the Government anything. This assistance is provided not by the Government, but by the banks—mainly the joint stock banks, but also, to a lesser extent, the merchant banks, who do not like these long-term commitments.
    If the banks are providing it, someone has to pay. Probably their customers will pay slightly higher bank charges to cover the difference in interest rates. If the Minister says that this is not so, presumably there is no subsidy and no difference in interest rates and no advantage from the guarantee. If there is an advantage, the banks will be lending money at less than the market rate.
    Up to £200 million will be made available to British shipowners to build in this country and the banks' customers will have to pay the bill—the man in the street and the shareholders—and perhaps bank staff will even have to accept smaller pay increases.
    I was also disappointed by the lack of direct encouragement to the trade unions to make the industry efficient. The Geddes Committee paid great attention to this aspect of the problems of the yards. I know from experience in my constituency that the unions have done a great deal over the past years to avoid problems, to settle disputes amicably and to avoid holding up building. The vested interests of the skilled trades in the shipyards are recognised. It is only fair that, if men who have served long apprenticeships to acquire special skills have to give up some of their special advantages, they should be compensated.
    Nothing is done in the Bill to cover this. The Minister even refused an Amendment to Clause 7 today which would have helped to extend the provisions with respect to guarantees to shipyards where the trade unions were being co-operative. This is important——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue this, because one cannot refer on Third Reading, as he is aware, to what is not in the Bill.
    Mr. McMaster: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and leave that point.
    I regret that ship-repairing is mentioned only briefly, although the body which is set up is to cover both shipbuilding and repairing. It would be much more equitable if the repairing yards could share in these advantages.
    The long hand of the Common Market is stretching out even this early, when we have made our application only today. You have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we cannot discuss the Common Market. We have applied to join, however, and we passed through this House a Motion requiring the Government to do so. This is bound to affect our yards and the industry.
    They will be covered by some of the Articles in the Treaty of Rome and it is a great pity that these matters cannot be discussed here because——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Common Market was discussed for three days. We are now discussing the Third Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.
    Mr. McMaster: I agree that it was discussed for three days, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I now want to discuss how it affects the Bill and the industry. I am sorry if I am out of order in doing so, but——
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you ruled the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) out of order on the ground that he could not discuss the Common Market as it applied to shipbuilding on an Amendment. It did not occur to me at the time—I may be absolutely wrong—that it would not be possible to ask for an interpretation on Third Reading. Am I not right in thinking——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I ruled the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) out of order we were discussing a very narrow Amendment. We are now on Third Reading and the debate that is permissible on Third Reading of a Bill is very strictly confined to the contents of the Bill.
    Mr. McMaster: I would not seek to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I conclude by saying that if our appli-
    1824
    cation to join the E.E.C. is successful, this may be reflected on the needs of the shipbuilding industry. This is another reason why the provisions of this Measure are not up to date and are insufficient.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Rankin: I suggest that we record our appreciation of the competence and understanding with which my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary conducted the Committee operations of the Bill. We should also record that the hon. Member who led for the Opposition in Committee was extremely helpful and proved worthy of his task.
    I wish to consider some of the potential difficulties of the shipbuilding industry, including the carriage of cargoes by ships. The challenge from the air was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and I agree that that challenge exists. However, I do not believe that it will prove as much of a menace as many people think, particularly if we go ahead quickly with the building of container terminals and container ships.
    Certainly many avenues which have provided work and cargoes for ships are disappearing. However, other avenues are opening—and, for example, the transportation by ship of motor cars to the Continent is an increasing trade. More and more school children are now being educated by the use of ships. A larger number of pupils than ever before now spend a reasonable part of their school lives being educated aboard ships and also in the sense that they are seeing how other people live in different parts of the world and are meeting children of other countries. That is an expanding trade and is another avenue being opened for the shipbuilding industry.
    It has been suggested that the Bill will create a new era for shipbuilding. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that it gives us an opportunity to create a new era, though I would go so far as to say that the new era is before us, if only we can seize the opportunities presented by the Bill.
    The Bill means that there must be a reorganisation of the industry, not only between and among the yards, but within the yards, and at all levels. If it means that we have to look at the problem of trade union numbers within the

    1825
    yards, we must do that, though we know that it will present difficulties. If it means that we must look carefully at the resistance which may be offered to a reduction, if necessary, in the number of yards, we must face that, too. At the same time, we must carry with us in understanding all the people employed in the yards at both floor level and management levels. We must see that those at the top level of mangement who seek the orders necessary to keep the yards going examine their systems of approach for acquiring this new type of business.
    During the Committee stage I referred several times to the Fairfield shipbuilding yard in my division. Something new is being done there; not merely at board level but at floor level. When the men understand what the board wants, and when the board is prepared to co-operate with the men in securing what is best for the yard and its continuance as an operating factor in shipbuilding, we get that community of endeavour which results in success.
    That was recently shown when Fairfield's got an order for a great new container ship, in the face of world competition, when every other yard in Britain failed. Yards in Britain, in an effort to get such a ship, formed a company specially for that purpose, yet even their united effort failed while that of one Scottish yard succeeded.
    The Scottish yard won through because it abandoned a system of quoting for ships which has now become a handicap, and one of the big disadvantages from which shipbuilding is suffering. Although this Measure gives shipbuilding as much aid as Government can be expected to give, unless the firms modernise their approach to the securing of orders the Bill will not operate as successfully as we all want it to operate. The old system of quoting for ships on a cost-plus basis is no longer efficient. British shipbuilding yards must realise that the system of estimating when entering into world competition must be based on cost allied to productivity. That is the system which Fairfields adopted and it is succeeding.
    Under that system, with the new type of management and the new spirit in the yards and with this Bill which my right hon. Friend has so successfully conducted to its final stage, British shipbuilding will succeed. Because I trust British ship-
    1826
    building I believe that, presented with this challenge, it will succeed. This Bill will prove one of the great aids in bringing about the new spirit for success which we all want to see in our own shipyards.
    9.11 p.m.
    Dame Irene Ward: Like everyone else, I welcome the Bill and wish it well.
    It is most curious that during the whole of Report stage and Third Reading, we have not had one word about marine engineering, although this is included in the Bill. Whatever the future for British shipbuilding and shipping, there are very grave doubts about the future of British marine engineering. I should like the Minister to deal with this matter, which is important to many of our rivers. On the Tyne, the Wallsend slipway has been closed, and on the Wear George Clarke and Company has closed its marine engineering works.
    We have not discussed a controversial subject, but I must mention it because I always like to put the point of view not only of the shipbuilders, but of the men in the industry. They have a feeling, whether rightly or wrongly I could not say, that when the industry gets into operation again as a result of the Bill the tendency may be to import engines from abroad to the detriment of our own marine engineering works. I could not allow the Bill to pass its Third Reading without drawing attention to the fact that the future for marine engineering gives all of us very great cause for anxiety.
    I, and I imagine my hon. Friends, do not like the provision which allows for the handing over of equity shares to the Shipbuilding Industry Board. I regard this as a move which could eventually be used for the purpose of nationalisation by the back door. I am not in favour of any more nationalisation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) pointed out that we shall not get what we hoped to get—some concessions in regard to steel for the shipbuilding industry. Once the power is put in the hands of the Government, it goes beyond our control. When the Board is broken up, any shares which may be held—I hope there will be very few—will be transferred from the Board to the Minister of Technology. That I view with very great disapproval

    1827
    and regret. I am glad to be able to put that on record.
    I am dealing only with points which have not been covered, because we have had a good debate on all the essentials of the Bill. Can we be told how the shipbuilding areas will fare in view of the Government's determination to reduce defence expenditure? We can have a good home market for shipbuilding only if we can also have some naval ships to be built. I would like an assurance that the Bill will have the benefit of the backing of a considerable number of naval orders and that in the defence reappraisal the shipyards will not be deprived of what was a very attractive part of their livelihood in the past—large naval orders. I should like to be told what we can look forward to during the next three and a half years under the Board. What help will the industry get from the Ministry of Defence by the placing of naval orders?
    I know that I cannot discuss the Common Market, but as a supporter of Britain's entering the Common Market I should like to ask for an assurance on this matter, because it is causing great anxiety. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) drew attention to Article 92(3,c) of the Treaty of Rome, which deals with European shipbuilding.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Yesterday's debate is over.
    Dame Irene Ward: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to debate the matter, but may I not just ask whether, as the Secretary of State did not answer the point made yesterday by my hon. Friend, we could have an occasion in connection with the whole future of the industry when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to describe the application of the Treaty of Rome to it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady may ask that, but not tonight.
    Dame Irene Ward: At any rate, I have got it on the record. I am very grateful for that.
    Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A Ruling has been given. I am very worried about it. It seems that the sovereignty of the House is being
    1828
    affected by the Chair's prohibiting any discussion of the effects of the Common Market and our application to join it on matters we are considering in the House. At the moment, we are considering the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, which could be affected——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman who is trying to advise the Chair on what is in order. On the Third Reading of a Bill one can discuss what is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should know that by now.
    Dame Irene Ward: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to deal with this prohibited matter, but would I be in order in saying that the whole of the Bill could collapse? Would I be in order in asking: will the Bill work, or will it not work? Will there be a Bill in operation in two and a half or three years' time, or not? Would I be in order in discussing that?
    Mr. Speaker: I will tell the hon. Lady when she goes out of order.
    Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. I will not try your patience too hard.
    I just want to put it on the record that for the future of the industry it is tremendously important, this scheme which has the approval of both sides of the House having been devised, that nothing in the outside world should prevent it from being fully made use of and fully implemented. I will not go further, because I could go out of order.
    I wish the Bill well, and I hope that, before very long, we shall talk of the future of the industry with greater confidence. We all have grave anxieties. I was glad that the Minister did not skate over the difficulties facing shipping and shipbuilding at present. The state of affairs is really serious, and what we now need is orders. There is the credit of £200 million to be used, but we must have the shipping people to put the orders into the yards. If the situation of the industry as a whole develops adversely, the credit facilities will be useless.
    Therefore, although we all welcome the Bill, there are certain aspects of the future which cause us great anxiety. However, this does not detract from my good wishes for the Bill. We all wish it well, and I hope that, before very

    1829
    long, we shall be able to discuss the affairs of the shipbuilding industry with a sense of greater confidence that its future is assured.
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. Booth: The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) says that we all welcome the Bill. I should like to feel that that was so, but, if the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) were intended as a welcome, it was one of the sourest welcomes I have ever heard.
    The Bill is directed to the problems of an industry in which things change rapidly. Even between the time when the Bill was introduced and its Third Reading tonight, things have happened which bear very much upon whether the Bill will or will not succeed in its purpose. The Bill covers the setting up of a Shipbuilding Council. Even while we were discussing it in Standing Committee, one of the members of the Council withdrew his attendance because of a lockout in the shipbuilding industry. Perhaps one of the happiest auguries for the Bill's success is that, at the next meeting of the Shipbuilding Council, that member, the general secretary of my own union, the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians Association, will return to the Council because the lockout has come to an end.
    On Monday, the gates of the shipbuilding industry will be reopened for the first time in nine weeks to all the people it requires to do its job. I hope that those gates will open on an industry in which we are right to declare our faith, a faith not in the industry as it now is but in an industry with the ability to change and to grasp the new world markets which must open up with increasing trade.
    It is principally for this reason that I welcome particularly the power which the Government will have under the Bill to take equity shares in the industry. As I see it, the Bill is principally a declaration of the public interest in the industry, and it is appropriate, therefore, that provision should be made for a public equity shareholding. The success or failure of the industry is not just a matter for ship owners and builders or for seamen and the men who work in the yards. It is a matter of concern to the whole British public.
    I hope that it is in that spirit that we shall pass the Bill on Third Reading,
    1830
    praying that it will have the success which it ought to have but which it can have only if we believe in the ability of the industry to change and to take a growing part, the part which it must have, in the expanding markets of the world.
    9.25 p.m.
    Mr. David Price: The Bill provides an opportunity, and that is all. It does not provide any guarantee of success.
    In his criticism of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said that he thought that it was too little. I do not want to go over all the detailed measures in the Bill, but I think that the public moneys being provided in it go to the limit. I do not believe that we are entitled to give more public money at the moment towards the reorganisation. That is why I agree with the Minister on the need for speed.
    I hope that before the currency of the Bill, through the efforts of the Government and other Governments, the Minister will be able to ask leave to withdraw the credit scheme because we have persuaded the other Governments of the world to withdraw subsidised credit to their shipbuilders. What we want to see is fair trading terms, and the reason Clause 7 had to be introduced is that that condition has not prevailed. It is on that basis that we on this side of the House support the credit scheme.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the Japanese offer credit terms 1 per cent. better than we offer, and that as long as that continues the provisions in the Bill can hardly be adequate to enable us to meet that competition from Japan?
    Mr. Price: I believe that that modest difference is not really significant. My hon. Friend may be right, but the evidence I have is that there are far more fundamental factors involved. Hon. Members who know the current state of shipbuilding technology better than I do would agree about that.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) said, we have a background of still declining order books at the moment. According to the figures of 31st March this year, the order book is 22 per cent. down in tonnage compared with the same period in 1966. That does not mean too much,

    1831
    but it is also 19 per cent. down in value, and that is significant. That is the situation against which we are giving the Bill its Third Reading. The situation has deteriorated since Geddes, and even since Second Reading.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) drew attention to the marine engine side where, as we said in Committee, the situation is a great deal worse. I hope that in giving the Bill a Third Reading neither we nor the public are under any illusions that the Bill will of itself bring orders to British yards or to British marine engine builders.
    A very serious situation faces the industry. But I believe that the Government have broadly produced the right measure, and we have supported it, except for certain matters on Clause 6 and so on about which we disagreed. We therefore wish Sir William Swallow and the Shipbuilding Industry Board the very best of luck. But let nobody be under any illusion—the Bill does not of itself secure the future for British shipbuilding.
    9.29 p.m.
    Mr. Dell: I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) for the manner in which he summed up the debate from his side of the House. I shall return to what he said a little later.
    I wish first to deal with some of the matters raised by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred to the question of steel prices. The hon. Member for Dorset, West appeared to consider that it should have been dealt with in the Bill. I do not see how it could have been. Nevertheless, a decision had to be made here in respect of a specific recommendation of the Geddes Committee, and the Government decided that it could not implement that particular recommendation.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: I did not mean that it should necessarily have been dealt with in the Bill, but I thought it very disappointing that we should be told just before the Third Reading that it would not be dealt with in any other way either.
    Mr. Dell: Nothing was said in the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power gave to a recent Question which had not been said before in the House, both by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and by me in answer to other Questions.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I know that this is hypothetical, but if steel were to be made for ship builders surely the shipbuilding industry should be subsidised rather than that the steel industry should be asked to carry an uneconomic price to one set of customers.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting beyond the scope of the Bill. We are on the Third Reading.
    Mr. Dell: The position with which the Government were faced was clear. It was impossible for the Government to give directions to the steel industry which would affect the commercial decisions of the industry. The Government therefore had to decide whether to go ahead with the Bill, despite the fact that this condition indicated by the Geddes Committee had not been fulfilled. We consulted the shipbuilding industry and the industry was with us in deciding that, despite the fact that we could not implement that condition, we should go ahead with the Bill. I am not saying that the industry accepted the Government's decision, but it agreed that, despite the Government's inability to implement that recommendation, we should go ahead with the Bill.
    I do not think that the industry has any real complaint on that score. It is true that, if the industry goes ahead with the reorganisation which the Bill makes easier for it to achieve, then, in its negotiations with the steel industry, it should be able to provide for itself more satisfactory prices for steel than it has had in the past.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) emphasised something that has been emphasised many times from both sides of the House —the need for urgency and thrustful management in the new groups which are to be formed. I accept all that he said. He is right. Since the Bill was introduced, there have been important and

    1833
    significant signs of progress. Working groups have been set up and I hope that, in the near future, other working groups will be set up to tackle the problems of merging in other parts of the country. It is a good sign. It is vital that speed should be maintained and that there should not be any failure of decision when the working groups make their reports.
    The lack of enthusiasm that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has for the Bill has been known to us throughout, and was repeatedly expressed, despite all the discouragement I could give, in Committee. I prefer to accept the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who said that the Bill was an historic step in the industry. It really is a bit much of the hon. Member for Belfast, East to suggest that the problems of the industry are due to the present Government. Those problems are of very long standing indeed.
    The difference is that the present Government established the Geddes Committee and on the basis of its Report the Bill was introduced, and the Bill provides more assistance for the industry in meeting its problems and making itself competitive in world markets than has been given by any previous Government. We accept that the situation in the industry has deteriorated since the Geddes Report and that there is a serious lack of orders. But the lack of orders merely emphasises the urgency of the decisions which the industry has to take, and which it can now take with the assistance of the Board.
    Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. In fairness to the last Government, I should point out that they made £75 million available in assisted credit to shipbuilders—a scheme not equalled in the Bill.
    Mr. Dell: The last Government did that to provide an opportunity for the industry to reorganise, but it did not take that opportunity. The difference now is that, not merely are we providing a very much greater sum of credit to support the industry in getting orders from home ship owners, but we are providing financial assistance to it to reorganise, and are giving considerable encouragement to it to reorganise by the means by which
    1834
    guarantees will be provided in respect of these orders. It should be understood why the situation in the industry has deteriorated and why there is this lack of orders.
    There is no lack of world orders for ships. In 1965 and 1966 world orders for ships were at a record rate and in the first quarter of this year that rate continued. It is in this situation, and not in a situation of a shortage of orders, that the British industry has been failing to secure its share. It has been in a situation of boom.
    We are faced with the fact that orders for home owners have been going abroad to an enormous extent. Our share of orders placed, not under conditions of subsidy in one's own country, but for registration abroad, has been falling year by year, as the figures show. When we talk of this lack of orders, let us appreciate the background against which it is taking place and let us understand that this lack of orders precisely illustrates the importance of the industry making itself more competitive, and doing so rapidly.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that we should have provided a larger sum in loan money so that shipbuilding docks could be built by shipyards. If shipbuilding docks are to be built by shipyards, it must be remembered that there are other sources of capital, if, in their commercial judgment, that is the right thing to do. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that in future all capital provision for the industry should come from the State. If he is, I must warn him that with that would go the equity option which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth continues to dislike, despite my attempts to dissuade her in Committee.
    Mr. McMaster: I thought that I had made this clear. As long as the country faces the type of assistance which other countries give to their industries, there is an obligation on the Government to assist our industry as competitor countries assist theirs.
    Mr. Dell: I accept the obligation, and the obligation is being fulfilled, but when I refer to the decline in our share of world orders, I am referring to the decline in our share of orders placed for registration in third countries, and in those countries

    1835
    the industry's competitiveness enters the question very closely.
    I agree entirely with the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan on the need for reorganisation of the industry being expressed within the yards as well as in the grouping of the yards. My hon. Friend and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth spoke of the possible incompatibility of the Bill and membership of the E.E.C. I dealt with this matter on Second Reading, and if the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend will look up my speech, they will find that I indicated that there was no such incompatability.
    The hon. Lady dealt with a matter which clearly arises and which concerns the Government—the state of the marine engineering industry. As I said in Committee, this industry's condition is intimately connected with the fate of shipbuilding generally. The marine engineering industry, as the shipbuilding industry itself, must implement, with the assistance of the Board, the recommendations of the Geddes Report. It must specialise and it must concentrate on units which make a significant number of marine engines each year and can therefore make them competitively.
    At the moment, there are too many marine engineering shops which make two or three engines a year and which on that basis cannot possibly be competitive and which, to sustain themselves, have to do a lot of jobbing engineering outside the provision of main engines for the shipbuilding industry.
    One can see the future mode in which the marine engineering industry should concentrate, and I hope that it does so rapidly so that it, too, can play its part in ensuring the future of the British shipbuilding industry.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth feared that marine engines might be imported. I do not think that there is any great danger of any great number being imported, but, nevertheless, it is essential that marine engines should be produced competitively in this country, because if they are not and British marine engines have to be used in British ships, that would be a factor which would make the British shipbuilding industry uncompetitive.
    1836
    I explained in Committee, and I do not think that I need repeat, the relationship that would exist between the guarantees which my right hon. Friend will give in respect of orders for ships placed in this country by home owners and imports of foreign components.
    Finally, I come to the words of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), who so excellently summed up the real situation over the Bill. He said that the Bill provided an opportunity, but provided no guarantee of success. I wholeheartedly echo those words. This is an opportunity of which the industry must avail itself, and all the facts go to confirm that it will be no easy task, just as it is a task that cannot be delayed. There are an enormous number of problems in the way. There is the enormous strength of the Japanese industry, there are the foreign subsidies which have been referred to again and again, and there is the increasing competition from air freight to which the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) referred.
    These are the difficulties, but in the Bill is an opportunity, and it might be added at this point that the opportunity in this respect is not just an opportunity for the shipbuilding industry. The industry, in a sense, is a front for the engineering industry, and in undertaking the task of being competitive in world markets and in reorganising itself, I hope that the industry will have the support of all those elements of the engineering industry which supply it with so much of the final ship as it eventually sets to sea.
    I would be failing in my duty, in ending this debate if I did not pay a final tribute to the work of the Geddes Committee, upon which all our considerations have been based. It has guided us throughout these debates, it has provided a foundation for the Bill. This excellent Report is a landmark in what a Committee can do to assist an industry, when it really has the expertise to understand its problems. May I also wish the Shipbuilding Industry Board and the industry well in the important job of reorganisation which both must undertake together.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  FISHING VESSEL GRANTS BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: As the House knows, we welcome the Bill, which assists in the building up of a modern and efficient fishing fleet, which is particularly important, if and when this country enters the Common Market. Before the Bill finally leaves us, I want to say that the industry as a whole, and certainly the distant water section of it, which I know best, will be pleased when it is able to stand on its own feet, without subsidies. I am sure that this view will be echoed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  It is only fair to point out, and here I think that the Minister responsible for fisheries will agree with me, that the need for a subsidy lies in reasons beyond the control of the British fishing industry. These are reasons which have been referred to in the previous debate, such as foreign subsidies. Above all, there is the extension of fishery limits, often unilaterally made, which have excluded our own fishing trawlers from many hundreds of square miles of sea, and meant that they have had to give up some of their best traditional grounds.
  The Bill helps to subsidise replacement of the fishing fleet. Any company has to have a planned programme of replacement. There are still difficulties in their way, such as competitive tendering and, above all, the scrapping ratios. Whenever these problems have been raised we have been referred to the fisheries review which was announced in November, 1964, and which was due to be completed in 1966— two years later. Three times this year, in fisheries debates, we have continued to press for the review to be completed, and we will continue to do so. We cannot understand why it should take three years to complete.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking during an earlier stage of the Bill, said:
  "We make no apology for the delay. We know that the results of the review will be well worth waiting for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 980.]
  1838
  I hope that they will be. But I fear that, like so much Socialist planning, we may find that there is much talk and precious little action.
  The Bill removes the upper limits to grants given for building vessels in the fishing industry, but an affirmative Resolution is needed before the subsidies can be increased by 5 per cent. I hope that we can have an assurance that that measure will be introduced as soon as possible.
  In commending the Bill for the last time, I should like to say how pleased I am to hear that after the Recess hon. Members on both sides of the House will have the opportunity to visit the Humber ports so that they can see for themselves the fine, modern trawlers which now make up the British fishing fleet.
  9.48 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for welcoming the Bill, which does a very useful job. It has been welcomed by everyone concerned. I agree that the industry would be delighted if it were able to stand on its own feet. I hope that that day will come. However, it is amazing that the industry always gets this advice from people claiming more for another industry. I hope that when the fishing industry does without subsidies, others will follow suit.
  We cannot discuss the loss of fishing grounds; that is not what the Bill is about. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that steps had to be taken to protect our own fishing grounds for our fleets, and people were grateful for that. These matters work both ways. The scrapping ratio does not come within the Bill either. That was laid down a considerable time ago. It is being examined to see exactly what line we should take.
  The review has gone on for some time because this is a complicated industry; do not let us pretend that it is not. We have secured a fairly efficient modern fleet. The hon. Gentleman in his concluding words, said that he was glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be able to visit the Humber ports where there is a most excellent fishing fleet, provided with Government grants. I am sorry that I will not be able to join

  1839
  them, but I hope that they have a happy outing in the knowledge that tonight we are providing a little more to assist the industry on the road which it has to take.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)
  9.50 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
  That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: May I have the assistance of the House? Would it meet with the approval of both sides of the House if we were to take both the Ploughing Grants Schemes at the same time?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Mackie: Hon. Members will recall that in last year's debate I explained to the House that recent advances in methods of managing grassland had reduced the need for the special emphasis on ley fanning provided by the Part I grant. This year we have looked at this grant again, and hon. Members will know that it has been phased down from a maximum of £7 to £5 and then to £2 10s. Hon. Members will have noted that, as indicated in the recent Price Review, the £2 10s. grant has been discontinued, and the Scheme provides only for a grant of £12 an acre for ploughing up older grassland where the costs involved are higher than normal.
  Given that there can be dangers in a number of circumstances in continuous cereal growing, the remedy is not necessarily a long break with a ley of three years or more. A short break in which some other crop is grown can often be equally suitable; and one of the crops which could adequately provide this is field beans, for which in this year's Price Review we have proposed to introduce a grant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I have never heard field beans called rubbish before.
  Over the past 15 years, Part I ploughing grant has played a useful part in the agricultural economy, but agricultural practice does not stand still. Other methods are available for helping with rotation problems or for improving permanent grass, and it is proper that this grant should be discontinued and funds diverted to where they can be more effective. In the Price Review, arrangements were accordingly made to give

  1841
  assistance to the end products, that is livestock and dairy products, leaving it to the farmer to make his choice between the various technical methods open to him for managing his land.
  We propose, nevertheless, to retain the grant of £12 an acre, known as Part II grant under previous Schemes. This grant plays a rather different rôle, and in these days, when so much land is being lost to non-agricultural development, it can still play a worth-while part in encouraging farmers to bring land into a fit state for production.
  I need draw attention to only one minor change—and this is of administration—in the £12 grant. The Scheme is an annual one, but the operations required to clear this type of land may be spread over more than one year, according to when the farmer has the time and machinery available for the sequence of operations. This grant requires the Minister's prior approval before work is begun, and hon. Members may recall that an amendment was made last year which enabled an approval given under the previous Scheme to be valid for the current Scheme. The purpose of paragraph 3(3) of the draft Scheme is to extend this principle by allowing an approval given under either of the two previous Schemes to remain valid for the current Scheme. The change involves no loss of financial control, and should result in a saving of adminstrative costs.
  The House may wish to have the usual figures relating to the ploughing grants. For this purpose, I shall take the financial year 1966/67 because it provides the latest available figures. During that year, in the United Kingdom as a whole almost 1¼ million acres of grassland were ploughed under Part I of the Scheme attracting £5·2 million in grants. Of this 53 per cent. went to England, 28 per cent. to Scotland, 10 per cent. to Northern Ireland and 9 per cent. to Wales. The total sum of Part II grants during the same period was £500,000 in respect of 42,000 acres.
  With those figures, Mr. Speaker, I commend these Schemes for the approval of the House.
  9.54 p.m.
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has gone through this Order with his cus-
  1842
  tomary brevity, but I think that he was a little casual about it, because it marks the end of the ploughing grant for ordinary temporary leys as opposed to the long-term and more difficult grassland problems, and I had hoped that he would tell us where he thought that the money saved was going in to maintain the income of arable farmers. In the past when it was said that this ploughing grant was perhaps no longer justified, the Government of the day retained it mainly because it served a purpose in channelling income into the industry, without at the same time providing an increase in guaranteed prices which might have altered the trend of production in a way that the Government did not wish.
  From what the hon. Gentleman said, one would have supposed that in so far as the area of temporary grass contracted, the arable acreage would have increased, but the fact is that according to the Price Review—and I quote Appendix I Table A—the declining trend of temporary grassland is sharper than any corresponding increase in the arable acreage. During the three years 1964 to 1966, temporary grassland declined from 6,886,000 acres to 6,280,000, a decline of 606,000 acres. During the same period the arable acreage increased by only 102,000 acres, so it appears that half a million acres have gone out of temporary grass into what I suppose is classified as permanent grass.
  This could mask, but I do not think it does, a general decline in the intensity of our agriculture, which probably resulted from the discouraging policy adopted by the Government during their first two years in office, and I would like to know whether——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to keep the hon. Member on the narrow path, even if it is a grass path, of order.
  Mr. Hill: I hope that I am not transgressing from the path of order, because I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that this Scheme will be adequate to check this undesirable tendency, and I hope he will see to it that steps are taken to reverse the trend which must militate against the productivity of British agriculture as a whole.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: There are one or two questions I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman before

  1843
  we approve this Order. It he looks at the figures on page 39 of the Annual Price Review he will see that the ploughing grant for the coming year is £3·8 million. He gave us the latest figure for 1966–67, and according to that it is £5·2 million, plus £500,000, which is very nearly the £6·1 million which appears here.
  Mr. Mackie: One year runs into another with ploughing grants. This figure of £5·2 million includes nearly a year at the old rate of grant. That is the reason for the difference. A year's grant is the figure shown in the Price Review, which is less.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: Where is this Part II grant spread over the country? Is it spread all over the United Kingdom, or only in certain parts? It would be helpful to know where these half million acres are to be found, and whether this will be spread over the country or not.
  Mr. Mackie: It is probably my fault. It is £500,000, and 42,000 acres.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: The point remains the same. I shall be obliged if the Minister will tell us where we shall find those acres.
  As a corollary to this, will those acres which obtain the £12 grant eventually find their way into forestry or are they always planted with an agricultural crop.
  In deciding that this is the moment to provide that this Scheme shall deal only with Part II in the coming year, is the Minister satisfied that the original object for which the ploughing grant was formulated—to increase the tillage acreage—has no longer any validity? During last year we had 18,484 acres under arable. We are still not back to the level of 1946. The ploughing grant was started to increase the tillage acreage. The Government say that under the National Plan we should be increasing production and should be producing a major proportion of the required amount of food by 1970. Would it not be a good thing to ensure that the amount of tillage acreage continues to rise?
  That is not the position. Page 31 of the White Paper shows that we have not begun to increase the figure. If we have not begun to do this two years after the plan was formulated, is this really the
  1844
  moment to take action which may have an adverse effect on the tillage acreage? My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) recently pointed out that if we are to keep to the target it is essential to increase production by 50 per cent.
  Three things will be uppermost in the mind of the farmer in this respect. The Minister has already referred to the first, namely, a tendency for more permanent pasture. That may be all to the good, but is that what the Minister would like the farmer to have in his mind? That is not quite what he said. If the other idea of taking a plough round the farm and increasing the fertility of the farm by ley farming is not what the Ministry wants, is not this the occasion for the Minister to tell us why this conclusion has been arrived at?
  I can remember when it was policy to take a plough round the farm and to put new leys down. In my dairy herd I ran into a period of infertility. After about 18 months, when all the experts had come along to see what was happening and we had been getting all sorts of advice, I had the idea that it might do no harm to put the cows on to the permanent pasture and leave them there for a while. It so happened that the infertility disappeared, and none of the disasters that the experts foresaw occurred. I feel that permanent pasture, if properly managed, has a very great contribution to make. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he agrees, or whether the conclusion to concentrate only on Part 2 of the Order has been arrived at by an entirely different route.
  Modern farms are being maintained on a high stocking rate. Only the other day I was talking about a farm where 100 cows were kept on 90 acres. In such circumstances, the right thing may be not to use the plough too often. In any event, there is little opportunity to do so. The recent Price Review contained no encouragement for arable farmers——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to call one of my Chairmen to order, but the hon. Gentleman must keep to the Order under discussion. We are not talking about the Price Review now.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, but I was asking the hon. Gentleman to look at the arable picture as it relates

  1845
  to these ploughing up grants. If I have transgressed by mentioning the Price Review, I apologise.
  I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the effect of the Scheme on the arable situation. It is taking away another part of the income of many arable farmers. I would refer him to what he said last year, about how, in Scotland, they managed to have 30 years' continuous barley growing quite happily. I am not sure whether he said it was on his farm or on that of some more fortunate Scot. I believe that the hon. Gentleman also farms in England, but do not know whether he has the same good fortune there. In my part of the country, particularly after last year's difficulties, many people would find this story of 30 years' continuous barley difficult to accept.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to modern developments generally making the long break unnecessary, and said that the Scheme was to comply with the modern requirements. He said last year that the long break was unnecessary because of mechanical cultivation and chemicals for weed control. In my part of the country certainly, and many others, last year's experience would refute that. Many people would question that continuous corn growing was possible with only a short break. The findings of the research establishments are that a one year break makes the risk of disease worse in corn growing, that a two year break makes it little better and that it has to be three years to be of any use. Perhaps, with this Scheme, his suggestions about the short break will be given further consideration. It would be wrong for that message to go out from the Ministry on this Scheme or at any other time.
  On continuous cropping, perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen the Paper recently delivered at the Farmers' Club, which set out the figures for continuous cropping, the increase in costs and the numbers of units of nitrogen necessary to maintain the yield. The burden of that discussion was to the effect that it was essential to find a proper break which would enable disease to be controlled and fertility maintained. Many people contributed to that discussion, but I would quote only what was said by Mr. John Green, the Chairman of the Agricultural Research Council:
  1846
  "We have got, therefore, to find our way back somehow into grass, which is the natural crop for the greater part of the country."
  Later, he went on:
  "We shall get no assistance from our politicians; because they only want what they want at the moment they want it. The greater the biological forces you can produce on the land you farm, the greater the legitimate surplus you will have to give to the politicians. However, if the politician thinks that he can increase that surplus by ad hoc subsidies that distort the balances and eat into the reserves of fertility that are natural to our geographical situation, he will be making an ass of himself as we have seen the Russians do in full measure. Was this why Lord Townsend once abandoned the highest office in the land to 'invent' the turnip?"
  The Minister seems to be doing the exact opposite and is, perhaps, suggesting that we do not need the turnip, although he made a passing reference to beans and the subsidy on them. He will have to go a long way to persuade farmers that beans will be an adequate break, and the Scheme may be contributing to a wrong approach being adopted to arable farming.
  Has the hon. Gentleman considered the Scheme in the circumstances which may prevail in the next year or two? In the debate which has just taken place, it was found to be not compatible to refer to the debates which have taken place in the last three days. However, has the Scheme been considered purely on an ad hoc basis, or has thought been given to the position that may exist in the coming year should our application to join the E.E.C. be successful?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been tolerant with the hon. Gentleman. I have even admitted the famous "Turnip Townsend", but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, he may not go beyond the Scheme.
  Mr. Irvine: I appreciate the relevance of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The point I was trying to make, with great respect, was whether the Scheme will have to be worked out during the period in which the circumstances may be changing. I want the Minister to tell us what, if any, consideration he has given to those possible changes.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Scheme is for one year. We shall be discussing some other Scheme some other time. It is this one we are discussing now.
  Mr. Irvine: If that is your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, then, of course, I accept it.
  Will the Minister say how he feels the Scheme will affect various areas of the country; and in asking this question I have three types of area in mind. The first is that of the small man which, during last year's debate, was found to be concentrated more or less in the South-West. On that occasion, the Minister held the view that if one was removing a certain percentage from a grant, it did not matter whether the recipient was a small or large farmer.
  That seemed to me to be an argument which completely missed the point, since 5 per cent. off an income of £500 or £700 a year is a much more significant factor than 5 per cent. off an income of £5,000 a year, and many of us represent small farmers. What position does the Minister envisage the small farmer will find himself in as a result of the Order?
  I was in a parish of my constituency recently and found that one farm had 150 acres or more, that two had between 50 and 150 acres, while all the others had less than 50 acres. It is, therefore, on the small man that the Minister should indicate what he feels will be the effect of the Scheme.
  The second area contains the group of arable farmers because certain difficulties are arising in the arable areas and I believe that the Scheme may contribute towards them. The third contains the hill farms and livestock-rearing areas, and these farms have particular problems. I ask the hon. Gentleman to see that the money that used to be paid out in this category will be put back into those three areas.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: I am very sorry to be present at the funeral service of a grant that has served a very useful purpose over many years. I should like the hon. Gentleman to confirm that there will not be the necessity of the 21 days' notification following completion of ploughing, which has been an unnecessary burden on farmers in recent years.
  Secondly, I should like clarification of paragraph 11 and of the Explanatory Note. Paragraph 11 says that if there has been a previous renovation grant the ploughing grant is not payable, while the
  1848
  second paragraph of the Explanatory Note refers to
  "… the carrying out of the operations (together with any necessary preliminary operations) …".
  I quote this because a few years ago I cleaned out an area of scrubland, for which I received the appropriate grant. Then, to my great surprise and disappointment, I was told that because I had had that grant I could not have the ploughing-up grant, as I was not entitled to two grants towards the reclamation of farmland.
  I am sorry that the grant is ending, as the ploughing-up subsidy has been regarded by 99 per cent. of farmers as most useful and valuable, because the three-year break and direct reseeding has become an important part of dairy farming. The Government are putting nothing in its place that will adequately recompense for the loss we are suffering tonight.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary went through his opening remarks rather quickly. I do not blame him for that, because the Government are here taking money away from the arable farmer and not giving it to him, so it has nothing to recommend it to the House. We have here a withdrawal of all grants for ploughing other than in exceptional cases. As far as I can see from the Explanatory Note, the land must have been under grass for 12 years —since 1st June, 1955. In my part of the world, and I would say in the great arable belt of eastern England, there will be very few exceptional cases—I know of few in my part of Norolk—that will qualify for the grant.
  Many farmers would have welcomed this doing away of the ploughing-up subsidies if we were to draw closer to the European system and pay additional money to the arable land farmers, who now lose this part of their income. There is no recompense in higher prices, and the operation will mean a net loss to the arable farmers. As I have said before, farmers would like to be able to do away with many subsidies if they could see that the prices at the end were fair for what was produced.
  I was not quite sure, and I hope the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the

  1849
  debate will make clear, how much money will be lost to the farmer in total. In what area will the vast majority be? Probably it will be in eastern England. How much will it be in total—half a million, or how much—which is saved in the cost of the scheme compared with the previous situation? This, of course, must be an estimate, because no one knows how much will be spent under the £12 an acre grant.
  I am greatly concerned about the loss of fertility which is bound up with the use of grassland which is put down for a number of years and then ploughed into the soil. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that there are large areas of land in Suffolk and Norfolk which need a break. They need a break and also to have something ploughed back as humus into the topsoil. I cannot think that any large acreage of beans will be grown in the stretch of light land which will take the place of this grassland. It may be that on an Essex farm beans are very popular. Some years ago in my area one of the best farmers who was growing potatoes used to grow a crop of beans, roll them down, muck them on top, and then plough the whole lot in. That was very good preparation, but it was very costly preparation, with no income for a year, for a crop of potatoes.
  The loss of ploughing-up grant may induce loss of fertility in the land. It may induce bad practices of continuous corn growing and reduce the production from our most productive area of England, East Anglia and the East Midlands where there is the vast majority of production of arable crops.
  I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider very carefully in the next year or two the steps which can be taken to see that the income from these arable lands is not whittled away but that we have sufficient income to make sure that we can rest the land, and put back some humus into a part of the arable acreage of the lighter lands in East Anglia.
  10.23 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): It would be wrong if I followed all the discussion there has been on this Scheme. At one period we had an extremely careful academic lecture on agriculture and even
  1850
  an historical reference to "Turnip Townsend". One thing which was missing from the references was that this cut in the ploughing grant has been made against a background of a very good and wise review. It would be wrong to deal with all the excellent aspects of the Review but that could be and should be kept in mind because it plays a very important part in this matter. As we said in another place this was almost the correct moment to finalise and end the grant.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I kept the Opposition from talking about the Price Review. The Minister must not talk about it either.
  Mr. Buchan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that and it will save me from answering some of the points which have been raised. This puts a different complexion on the argument. A great deal was made of the question of tillage acreage but tillage acreage has shown not a decline but a steady rise from 11,999,000 acres to 12,104,000 acres.
  The £12 grant was limited to operations which clearly are costly but previous scrub clearance will have reduced the cost and rendered that work ineligible.
  The total amount which will be saved as a result of the cut will be approximately £1 million this year and £2·8 million next year.
  The question arose frequently of the consequences of this change on restoring goodness to the soil. Hon. Members forget that for a long time, before either the Annual Price Review or some of our modern farming methods were known, farmers in any case returned to grass. This change will not prevent those farmers who wish to do so from growing grass. This is particularly so in Scotland. It is a question of the reallocation of the money saved in other and more fruitful directions, in particular, by allowing farmers to decide on the basis of the other allocations what it is best to do with the funds which are then available.
  The other aspect is that we have introduced the concept of the break crop and a grant thereon. Discussions will be taking place. It will not be merely the question of field beans under discussion.

  1851
  Other break crops will be under discussion.
  Questions were asked about where the Part II grant goes. It is spent chiefly in the South-West, the West Midlands, the Northern Region, Wales and the hill land areas of Scotland.
  I believe that we were right to say that this is the correct moment to finalise the ploughing grants, because good fanners have in any case adopted methods of improving the land surface which have in some ways rendered this grant redundant. It could be argued that it is not correct
  1852
  economic policy to be giving an incentive to a practice which in any case good farmers should carry out.
  With these few words, I commend the Scheme to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.
  Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1967, [draft laid before the House, 19th April], approved.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS)
  10.27 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move,
  That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1967. a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved.
  This Scheme, which is similar to the current one, continues for a further year the fertiliser subsidy which the House has approved every year since 1952. As hitherto, subsidy will be paid on chemical fertilisers bought in lots of 4 cwt. or more for use on agricultural land or crops or for growing mushrooms. Subsidy continues to be based upon the phosphoric acid and/or nitrogen content of the fertilisers. No subsidy is paid on potash or on fertilisers wholly derived from organic matter.
  The rates of contribution have been reduced to yield a saving in this grant of just under £2 million. This is about 6 per cent. on the estimated expenditure which would otherwise have been incurred during the fertiliser year 1967–68. Nevertheless, we still expect to spend about £30 million on this subsidy during the coming 12 months, and this is much the same as has been paid in each of the past eight years. Taken together with the improved returns to agriculture resulting from the changes made in this year's Review, it should adequately assist farmers to maintain and improve the productivity of their soil.
  The new scale of contribution will represent about 25 per cent. of the gross cost of those fertilisers on which subsidy is paid. Furthermore, under the Agriculture Act, which received the Royal Assent yesterday, we shall be proposing to make this up to 50 per cent. of the cost of fertilisers and of spreading them to those who qualify for grants under a Hill Land Improvement Scheme.
  This reduction in subsidy was agreed at, this year's annual Price Review and it is in line with steps taken by successive Governments to reduce rates of payment from time to time as the use of fertilisers has grown.
  In this connection, I refer briefly to the recent increases in manufacturers' prices for fertilisers. This matter was
  1854
  thoroughly examined by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, as can be seen from its Report. The Government agreed, in all the circumstances, that increases within the limits indicated by the Board were justified. Against this unwelcome necessity, however, it should be said that compound fertilisers are still offered more cheaply per ton of plant food than they were 10 years ago.
  In these intervening years, we have seen significant developments in manufacturing techniques, in the stepping up of competition between suppliers, and in a big increase in demand. It is fair that I should acknowledge the part played by manufacturers and suppliers during this period in meeting the demand at keen prices.
  Turning to other matters, in general, the trends which took shape with the introduction of the subsidy in 1952 have continued over the past year. We estimate that uptake in the United Kingdom in 1966–67 will have reached its highest level yet, and we see no reason to doubt, with the incentives provided by the Review, that a further increase will take place in 1967–68.
  We think it probable that the demand for nitrogenous fertilisers will continue to rise rather more than for the two other main nutrients, as it has in recent years. There is now an added incentive to use straight nitrogen, since these fertilisers have not been affected by the recent price increases. I expect that grassland farmers especially will take advantage of this and the general incentives now offered to them and exploit more fully the profitability of using larger quantities of fertilisers to raise their grass output.
  In this matter, it is encouraging to see the publicity and advisory effort from various quarters to overcome what seems to have been a certain reluctance in liming and fertilising our grasslands. At the same time, while we have got to the stage, due to past response to this subsidy, where the increased use of fertilisers on arable crops offers, perhaps, somewhat less spectacular possibilities, there is still scope on many farms for improving yields with heavier and timely applications of fertilisers. The advisory officers of the agriculture departments are readily available to any farmer who would like help in assessing the requirements of his farm.

  1855
  I am sure that the House will agree that a high and ever-growing rate of fertiliser use is essential if our agricultural industry is to maintain its record of productivity and that this subsidy should continue. I ask the House, therefore, to approve the Scheme.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: So many critical comments about the manufacturers have been made down the years by hon. Members opposite when they were on this side that I am glad to join in the tribute which the hon. Gentleman paid to them. The part which has been played by the fertiliser manufacturers has been most distinguished, in what I describe as a considerable combined operation, in which plant breeders and chemists, engineers and the whole farming community have joined, which has resulted in an unexampled increase in productivity. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that prices have at last had to be raised, but it is a considerable tribute to the manufacturers that, for six years running, they managed not just to keep prices at the level they were but to reduce them. I am sure that the increase would have been much greater this year but for the considerable capital investment which they have made.
  I am a little puzzled by paragraph 52 of the Price Review White Paper, where we are told that fertiliser consumption in general has risen. According to the latest volume of the fertiliser statistics, in 1965–66 the tons of plant food used were 32,000 down on 1964–65, a drop of just over 2 per cent. This is an indication of which the Government should take serious note.
  Paragraph 53 of the same White Paper states that the rise in price was anticipated. It is a rise of 6 per cent. But the Government excused themselves from taking any action to counter it last February on the ground that the bulk of fertilisers had already been bought. Is that really so? My impression of the fertiliser trade last year was that with the appalling rate of interest—because of the Government's high interest rate policy—that farmers were having to pay on overdrafts, which would be needed if large supplies of fertilisers were to be laid in, a large number of farmers did not buy their fertiliser in on early
  1856
  delivery. Even if they had—perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give us some figures—the Government concede that the increase this season would hit the grassland farmer and those top-dressing grain most heavily because it is a late operation. Undoubtedly the upland hill man with a small income would be hit, as his grass comes late.
  I think that there was a very good case for a subsidy cut of 7 per cent. being withheld in a year in which the Government admit that they knew that there was to be a price increase. The calculations that I have made are that a fertiliser compound with a gross cost of £37 a ton will mean a net increase of about 9s. on the average acre of grain; about 24s. per acre on potatoes; and about 27s. 6d. per acre of sugar beet.
  The Under-Secretary of State based a great many hopes of an increase in the sugar beet acreage in Scotland on what he called the "generous allocation" of an extra 2s. 6d. per ton. To give 2s. 6d. a ton and take away 27s. 6d. an acre does not seem to me to be the best way of encouraging the sugar beet industry in Scotland.
  Mr. Buchan: I said that the introduction of the half-crown by us, plus the restoration of the transport subvention which had been slashed by the party opposite three years ago, would begin to restore the position which they had made so disastrous.
  Mr. Stodart: The Under-Secretary of State did not mention that the Government are imposing an increased cost of 27s. 6d. by cutting the fertiliser subsidy, and it is fair to put that into the scales.
  I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the debate, to say whether he agrees with me that we should take note that this is the first year in which the use of potash and phosphate has fallen. Hitherto, a substantial increase in nitrogen has always been accompanied by a slightly smaller increase in potash and phosphate. We have now a reduced use of potash and phosphate partnering a rise in the use of nitrogen.
  The use of potash is down by 3½ per cent. It is true that the potato acreage fell by 75 thousand acres, but that alone could not account for a 3½ per cent. drop.

  1857
  It should have accounted for no more than a 1 per cent. fall. With the cereal acreage expanding, and certain to expand more if our application for entry into the Common Market succeeds, this needs to be watched carefully. The best soils, having had good fertiliser applications for many years, are now creating good soil stati of potash and phosphate. But one cannot depend for future yields on past residues.
  There is a very noticeable loss of balance between the use of nitrogen, potash and phosphate in England. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to comment on that. If one takes the nitrogen norm at one, England is now using 0·6 of phosphate and 0·7 of potash. Wales uses 1·4 of phosphate and 0·8 of potash, and Scotland is almost level. Yet only six years ago England was precisely level at 1:1:1 as well.
  I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is something that probably ought to be watched. I agree that our expenditure on fertilisers is still low—he made the point about the cost of fertilisers—as a proportion of farming's gross total output. We use 4·75 per cent. in the United Kingdom, Denmark uses 5·8 per cent. and Finland 6·65 per cent.
  One must appreciate that an increase of about 40 per cent. in the application of fertilisers to grain over the last six years gave increased yields of between 30 and 35 per cent. The more concentrated fertilisers become, the more important it is that they should be used with great precision. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the advisory services go out of their way to advise farmers on the correct fertiliser use—not just for a farmer to say "I want a compound fertiliser" but explaining to him how important it is to have one, two or three for a particular crop?
  With fertilisers as available as they are, it is essential that good implements should be used and kept in good use for distributing them and that these should not be allowed to stand to corrode. It is very well worth while buying a first-class distributor in order to place fertiliser on the land with the greatest accuracy and precision. This is something that has shown itself to be valuable to husbandry.
  Although I regret the cuts in this subsidy in this year of increased costs, I shall
  1858
  not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Order.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: Whilst I was sad at the loss of the ploughing grant which we discussed a few moments ago, I am very angry at this cut in fertiliser subsidy. It is not often that I even slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) but I feel strongly about this cut.
  Sometimes we in this House have short memories and we must not forget that the past farming year has been one of the worst for many years. For the Government now to cut the subsidy is crass incompetence. The Government must know that not only have they cut this subsidy; earlier in this farming year there was a further reduction in the lime subsidy—and lime is the key to fertiliser application. Thus we have had a double cut in the establishment of growth in grain with grass and roots.
  The Government must know, too, that farmers are in a vicious circle and that they must use fertilisers. There is no alternative for them. The Government know that it is a false economy not to use fertilisers. Yet in many cases farmers are already over their overdraft limits and are in an impossible position in not being able to afford fertilisers which they should now be applying. Now, after this extremely difficult 12 months, which followed an equally difficult year, we are to have a 7 per cent. cut in subsidy despite a 6 per cent. increase in costs. The Government have treated agriculture extremely shabbily and this Scheme is something of which they cannot be very proud.
  I would like to mention one point about the incredible paper chase that the Government have brewed up over the years for payment of the subsidy. The supplier has to send a long, complicated form to the buyer who then has to fill it up, put it in an envelope, stick stamps on it and send it to the local office of the Department of Agriculture. The local office has, presumably, to look at it and then send it either to Edinburgh, or, I think, to Guildford. It has to be checked again and the payment notice sent out either to the supplier or buyer and the advice notice to the party that does not receive payment. This seems to be an expensive method of paying

  1859
  what is becoming a very paltry subsidy.
  In this computer age we hear so much about from this Government there must be some simpler method of paying the subsidy. The cost to the Exchequer and the farmer must be a considerable sum in total.
  I feel that the Government have again let down farming and that is something which is becoming all too frequent. I am sorry that we have to approve tonight a further diminution in farmers' incomes.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I must admit that I do not very often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), but on this occasion I would very much like to oppose the Scheme. The same arguments apply as applied to the Ploughing Grants Scheme. This is another cut in fanners' incomes.
  We heard from the Under-Secretary how the Price Review had been so good, but this is the second of two considerable cuts in farmers' incomes. On this occasion the cut is £2 million and on the last occasion it was £2 million.
  As has been said before, this cut in subsidies for fertilisers has to be taken in conjunction with the increases in prices of fertilisers which have been allowed by the Government in the same year. Altogether, this adds up to a very costly increase for some of our most expensive crops, like potatoes and sugar beet, both of which need large quantities of fertilisers, and the field vegetable crops, which do not have the benefit of any price guarantee arrangements. I refer, of course, to vegetable crops like carrots, onions, celery and lettuce which need considerable quantities of fertilisers. As I have said, the profitability of the vast majority of arable lands of the east of the country will be reduced.
  This, with lower prices of fertilisers on the Continent—I believe that they are about £4 a ton less than our prices—would put us into a bad competitive position if at the same time we did not have an increase in prices for cereals to bring
  1860
  us closer to cereal prices in Europe, which we may enter. This has been another blow to the farmers in my district and to all other arable farmers, and I cannot understand how it can be greeted with any pleasure or approval.
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked what advice his Ministry gave to farmers about the right types of fertilisers to use. In my district there has been a large increase in the use of liquid fertilisers. Has the Parliamentary Secretary any information about the cost worth of liquid fertilisers, their comparable unit costs, and does the Ministry consider that liquid fertilisers rather than granular fertilisers should be used in greater quantities?
  The lands which need these fertilisers, which need keeping in good heart with both organic and other fertilisers, have been made considerably less profitable over the last few years. I hope that that trend will be reversed over the next few years. I am very keen that there should be more livestock on the farms, but we cannot afford to neglect the arable crops, and that is what will happen if we keep increasing costs without increasing the end prices of crops grown on these lands.
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that this Scheme is not popular on this side of the House, for the reasons which my hon. Friends have adduced. It will clearly not help ordinary arable farmers who will have higher costs and not receive any advantage in prices.
  One can summarise the position best by asking the Parliamentary Secretary what the trends are. What is the trend in the use of fertiliser on arable crops, tillage first and then on grassland as a whole? Having told us that, can he say what advice he gets from the National Agricultural Advisory Service as to the optimum amounts of fertiliser to use on arable crops and grassland? I think that there is still a fairly large gap which the Order will not encourage farmers to make good.
  When one is considering this Scheme in this year, one inevitably thinks of comparisons with the countries with which we are now competing for exports and imports and with whom soon, in the measurable future, we may be competing

  1861
  as partners. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he can tell us about the relative use made of fertilisers by the countries in the European Economic Community. The best information that I have is based on figures given in a recent survey carried out by I.C.I., quoting the use of fertilisers and pesticides as a percentage of farm expenses. It says that the United Kingdom figure is 8 per cent., the Netherlands 8 per cent., Belgium 16 per cent., France 17 per cent., Italy 14 per cent. and Germany 11 per cent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that it is in order, in considering this Scheme, to analyse the comparative costs in the Common Market countries.
  Mr. Hill: With respect, I was hoping that I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this, because within the lifetime of this Scheme it will be called in question as to whether, as a production grant, it is something which would be allowed under the agricultural policy cf the Community which we have applied to join. There is at the moment great doubt about whether this kind of production grant would qualify. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in the life of this Scheme, will certainly find out what the relative position is and endeavour to discover to what extent it is likely to be eligible.
  Does it distort fair competition, or is it a means of improving the technical development of agriculture? I would have submitted that this is something that the Government are under a very great duty to find out, and to inform us of in detail, certainly when any subsequent Scheme comes up to succeed it, although I would hope that this would be done at a considerably earlier date.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In discussing this Scheme we cannot discuss hypothetical questions as to what the position may be on some subsequent Scheme. This Scheme merely relates to the year beginning 1st June, 1967. It seems inconceivable that any comparison with Common Market arrangements can affect the merits or otherwise of this Scheme.
  Mr. Hill: With respect, I would have thought that this Scheme would be under
  1862
  discussion within its own lifetime, and I would very much hope that the Minister of Agriculture would defend it as a desirable production grant to retain. I will leave it at that.
  The question of horticulture is always prominent when we discuss fertilisers, because every increase in the price of fertilisers falls directly upon horticultural growers and there is no recoupment, because no horticultural produce has the benefit of any guaranteed price.
  I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary what assessments he has made of the added cost that the horticultural industry would have to bear in that connection because horticulture is a relatively greater user of potash. I ask him again whether the Government are likely to find it possible to extend the subsidy to potash. I agree that this has been difficult in the past: successive Governments have said so. On the other hand, the supply position is said to have become more diverse and stronger, and eloquent as Labour spokesmen were in opposition about the desirability of extending this, they have not, as far as I can judge, taken any active steps now that they are in office. We are disappointed that this Scheme reduces the amount of subsidy because we believe it is important that British agriculture should make use of fertilisers up to the optimum level.
  11.0 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who called a Count a few minutes ago, was anxious that as many hon. Members as possible should hear the debate, but he has now left the Chamber, as have other hon. Members who have made their apologies to me for not being here.
  Perhaps I might point out to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that the cut in the fertiliser subsidy, in the same way as the cut in the ploughing grant, must be looked at against the background of the Price Review, which was a good one, I think the hon. Gentleman must admit, leaving as it did £40 million net to the farming community. Treating this cut as a separate item gets us nowhere.

  1863
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) paid a tribute to manufacturers. I agree that they have done a good job. Perhaps I might deal with one point made by the hon. Gentleman. Statutory Instruments of this type, which always seem to come on late at night, provide us with a good opportunity—thanks to the good offices of the occupant of the Chair—to have a more wide-ranging debate than we are supposed to have, and the hon. Gentleman used a light stick with which to beat the Government, though some of his hon. Friends would have liked him to have used a much heavier one.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the cost of fertilisers. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, they are cheaper today than they were 10 years ago, in spite of various cuts in subsidy. As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been an increase in the use of sulphates, and a decrease in the use of phosphates and potash, and he wondered why this was so. He asked whether the N.A.A.S. gave advice about the correct amounts to use. I am convinced that one reason—though not the sole reason—why there has been a drop in the use of potash and phosphate is that many of us—and I was one of the sinners—were using too much. Recently I was told to use a little less of these and a little more sulphate. Anyway, the drop in the use of these items is something about which we need not worry unduly.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)—I know why he is not here—shouted "Rubbish" two or three times when I spoke earlier. I cannot remember what it was in connection with, so it could not have been important. He said that last year was the worst year ever for farming. Had I wanted to, I could have said "Rubbish" when he said that, because if he had farmed from 1926 to 1934 he would have known that he was talking rubbish. I do not think that I need say any more about that, except that he, too, would not look at this Scheme against the background of the Price Review. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has said—and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree—that the policy of the party opposite is to put up the prices
  1864
  of the end products. This is what we have done, and it makes nonsense of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, Southwest dealt with arable crops rather than horticulture. The percentage cut is equally small. With regard to liquid fertilisers, the unit value of the product is paid the same subsidy. We cannot recommend any particular brand, but our advisers would give anyone advice. There is a case for using liquid fertiliser in dry weather, but I personally can see little advantage apart from the cost.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) asked where all the fertiliser went. He asked a few days ago for figures about the nationality of land owners and said that it was time we had a "Domesday Book." We might perhaps get that information; but as to the other point, if he is prepared to pay for that sort of statistic, I will do what I can, but do not know how useful it would be. I do not propose to touch on his other point about the Common Market, as you ruled that out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We know that the horticutural industry is a large user of fertilisers, but its percentage is still lower than agriculture's. We have discussed fair play for horticulture with the N.F.U. because of the rise in the price of fertiliser and the slight reduction that we have made in the subsidy. In the context of the whole picture, it is quite small. The cost of the subsidy is still over £30 million, however, and the price is still lower than 10 years ago. It is not for the Ministry to force farmers to use something. They must decide on the amount of fertilisers they need for the crops and stocks they have.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, Southwest wanted to know what would maintain fertility. The answer might be that farmers in his area should return to what their fathers did and what he does—is, to keeping cattle and sheep and increase fertility——
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The hon. Gentleman must think in terms of defending this Scheme and this practice; unless he finds the information I asked for through his civil servants, he will not be able to do his job.
  Mr. Mackie: I cannot do so tonight, but I will give the matter consideration.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Incomes
  Incomes
  Rates of Pay
  Rates of Pay
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  East Anglian Planning Council
  East Anglian Planning Council
  Scottish Development Area (Edinburgh)
  Scottish Development Area (Edinburgh)
  Regional Development (European Coal and Steel Community)
  Regional Development (European Coal and Steel Community)
  Taxation (European Economic Community)
  Taxation (European Economic Community)
POST OFFICE
  Franking Machines
  Franking Machines
  Air Letter Form
  Air Letter Form
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Local Sound Broadcasting (London Area)
  Local Sound Broadcasting (London Area)
WALES
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Welsh Economic Council
  Welsh Economic Council
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Students (Health and Grants)
  Students (Health and Grants)
  Public School Commission (Report)
  Public School Commission (Report)
  Authors (Royalties)
  Authors (Royalties)
  Independent Schools (Inspection)
  Independent Schools (Inspection)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Departmental Booklet (Scottish Schools)
  Departmental Booklet (Scottish Schools)
  Anglo-Russian Trade (Northern Region)
  Anglo-Russian Trade (Northern Region)
  Local Employment Acts (Grants)
  Local Employment Acts (Grants)
  Bankruptcy
  Bankruptcy
  Textiles (Quotas)
  Textiles (Quotas)
  Laundry Company (Inquiries)
  Laundry Company (Inquiries)
  Development Areas (Boundary Revision)
  Development Areas (Boundary Revision)
AVIATION
  British European Airways
  British European Airways
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  SOUTH ARABIA
  SOUTH ARABIA
  WORLD AUTHORITY
  WORLD AUTHORITY
  Spain (British Merchant Seaman)
  Spain (British Merchant Seaman)
TRANSPORT
  Bus Fares (Weymouth and Portland)
  Bus Fares (Weymouth and Portland)
RAILWAYS
  Strathmore Line
  Strathmore Line
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Remploy Factories (Earnings)
  Remploy Factories (Earnings)
  Work Permits (Hotel and Catering Industries)
  Work Permits (Hotel and Catering Industries)
  Government Training Centres (Cooking Courses)
  Government Training Centres (Cooking Courses)
  Coal Mining Industry
  Coal Mining Industry
SCOTLAND
  Roads (Capital Investment)
  Roads (Capital Investment)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  A94 Road
  A94 Road
  Divorce Law (Reform)
  Divorce Law (Reform)
  Communications (Angus)
  Communications (Angus)
  Independent Schools (Inspection)
  Independent Schools (Inspection)
  Dundee-Montrose Motorway
  Dundee-Montrose Motorway
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EMPLOYMENT, NORTH-EAST (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
  EMPLOYMENT, NORTH-EAST (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
  QUEEN'S PROCTOR
  QUEEN'S PROCTOR
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Guns (Royal Salutes)
  Guns (Royal Salutes)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Development Plans
  Development Plans
TECHNOLOGY
  European Airbus
  European Airbus
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Gibraltar (Aid)
  Gibraltar (Aid)
GAS
  Area Boards (Price Fixing)
  Area Boards (Price Fixing)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation (Foreign Domicile)
  Taxation (Foreign Domicile)
  Travel Allowance
  Travel Allowance
  Textiles and Cloths (Customs Checks)
  Textiles and Cloths (Customs Checks)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

WELSH REPRESENTATION ON B.E.A. BOARD
2.36 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the importance of civil aviation to Wales, a member with a good knowledge of the civil aviation needs of Wales and closely associated with Welsh affairs will be appointed to the Board of B.E.A. in succession to Mr. S. Kenneth Davies, C.B.E., whose membership of the Board terminated on March 11, 1967.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, the overriding consideration must be that a member should have the personal qualities and experience that make the greatest contribution to the airline. Whilst not precluding a person with the qualifications referred to by the noble Lord, I think it would be wrong to make any appointment to the Board on a purely regional basis.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as at the beginning there were three directors appointed on a regional basis, may I take it that the rule has now been changed? May I also take it that there will now be no one on the Board of B.E.A. responsible for and especially looking after the interests of Welsh civil aviation? May I also ask what is the function of the Advisory Committee under the new procedure? Finally, would the Minister care
1574
to say a word in commendation of Mr. Kenneth Davies's long and distinguished service to aviation, both in Wales and in the United Kingdom generally?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, dealing with the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I certainly should be very happy here publicly to thank Mr. Davies for his long and very valuable service in this capacity. Her Majesty's Government are extremely grateful to him for all that he has done. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that the rule has changed. In fact it changed in 1960 with the passing of the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, when the Regional Advisory Councils were replaced by Regional Advisory Committees. These Committees are, as their name implies, purely advisory, to advise the Board on matters of regional importance. It was felt then that it would be improper for members responsible for advising the Independent Air Transport Licensing Board to hold positions on the Boards of the Air Corporations.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that there are people living in Wales who would be a great asset to the Corporation, even though—or perhaps, as the noble Lord would say, in spite of the fact—that they are Welsh.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am quite sure that anybody who would be an asset to the Corporation will be considered with very close attention, whether he comes from Wales or not. The fact that he comes from Wales, will of course in no way preclude him from serving as a member, but I want to emphasise that the job of the member is in no way to represent regional interests.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, could my noble friend consider whether priority should be given here to men of Welsh birth?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not catch the second part of my noble friend's question.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, would it not be advisable in this case that, given equal status in experience, priority should be given to appointing a Welshman? I do not think the Government fully understand the fact that these little implications, and

1575
the gradual denigration of Welshmen, has not been accepted.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that there is no denigration, gradual or otherwise, of any Welshman. I think there are many examples in public service and Government which show that that is so.

COWBRIDGE GRAMMAR SCHOOL, GLAMORGAN
2.41 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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, since they have declared that, as a matter of national policy, secondary education in this country should be reorganised on comprehensive lines and since the Glamorgan County Council have adopted this policy for the administrative County of Glamorgan, whether any change is contemplated in the existence or status of the ancient and admirable boarding and day establishment known as Cowbridge Grammar School in the Vale of Glamorgan.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, the Glamorgan Education Authority have, with the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, postponed submission of reorganisation schemes for certain areas of the County, including the Vale of Glamorgan. I understand that they have not yet reached a decision on the future of the Cowbridge Grammar School.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while I am very relieved to hear that statement from the Minister, and grateful to him for it, may I ask him, and through him the Glamorgan County Council, to remember that this is a boarding school, the only boarding school, I believe, in Glamorgan and one of the very few in Wales, and if this school is abolished it will act very much to the social and educational detriment of the people of Glamorgan.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, both the Secretary of State and the Education
1576
Authority in the Vale of Glamorgan will take note of the noble Lord's comments, but I can assure him that in no real sense is this admirable school likely to suffer in its status.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask guidance from the noble Earl the Leader of the House. In my experience in this House we have always avoided asking in Starred Questions what one might call constituency questions. I have noticed recently that more noble Lords, on all sides, have been asking rather small constituency questions. I wonder whether we might have guidance from the noble Earl as to whether or not he thinks this is desirable.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, the noble Lord has, without warning me in advance, at any rate for more than a moment or two, raised what is undoubtedly a very difficult question here and one on which I should not wish to pronounce, either in general terms or in relation to a particular Question, without full discussion. Certainly in my experience—I do not know whether the noble Lord and the noble Marquess would agree, as past Leaders—we do try to avoid constituency questions. On the other hand, I should not agree with the noble Lord that we always succeed. It is extremely difficult to draw the line. The whole House is aware that I have no power—nobody has any power—to stop a noble Lord from putting down a Question, whether a constituency question or not, and it certainly does not lie within the power of the Table.
Nevertheless, I should think that the Leader of the House of the day carries some duty, where a Question seems to him to be unduly narrow, to suggest to the noble Lord that it might not be cast in the right form or might be better raised in some other way. I should not like to imply that I possessed such a duty in relation to this particular Question, but I realise that some such duty may fall on the Leader of the House for the time. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, feels that there has been a rather undesirable development in this direction lately, I would only suggest that he and I, and the Leader of

1577
the Liberal Party, should ourselves discuss the matter in the first place, and then, if necessary, refer it to the Procedure Committee.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, presumably my Question has prompted the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to raise this point. I do not know whether the Question referring to Mr. Kenneth Davies was regarded as a "constituency question". After all, it affects Welsh representation as a whole and is certainly not a constituency question. Wales is a nation, not: a constituency. I would remind your Lordships that at the moment this House—whether it will be so in the future is a different matter, I hope—is a House of Parliament for Wales. Secondly, may I say, if the noble Lord's remark refers to my Glamorgan County Council Question, that the whole point of the Question is that, this being a boarding school, its pupils are drawn from a wide area. That is why, again, it is not a "constituency question". I am always ready to be reproved—in fact, eager to be reproved, when I am at fault—but I do not regard myself as being at fault in this particular matter.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope I did not even imply, however timidly, that the noble Lord was at fault in any way at all. I have never noticed this passionate desire for reproof on his part, but I will venture to exploit it in the future. Nevertheless, I feel that I have really said all I can say this afternoon: that perhaps the Leaders of the Parties should put their heads together to see whether there is a tendency here which we ought to find some way of checking.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that we must be careful not to limit the freedom of this House, and, speaking as one of the three noble Lords who have had a constituency, I would say that it is extremely difficult to define exactly what is a constituency question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord means, looking at me, when he speaks "as one of the three noble Lords who have had a constituency." It is true that I once failed to obtain a constituency, if that is what the noble Lord is implying; but there must be a great
1578
many more than three noble Lords who have had constituencies.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that as noble Lords are not allowed to act vis-à-vis the Ombudsman, this is probably quite a useful ventilation in another direction?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may say so with great respect to the former Leader of the Liberal Party here, I feel that that raises a rather wider and slightly different issue. I should hope that the Leaders of the Parties could now get together.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should not in any way wish to interfere in the agreement which is taking place on the Liberal Benches upon the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore; and I was not particularly attacking him, though I venture to think that his second Question was perhaps a constituency question. But surely the point is that we are allowed only four Questions a day, and where we have Questions on matters of relatively minor importance, which are perhaps of importance in constituencies, it limits the opportunity of other noble Lords to ask Questions of more national importance.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, that, as a general principle, is attractive, at any rate, but I see the difficulty of even implying that a Question, shall we say relating to justice towards some individual, should be excluded. So I feel that these suggested talks are perhaps the only step that can be taken.

IMMIGRATION BAN ON INDIAN BOY
2.47 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 on what grounds Dharambhir Singh, a boy of fourteen, was refused admission to this country and sent back to India on May 6, 1967.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, Dharambhir Singh was refused

1579
admission because he did not qualify for admission under any head of policy. He was living with his parents, brothers and sisters in India, and no case was made out for admitting him on grounds of hardship. Moreover, no application had been made on Dharambhir Singh's behalf for an entry certificate before he set out. I cannot emphasise too strongly the desirability of would-be immigrants applying for certificates before undertaking such a journey.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I apologise to my noble friend for having in a supplementary question yesterday on a similar issue, used the conscriptive words "in detention." I did not mean more than the less emotive word "detain". I should like to take this opportunity of apologising to the Minister for using those particular words.
On this Question, I should like to ask, first, whether it is not the fact that this boy was coming to his sister in this country; and if this sister had been a Commonwealth immigrant would he not, under the present law, have been allowed in? Further, is it not an anomaly that he was not allowed to enter this country because his sister happened to be a British citizen married to a British resident?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on behalf of the medical and nursing staff at Heathrow I would express my grateful thanks to my noble friend for withdrawing the word "detention". Certainly those concerned carry out their not easy duties in accordance with the highest standards of medical care and courtesy.
With regard to my noble friend's supplementary question, it is true that this boy made the journey in order to join his sister and brother-in-law in this country. But I do not think there is an anomaly here. Had the boy been coming with his parents, and had his father been a voucher holder, he would have been admitted. But none of these circumstances arose in this case. It was admitted that the boy was nearly 15 and that, after continuing his education for a short time, it was the intention that he should take up employment. I think that not only in accordance with every rule, but also in justice to other would-be immigrants, it was right
1580
that he should be excluded on this occasion.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that answer, may I ask him this? Could more thorough arrangements be made in the countries from which these children come, so that parents and the children are informed of the conditions of entry to this country? Is it not the case that an information slip is inserted in the passport, and that very often there is no opportunity for the parents or for the child to be aware of the conditions under which he may have to return to India?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think that one would not expect a boy of 14 or 15 to be aware of all those conditions, but I cannot accept the implications of my noble friend's question. It is the case that the Indian passport authorities advise intending passengers to this country to check with the British High Commission before travelling to find out whether they are eligible for admission here. The proof that the duty was carried out on this occasion is the fact that a note to this effect was found in this boy's passport at Heathrow Airport. No inquiry of the British High Commission had been made on his behalf, and certainly he did not have an entry certificate. It may well be that the Indian passport authorities do not spell this out sufficiently—that I cannot say. But they accept the duty, and if one sees the slip in the boy's passport one is entitled to believe that proper steps had been taken to try to prevent an unnecessary and expensive journey.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us in the House think that these immigration regulations are working reasonably satisfactorily, and is it not the case that if these regulations are not carried out it would make the job of the immigration officer quite impossible and would be grossly unfair to other immigrants who want to come here?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I tried to point out, in answering my noble friend, the unfairness that would be involved had this boy been admitted, but that still does not take away the fact that the raising of questions such as that which my noble friend has raised is of considerable value, if only to the extent that it underlines

1581
what the regulations are and helps to ensure that these very expensive journeys, and these great disappointments to such people, are avoided.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not likely that the slip is put into the passport at the airport as the boy is leaving? Would it not be possible to consider giving the information at the time when the ticket is purchased, so that there is a longer period in which those concerned can appreciate what the results may be?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is not as easy as all that. The fact that a boy comes from India, at a very expensive fare, may mean in many cases that the arrangements have been spread over a period of months. If the noble Lord, Lord Byers, were at the airport to see what happens when these young people arrive here he would realise that every effort is made by the immigration officers to explore every possibility of eligibility; and, if the children are in any way eligible, they are admitted. It is not for me to say whether or not the Indian passport authorities are carrying out their duties as explicitly as we should like them to—I believe that they are—but I do know that the fullest possible information is given to citizens in this country who intend to have their relatives come to them from overseas.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, is there no way in which it would be possible to allow responsibility for these journeys to fall more heavily on the shoulders of the airline transporting the people? I feel that if this were done before the passengers were allowed to board the aircraft in the country of origin, particularly India or Pakistan. the airline would make sure that their papers and documents were in order and that they would be allowed into the country to which they were travelling.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order! Speech!
LORD MOYNIHAN: I suggest that possibly the noble Lord might consider some way in which the airline would be required to take them back free of charge.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would only remind the noble Lord that the airline authority have to carry the person back to the country of origin if he is refused entry here, with a very doubtful chance
1582
of recovering their fare, and I am sure that they do all they possibly can to avoid bringing people here on fruitless journeys.

GIBRALTAR: AIR TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS
2.55 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present position reached in the discussions taking place within the Council of the I.C.A.O. in Montreal over the restrictive Spanish ban on flights near Gibraltar; and bearing in mind the possible interference with established air navigation and the creation of a hazard to the safety of aircraft and passengers, what action is proposed:

(a) to ensure the continuance of normal air navigation;

(b) to determine the delimitation of territorial waters between Spain and Gibraltar.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the question of the prohibited air zone declared by Spain in the vicinity of Gibraltar was, on our initiative, raised in the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation at Montreal yesterday. The British representative made clear Her Majesty's Government's view that the Spanish declaration infringes the Chicago Convention and should not be put into effect. The Council's consideration of the matter will be resumed to-day. As soon as the outcome of the discussion in Montreal is known, we shall decide what further steps may be necessary to ensure the continuance of normal air navigation.
As regards the delimitation of territorial waters between Spain and Gibraltar, this was one of the issues which we proposed to the Spaniards should be referred to the International Court of Justice. The Spanish Government rejected this proposal last December but our offer remains open.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord

1583
very much for that answer. May I ask him one supplementary question? As any ban on flying for civilian aircraft between the Spanish mainland and Gibraltar up to within 200 yards of the airfield is totally unreasonable, will Her Majesty's Government take any step which may be necessary to guarantee that B.E.A. and B.U.A. are able to carry out their normal and established approach procedures into the airfield?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the area in question, as the noble Lord may know, is in fact in close proximity to the Gibraltar airfield, and it is about 40 miles long by 20 miles wide. So obviously the prohibition, if implemented, would affect the safety and regularity of flights of civil aircraft to and from Gibraltar. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear—and I make clear again now—that we fully intend to uphold our right to use the airfield at Gibraltar; and this means both for civil and military use.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Chalfont will be making two Statements at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. The first will be on Aden, and the second will be on the reorganisation of the Infantry.

CENTENARY OF CANADIAN SENATE
2.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose to move, That this House most sincerely congratulates the Senate of Canada upon its centenary and upon the fulfilment of the farseeing hopes with which the Government of Queen Victoria introduced the British North America Bill into this House in 1867, and assures the Canadian Parliament and people of its continuing interest in their future, and in the maintenance of the close ties which have been built up over the past hundred years between this House and the Senate; and that this Resolution be communicated to the Senate of Canada with the warm greetings of this House.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Before I do
1584
so, I should like to tell your Lordships that earlier this week I had the pleasure of entertaining Senator Connolly, the Leader of the Senate in Canada. I was then able to discuss with him this Motion, and was pleased to hear from him that what we are setting out to do to-day would be warmly received in the Senate in Canada.
The hundred years since the creation of the Confederation of Canada and of the first independent nation of the Commonwealth have seen the peaceful evolution of a young pioneer society into one of the most advanced industrial nations of to-day. Yet her standing to-day on the world scene is based not only on the material wealth created by the strenuous endeavours of her people but in the example of responsibility, enterprise and democracy which Canada has given to the world in her domestic affairs and in all her dealings abroad.
Members of this House need not be reminded of the sacrifices of Canada—our ally in two world wars—in past years. To-day her efforts continue, within the Commonwealth, within NATO, within the United Nations, for the safeguarding of world peace, the pacification of troubled areas, and the bringing of prosperity to the developing countries. Her contribution to the more harmonious world order which we are all seeking has been second to none. But in moving this Resolution I should like particularly to suggest that Canada's pre-eminent role in modern society and in the international scene is above all a measure of the soundness of her roots, the spirit of her people and the Parliamentary institutions which have so outstandingly guarded her democratic tradition. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House most sincerely congratulates the Senate of Canada upon its centenary and upon the fulfilment of the farseeing hopes with which the Government of Queen Victoria introduced the British North America Bill into this House in 1867, and assures the Canadian Parliament and people of its continuing interest in their future, and in the maintenance of the close ties which have been built up over the past hundred years between this House and the Senate; and that this Resolution be communicated to the Senate of Canada with the warm greetings of this House.—(The Earl of Longford.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there will be no-one in this House who will not wish to associate himself with the Motion moved by the noble Earl, and with the way in which he has commended it to your Lordships. I rise only to say that we who sit on this side of the House wish to join in the good wishes to the Senate and the people of Canada expressed by the Leader of the House.
Earlier this week we were discussing the Common Market, and there may have been some who thought that in some degree this decision might affect the ties—the family ties and the ties of relationship and affection—of those whose history originated in this country and who form the Commonwealth. This would be a complete misjudgment. On the contrary, we believe that such an association will mean a stronger Britain and, consequently, a stronger and closer Commonwealth. Canadians should always know that whatever may happen in the future, Common Market or no, they can always expect from us in this country the same feelings of friendship and kinship which have existed for these last hundred years.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches should very much like to be associated with this Motion, and I should personally like to endorse the words of the Leader of the House and of the Leader of the Opposition—and particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about the Common Market. We have a very high regard for the Canadian people. Speaking personally, again, I was in a position during the war to appreciate the very great contribution made by, first, the Canadian Corps, and later the Canadian Army. We on these Benches, in particular, have many friends in the Liberal Administration of Canada, and we should like to join with the other Parties in this House in sending the warmest greetings to the Senate.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, as Deputy Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which has 900 members from both Houses of this Parliament, I hope I may be allowed to associate myself with this Motion on behalf of the United Kingdom branch. Last year the Annual Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was held in Ottowa. The plenary sessions of
1586
the Conference were held in the Senate House of the Canadian Parliament, and the committee sittings were held in the Lower House. I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Shepherd, as a hereditary Peer, did not make history as a result of his making speeches at one of the committees in an elected Chamber.
However, be that as it may, I think I should be expected by all the members of the United Kingdom branch to express on their behalf our warm welcome and our warm support of this Motion. I made my own position clear in the debate on the Common Market the other day, but I should like to endorse very strongly what has just been said by the Leader of the Opposition: that the Commonwealth of Nations, whatever action we may take in entering the European Economic Community, will remain as one of the great forces for peace and cooperation in the world in the future.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sure the House does not want to linger long on a Motion about which we are all so fully agreed, but we owe so much to Canada that it would be a pity if there were any suggestion that this was a formal acceptance of what has been moved. I wish particularly to refer to the point which my noble friend Lord Carrington has made, because in the discussions on the European Economic Community not very much was said about Canada, although it may have been in most of our minds. Indeed, there was sometimes a tendency to paint with one brush the United States and Canada.
They are very different countries. Indeed, the whole existence of Canada depended on the resolution and character of the Canadians in refusing to join the 13 revolting Colonies. Secondly, Canada is the only country of the Americas—either North or South—which has wanted to maintain positive links with Europe. She has done that to this time, and in the course of doing so has set the pattern of the Commonwealth which we know to-day. It is Canada who set it by her constant refusal to allow institutional reform to supersede her own independence, and yet she maintained considerable individuality of outlook.
As far back as, I think, the time of Mr. Gladstone she refused to support his action in the Sudan. She said: "No,

1587
this is something which he has got into and we are not going into it, too." As we all know, she came immensely into the First World War and into the Second World War. She declined to join Mr. Lloyd George in Chanak. I mention this only to show that this was the form which she very early took, and which has been followed in practice by many other countries. She did it very slowly. She took, I think, ten years to get a High Commissioner in this country, about forty years to form the Royal Canadian Navy and sixty years before sending an Ambassador anywhere at all. We owe her a great deal for the form in which she has led the Commonwealth and which has been followed by others, though I regret to say not at the same easy pace which Canada herself has taken.
May I add one other point? Canadians have taken one quality from this country, and that is self-criticism. We are very self-critical and so are they. I believe they carry it to the point of masochism, which is wholly unnecessary. When you go over there they are constantly telling you of the difficulties they have—of geographical lines which are North and South rather than East and West, of the preponderant power of the United States, of their linguistic problems. I hope that that period in Canadian life is over and that they will realise that they are a great nation playing an immense role in the world to-day, and if they disappeared something would be lost from the comity of nations which would be the loss of us all.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, may I, for a very particular reason, be allowed to associate myself personally and very warmly with this Motion? The particular reason is that my great-grandfather was Governor of British North America when the Bill referred to in the Resolution was before your Lordships. He became the first Governor-General, a fact of which my family and I and our successors will always be extremely proud. For that reason I asociate myself most warmly with the Motion moved by my noble friend—if I may so call him—Lord Longford, and trust that Canada's future may be even more glorious than her past.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
Ordered, That this Resolution be communicated to the Senate of Canada with the warm greetings of this House.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is purely a consolidation measure and applies only to Scotland, except in relation to cross-Border warrants and a number of consequential amendments and repeals. Basically, the Statutes to be consolidated are the Police (Scotland) Act 1956, Schedule 7 to the Police Act 1964, and the Police (Scotland) Act 1966. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The cardinal feature of this Bill is that it transfers the functions of some 200 local water authorities to 13 new regional water boards. This is not change simply for the sake of change. It is a measure which the Government put forward as an integral part of the modernisation of Scotland, the urgency of which cannot be over-stated in relation to economic growth. The Bill makes changes which will take the water service out of an administrative framework which has altered very little in the past century and which is so unsuited to modern needs that it cannot be allowed to continue even for the few years until the Royal Commission on Local Government has made recommendations. A new administrative basis for water supply—one which will serve present needs and

1589
all foreseeable future needs—is needed now. I should like to develop this theme briefly before describing the Bill itself.
Water supply in Scotland has for many years been wholly a local government service. There are no private water undertakings. The local water authorities have, on the whole, served our needs well. Some of them can stand comparison with undertakings anywhere in the world. This must not be allowed to blind us to the fact that many, because of inadequate financial and technical resources, are no longer able to keep pace with rising demands for water. The pattern of course varies throughout Scotland. In the past, local water authorities were able to meet immediate needs from sources close at hand. Some can still do so. In many parts of the country the demand for water is now such that it can be met only by developing the more distant sources, and the heavy costs involved must he kept within reason by the maximum degree of co-operation.
Slum clearance, the construction of vast new housing schemes in the overspill areas and in the new towns, and better living standards, have all increased domestic demands. It is the extraordinary requirements of industry, however, which have created the real problems of water supply, which must be solved if our economic plans arc not to be frustrated. Some industrial processes use enormous quantities. To take just one example, in Grangemouth water consumption has risen since the end of the war from about 2 million gallons a day to about 15 million gallons a day, nearly 90 per cent. of which is for industry; and during the next decade the demand is expected to rise to 25 million gallons a day. Scotland can he particularly attractive to large water-using industries because of the huge reserves of water which it possesses; but these new industries will not come to Scotland unless the water can be made readily available to them. The problem is to create the organisation which can develop the sources and bring the water where it is needed. We believe that the Bill does this. It will establish a water service that is geared administratively, financially and technically to meet all the demands which are likely to be made on it.
1590
The Bill implements the recommendations of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, made in a series of four Reports since 1963, and covering the water service throughout Scotland. The Committee drew attention to serious shortcomings in the service, and said that many of these arose from its being in the hands of too many small water authorities. I would be among the first to recognise that efficiency does not go hand in hand with size. But about 100 of the 200 present water authorities supply populations of less than 5,000, and I think we must recognise that such small authorities will usually find it easier to improve their water supplies in a wider combination.
In their fourth Report last October, the Scottish Water Advisory Committee recommended that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible to provide for a regional water service. This was hardly a surprise to us, because the principle of regionalisation had been recommended in the Committee's first Report on Central Scotland in 1963, and both the previous and the present Government had accepted it and had been making efforts—unavailing efforts, as it turned out—to secure the establishment of regional boards under a procedure prescribed in the Water (Scotland) Act 1946. That is the backcloth against which the Government present this Bill. It has been fully examined and debated in another place, and its general principles have been accepted on all sides.
I turn now to the main content of the Bill. Clauses 1, 2 and 7 provide for the establishment of 13 regional water boards which between them will cover the whole of Scotland. The region each board will serve is detailed in Part I of Schedule 1. It is not to be expected that everyone will agree on the ideal way of dividing Scotland into regions for water purposes. There has been a great deal of discussion over this—in the Scottish Water Advisory Committee and with the local authorities as well as in Parliament—and in another place disagreements over the boundaries of three of the regions, the North, the North-East and the East of Scotland, were taken to Divisions. We shall he able to discuss them in detail during the debates in your Lordships' House. For the moment, I will content myself with two I observations: the regions must be large

1591
enough to enable the boards to provide an efficient service, and particularly to enable them to command the services of adequately-qualified water engineers; and the boundaries between regions should wherever possible follow natural divisions between catchment areas—that is to say, the tops of hills—rather than existing county boundaries.
The boards will be responsible for the supply and distribution of water for their regions. In general, they will be responsible for all headworks, treatment works and distribution mains—that is, for the whole service, from source to tap, even where the source is situated outside the region. But some of them will obtain some of the water they require from the water development board, to which I shall refer in a moment, or from other regional boards. Each board will be autonomous within their own region and will have direct access to the Scottish Office. They will come into existence on dates to be appointed by orders made by the Secretary of State—most, if not all of them, before the end of the year. This will allow time for the boards to settle in. to appoint their staffs and to make other necessary arrangements before the functions of the present water authorities are transferred to them. We hope that this transfer of functions will take place at the beginning of the local authority financial year on May 16, 1968.
Apart from fixing these appointed days, some administrative matters of a relatively minor character will be dealt with by orders. These include the membership of the boards (Clause 7). special financial arrangements in appropriate cases (Clause 11(5)) and consequential amendments of local enactments (Clause 29). Clause 30(4) requires that there should be consultation with the local authorities concerned before any order is made. This consultation process has already started. A senior officer of the Scottish Development Department has had meetings in eleven of the proposed regions with representatives of the authorities. Arising out of these meetings, the local authorities in each region are now consulting together about the administrative and financial questions which will have to be settled before the orders can be made; and they have also undertaken to consult together about any water supply proposals which
1592
arise in the next year, to ensure that they will fit into the regional pattern.
Clauses 3, 4 and 8, with Part II of Schedule 1, establish a water development board for Central Scotland and define the board's area and functions. The board's area will cover the seven most populous regions—about 80 per cent. of Scotland's population. As with the regional water boards, the Secretary of State is to determine by order matters such as the date on which the Central Board will come into existence and will take on functions under the Act.
The Central Board's main functions will be to co-ordinate the development of new sources within the central area and to manage those water schemes which are designed to supply two or more regional boards. The Central Board will supply water only to regional boards and not direct to consumers. But from the beginning the Board will be responsible for the Loch Lomond and Loch Turret schemes, which eventually will supply up to 120 million gallons a day, and inevitably will play a key role in the strategy of providing for the water requirements of industry in Central Scotland.
Clause 5 provides for changes of detail which may be required in the future within the framework established by the Bill. It enables the Secretary of State, by order, to alter the boundaries of regions, or to create entirely new regions (for example, by combining two regions, or by reorganising three to form two), and to establish boards for the new regions. It also enables further water development boards to be established if needed, and the areas of water development boards to be altered. The procedure relating to orders under this clause is set out in Schedule 3. It is more detailed than that applying to other orders under the Bill; it provides for notice of proposals to be published, an opportunity for objections to be submitted and, if the objections are not sustained by the Secretary of State, for the draft order to be approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.
Clause 6 specifically requires boards to consult together and to collaborate in matters of common interest. The regional boundaries have been drawn by reference to physical considerations but this does

1593
not mean that there is no need for cooperation between boards; as I have already mentioned, some boards will give bulk supplies across their boundaries to neighbouring boards as a regular arrangement, and encouragement will be given to the linking up of the mains of neighbouring regions so that, even though water is not normally moved across the boundary, it will be possible for regions to help each other out when needs arise through, for example, a sudden upsurge of demand in one of them.
The main financial provisions relating to boards are contained in Part II of the Bill. Householders will still pay for their water by rates; but premises which are wholly metered will, as a matter of convenience, no longer require to make part of their payment through the domestic water rate. Regional water boards will requisition from local authorities in whose area they supply water—that is in Clause 11. One effect—I think a desirable one—of regionalisation is that there will be a levelling out of the wide disparities in water rates which exist at present. Clearly, however, the ratepayers in a low-rated area should not be suddenly faced with an unduly steep increase in rates. So subsection (5) of Clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to include special financial arrangements in orders, where the normal basis of requisitioning would be unreasonable or inequitable. In the first instance, the local authorities in each region will consider among themselves what special financial arrangements may be necessary; and the Secretary of State will be disposed to accept any reasonable arrangement which has the support of all the authorities in a region. Clearly, however, if there is a difference of view between constituent authorities, the Secretary of State will have to consider all the factors and decide on an arrangement which is in his view reasonable and equitable to all the authorities.
Clauses 12 to 15 provide a means for the water development boards to recover their expenditure from the regional water boards in their area; the method of requisitioning is to be embodied in an "apportionment scheme" which requires to be approved by the Secretary of State, but the Bill states a general principle which schemes are to follow—the requisitions are to be proportionate to the quantities of water supplied and expected to
1594
be supplied to boards over a period. Part III of the Bill contains provisions under which assets and liabilities of the existing local water authorities will transfer to the boards, and Part IV contains a number of miscellaneous and supplementary provisions.
My Lords, while Scotland is blessed with abundant water resources—sometimes, but not always, abundant when we want it—it will never harness these resources efficiently and economically under the present administrative structure in which responsibility is fragmented among so many separate water authorities. Responsibility must be placed in the hands of units which are financially and technically strong, which can command the best engineering skills, and which are capable of serving the industrial needs of Scotland. The proposals in the Bill have been accepted by the local authority associations and individual authorities themselves are already anticipating the transfer of functions by the consultations to which I have referred. I can, therefore, commend the Bill to the House with an assurance that its principles enjoy wide acceptance.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Hughes.)
3.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for explaining the provisions of this Bill with his usual clarity. I should also like to endorse that the Bill commands general acceptance, in principle, on all sides of the House. As he pointed out, the climate of Scotland is such that a great deal of water falls, at any rate on one part of it, but, nevertheless, it is increasingly essential, in view of the industrial development of our country, that these supplies should be efficiently conserved; and what is more important, I think, that supplies of pure water should be properly preserved and conserved. Therefore, I should like to tell the noble Lord straight away that we on this side of the House accept the general principle behind his Bill quite wholeheartedly. I do not wish to keep the House for very long this afternoon, as I suspect that noble Lords have their eyes, if not their hearts, on the forthcoming Recess. But there are one or two points that I should like to make concerning the Bill.

1595
As the noble Lord said, there has been a great deal of discussion both inside and outside Parliament regarding the number and geographical divisions of the new regional water boards. Indeed, passions have been aroused on this subject in certain parts of Scotland. I think, personally, it is right that the present 199-odd water authorities should be drastically reduced. I can only hope that the number 13, which is what we have now arrived at for the new water boards, will not prove to be unlucky.
I have reservations concerning the proposed inclusion of Orkney and the Shetlands in the North of Scotland Water Board, and I am not convinced that the North-East Board could not profitably be divided into two. I do not want to argue these matters this afternoon, although I think it is probable that we shall return to them in the Committee stage. What I think is important is that before the appointed day the Secretary of State should be absolutely satisfied that the regions are, as it were, right. I understand and appreciate that under Clause 5 of the Bill the Secretary of State is taking power to alter the regions and, indeed, to create new boards; but my own feeling is that, in practice, once the present boards become settled it is not going to be at all easy to alter them. I think therefore it is extremely important that before the appointed day everyone should be satisfied that the regions are the right regions, and that the divisions are reasonable and equitable to all concerned.
My Lords, may I mention a small point here in connection with Clause 5. As I understand it, at the moment there is no provision for any sort of inquiry in the case of objection to any scheme that the Secretary of State may put forward. I feel myself that in the public interest, and to safeguard the rights of the general public, it would be better if there were included a provision for a public inquiry in the case of objections which are not withdrawn. After all, I think this is so in the case of planning legislation, and I do not see why it should not be so in the case of water legislation under this Bill. I am not saying that it is something which would happen very often, but I feel it would be better if such provision were made.
1596
My Lords, I wish now to say something briefly about the composition of the boards. I understand that some of the smaller counties and water authorities are a little troubled in case their representation will be swamped by the larger authorities. I have no doubt that this is something which the Secretary of State will take into account, but I think it worth mentioning and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will bear the point in mind because I think it is a genuine fear.
Secondly, I feel that it is very important that there should be on each board one member, at any rate, who has professional knowledge of the needs of industry regarding water. The same, I think, may be said to apply in certain areas to the question of tourism and the hotel and catering industries. I doubt whether the ordinary local authority member of a board would have this knowledge. The Secretary of State may well be aware of the problem, but I thought I would mention it and ask the noble Lord to take note of it and pass it on to his right honourable friend.
There is another question on which the noble Lord did not touch much. It refers to staffing. I understand that there is a considerable shortage of water engineers and trained and skilled staff generally. Added to this there is the difficulty, which exists at any rate in some of the smaller authorities, that the water engineer undertakes all sorts of other duties as well, such as looking after lighting, sewerage and roads. I wondered what proposals the Government had in mind to deal with this problem, which is a very real one. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say something about that when he winds up the debate.
I do not intend to say anything about finance this afternoon, except that I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that the Secretary of State realises that the transitional period will be a difficult one and that some form of arrangement, either with the local authorities or the Scottish Office, will have to be made if some of the more drastic consequences of the levelling up of the water rate between rural and urban areas are to be avoided. The only worry I had was that I saw in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that it is not considered there will be any extra call on the

1597
Treasury. I hope that any expense the Secretary of State may have to incur in this bridging finance will not be at the cost of postponing urgent schemes. Perhaps the noble Lord could say something about that as well.
My Lords, I have one further point to make: it concerns the duties of boards, a matter which the noble Lord did mention. Under Clause 6 they will collaborate and consult with each other. I have no quarrel with this, but I think it would be very desirable that the new boards should be required to consult with other boards working to some extent in the same field—I am thinking particularly of the river purification boards. After all, apart from the need on which I think we all agree, to have good clear pure water, these boards have been in existence for some time and have acquired a good deal of experience and technical knowledge, which I should have thought would prove very useful to the new boards. One might say the same to a certain extent of the Hydro-Electric Board. I have no doubt that the new regional boards will consult the river purification boards, but I feel that it is something which should not be left too much to chance and that it would be better if it were written into the Bill.
There are many other points which one could raise, but I shall not attempt to do so this afternoon. I have already spoken for too long, and I apologise to the noble Lord for "hopping about" over his Bill in something rather less than chronological order. But in conclusion, I would say just this. We sometimes hear a lot of talk about excellent enterprises—as indeed I think this is—but I feel that sometimes we fail to put into practice what we preach, because we have not always thought the thing out from its foundations. That is why I have put forward some of these points; not only because, in my view, they are important not only for the efficient working of the Bill when it becomes an Act, but because I feel strongly that the members of the boards and their staffs, and all the people who will be concerned with this legislation, should feel that they have a good Act to operate. Certainly, as the noble Lord says, modern Scotland needs a modern water system, and this Bill, though not, I think, absolutely perfect,
1598
goes a very long way to achieve that. Therefore I hope very much that it will receive a rapid Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
3.36 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, that this Bill is generally accepted by both sides of the House, so that I do not wish to say very much on that aspect. I should like, however, to air one issue with regard to the Bill which has not very general acceptance. When the Water Resources Act 1963 went through your Lordships' House I argued at all its stages that it was a great mistake to put Cumberland in with Lancashire: I thought this the wrong sort of "marriage". I got nowhere. I argued the matter on Second Reading and again during the Committee stage, and, as I say, I came up against a blank wall. Sometime later, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood (as he is now, though at that time he was in another place), managed suddenly to push the matter just over the edge and achieved his object. The Minister gave way, I think because he felt that the arguments were sound. I hope that the same thing will happen regarding what I have to suggest to-day.
My right honourable and honourable friends in another place feel that the same sort of mistake is being made in this Bill with regard to Orkney and Shetland, which the noble Marquess mentioned a moment ago: the same sort of administrative mistake which was originally to be made in the 1963 Act about Cumberland and Lancashire. It is a mistake: Orkney and Shetland cannot be put in with Caithness and Sutherland. This Bill proposes to do for Scotland more or less what the 1963 Act did for England, and I think that the advantages of that are self-evident. Everything it does in other respects is good. I entirely agree that the greatest benefit to Scotland from the present Bill will be that it reduces the ridiculous number of 199 different little water authorities to a total of 13. I agree that it has taken something like twenty years to reduce the number even to 199, for originally the total was about 208, or something like that but now that we are to reduce the number to 13 we shall achieve something.

1599
Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are exceptions. Where you have isolated places like Orkney and Shetland, or the Hebrides and the Western Isles, special problems arise, and they cannot be treated in a uniform manner. Some of the problems with regard to the Western Isles and the Hebrides have apparently been solved, although possibly with some anomalies; but the difficulties of Orkney and Shetland do not seem yet to have been solved.
My Lords, these difficulties were argued at great length in another place, and there was a feeling among my honourable friends that the Minister was accepting their arguments and was going to give way; or, at any rate, was prepared to review the problem again. However, that did not happen. The difficulties have also been the subject of long and difficult negotiations in Scotland, and it appeared at one time that a compromise had been reached. Unfortunately, it fell through. It might be supposed that this is very much a "parish pump" issue, but I do not think so. It would not have been listened to and argued with the care and attention it received in another place if it were; nor, indeed, would it have attracted the amount of support among all Parties that it has attracted if in fact it were not a point of real substance. It is a difficult administrative problem and there is much to be said for both sides of it. I suggest that the Government are finding the easy way out by proposing to go back to the recommendations of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee. These proposals are neither the recommendations of the Institute of Municipal Engineers nor the original recommendations of the British Waterworks Association.
I admit that from all accounts Caithness is one of the most go-ahead water authorities in Scotland, one of the strongest, and has an extremely good record, but I still do not see that that is a good reason for putting Orkney and Shetland with it. Orkney and Shetland are an area with totally different problems. It is not an area which in any foreseeable future is going to be one of industrial growth. The islands are remote. The distance from the North of the Shetlands to the South of the Orkneys is half the length of England. There are dozens of islands. The existing trans
1600
port links are not with Caithness, but with Norway, Inverness and to some extent Aberdeen. It is half a week's job to attend a meeting on the mainland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed to some of the arguments that have been put forward for this amalgamation, without actually mentioning Orkney and Shetland in the course of his speech. One of those arguments is that nowadays it is impossible for a small authority to get technical advice. I do not accept that argument. It is argued that it is expensive to go outside and get the advice of consultant engineers. I think it was suggested that Orkney and Shetland had spent too much money in the past getting advice from consultants; therefore, they ought to be in one big set-up where it would be unnecessary to go to outside consultants. I am not sure that I accept that argument.
A great deal is said about how difficult it is to get water engineers and how they are not available to join these new authorities. I suggest that one of the reasons why they are not available is that we are asking too many engineers to go into too many different set-ups. It is much better to go on using the services of the large consultant firms. When you want legal advice, you go to a large and important firm of solicitors. It is not necessary to have your own solicitors and consulant engineers. Because an authority like Orkney and Shetland have to go outside for their technical advice, this is not necessarily a waste of money.
Another argument is that a small authority cannot be a viable one. Is this really true? It is currently fashionable to suppose that no small business can be viable, but surely this depends on the field in which it operates. There are fields where the mosaic of mini-patterns are best served by a mini-authority on the spot rather than by a supposedly more viable machine three days journey away. It seem to me that in Orkney and Shetland, where there are these dozens of islands, small-scale water supplies and all the difficulties of communication, a mini-authority may well be the best one. I entirely agree that it is only in exceptional circumstances that one can allow a small authority to remain in being to-day, but I suggest that here there is a reasonable exception.

1601
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that we cannot wait until the review of local government comes out to make up our minds about what happens in Orkney and Shetland, because the need to get on with the reorganisation of water supplies is too urgent. I admit that the Minister and the Government have tried hard to achieve some sort of solution which would be acceptable not only to the Scottish Office but also to the people in Orkney and Shetland and other countries concerned; but, having failed, they have thrown their hands in and have gone back to their first paper thought. I wonder whether they would not be willing to have another look at this, after having asked themselves whether large-scale set-ups are necessary in all cases and whether in this case something rather smaller would not meet the requirements very much better.

SOUTH ARABIA: APPOINTMENT OF NEW HIGH COMMISSIONER
3.47 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement on South Arabia which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary: The Statement is as follows:
"During the last week I have been giving the most careful thought to the situation in South Arabia and what we need to do in order to bring about the transition to independence with the best practicable results, the least harm to our own interests and the greatest prospect of a stable and assured future for South Arabia. In these discussions I have had the advantage of the advice of my noble friend the Minister without Portfolio, Lord Shackleton, who returned for consultation after two weeks in Aden, and also my noble friend Lord Caradon, the Minister of State at the United Nations.
"The final stages of the transition to independence will increasingly give rise to important problems of an international and diplomatic character, as well as those of colonial administration. I have concluded that it would greatly help the Government in dealing with these problems to have available someone with wide experience both in international affairs and in the affairs of the Arab world. I propose to arrange
1602
forthwith for Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to take over the High Commissionership in South Arabia. Sir Humphrey has been our Ambassador in a number of posts, including two posts in Arab countries. In addition to being—as the House well knows—a man with an independent mind, I am confident he possesses the ability, experience and energy to accomplish the very difficult task, which he has agreed to undertake. He will take up his post in about ten days' time.
"In making this appointment it will be necessary for me to recall the present High Commissioner, Sir Richard Turnbull. Since there have been leaks which I must tell the House I deeply regret, and in consequence a lot of uninformed speculation on this change, I wish to make it clear that there is no truth in any suggestions that there have been differences between Sir Richard Turnbull and myself, either personally or over policy. What is more, the change casts no adverse reflection on Sir Richard, to whom I should like to pay a special tribute. He had long passed his normal retirement date and we should all be grateful to him for carrying out a task of the utmost difficulty with courage, resolution and high ability, after he had already completed a distinguished career in the public service.
"He and Sir Humphrey Trevelyan are both public servants of notable distinction. The change is being made because I think that Sir Humphrey's experience and background will bring new and valuable assets to bear on the problems at this stage. As a result of all the consultations I have had, I have become convinced that the situation which will develop over the remaining months will require a somewhat different kind of background and experience from that which Sir Richard has had, and it is for that reason alone that I am making this change.
"The new High Commissioner must clearly now be given time to settle in.
"The House will understand, therefore, when I say that this is not the occasion to go into detail about the policy which I propose should be followed from here on. I realise, however, that the House will wish for me to deploy and for it to be able to discuss

1603
a full statement of Government policy. I undertake that discussions will take place through the usual channels to arrange for such a debate as soon as it is desired when we return after the Recess.
"I can, however, assure the House now that the action I propose to take will be inspired by the twin aims announced by the Government, which will continue to be the orderly withdrawal of our military forces and the establishment of an independent South Arabia at the earliest possible date. We shall continue to work in close consultation with the United Nations for the establishment of a broad based Government by the time of independence."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his courtesy in repeating the Statement which, as he has said, does not come as much of a surprise to anybody in your Lordships' House. I really feel that the Government ought to look at the security on these matters. This is not by any means the first time that this has happened in the last few weeks: in fact, I cannot think of any Statement which the Government have made since Christmas which has not "leaked" to the Press before it has "leaked" to your Lordships' House. I should have thought that in a case of this kind it gives rise to all sorts of undesirable speculations, and indeed it certainly has done so in this case. I see, for example, that in the Evening News we are told that there is to be a Statement in the Commons to-morrow that the Government have decided on Stansted as the third London airport. I really do think it was a good system that Parliament should be informed of these things first.
There are two questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord, and they arise as much from the speculation in the Press as they do from the Statement he has made. The first is this. Will he confirm that Sir Richard Turnbull was not dismissed as a result of the United Nations Mission incident, or that his
1604
dismissal shows in any way a weakening in the Government's determination to maintain law and order in, and responsibility for, Aden? Secondly, can he confirm that the Government still intend to keep to the rigid timetable of withdrawal and no military commitment to the Federal Government, which has been their policy hitherto, or does this mean that there is a likelihood of a change of policy? If there is not, though, of course, we naturally wish Sir Humphrey Trevelyan well, I must say that I do not feel hopeful about his chances of success. I should, however, like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said about Sir Richard Turnbull.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to associate ourselves with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said. It is difficult to comment on the merits of this change, but we indeed wish Sir Humphrey Trevelyan the best in a very difficult political and diplomatic situation. We should like to have some statement from the Government, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Conservative Party asked, about the implications of this Statement on the Government's intentions with regard to dates of withdrawal and independence.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I ask whether it is still the view of Her Majesty's Government that the United Nations can play a useful role in the solution of this complicated problem; and, secondly, whether they desire that the United Nations Mission should return to Aden as soon as possible and make their contribution to ending the present deadlock, possibly by organising a round table conference to be attended by all parties concerned in this problem?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on leaks are concerned, I repeat, as my right honourable friend has said in another place, that we much regret that a leak took place in this instance. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will recall from his own days in Government, it is difficult to keep confidential matters of this sort from a questing, unshackled and free Press. But having said that I regret this leak,

1605
I think I should also say that I regret any embarrassment that it has caused to the people most immediately concerned, and particularly to Sir Richard Turnbull. I hope the noble Lord will agree that, apart from this unfortunate aspect of the case, no lasting damage has been done, and I hope that we can now forget it and go on to the problems of the future.
Following on from that, I can certainly confirm, and do confirm here and now, that Sir Richard Turnbull was not dismissed as a result of the experience which he and all of us had when the United Nations Mission went to, and subsequently left, South Arabia. Nor indeed does the change in the High Commissionership indicate any weakening in our determination to maintain law and order for as long as we remain responsible for the Colony of Aden.
So far as change of policy is concerned, I think I made it clear, or at least my right honourable friend made it clear in his Statement, that this change does not mean any change of British policy. Perhaps I might use this, also, as my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Byers. We shall continue to make every effort to bring together the various political groupings in South Arabia.
In reply to the question of my noble friend Lord Rowley, we believe that the United Nations has a valuable part to play in South Arabia, and we hope that it will be possible to reach a solution with the participation of the United Nations. The Mission is now in New York. My noble friend Lord Caradon is in close and constant touch with them, and we hope they will find it possible to go back and make contact with those who boycotted them in the first instance. I think I should end by saying that, so far from indicating any change in policy, we shall withdraw our forces from South Arabia on independence, which is to take place by 1968; but in the meantime we shall do our utmost to conquer terrorism in the area.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while refraining from any comment on policy at this moment, could I ask my noble friend whether in this House, as well as in another place, an opportunity will be given after the Recess to discuss this matter?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I shall, of course, consult with the noble Earl the Leader of the House about this, but I am sure that a debate of this sort can be arranged through the usual channels.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect what was said in your Lordships' House only four short weeks ago in exchanges, in which, on the eve of his departure, the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, said:
"… repeat what my noble friend Lord Chalfont said about the administration, both as regards the High Commissioner and the troops. Everything that I have learned in a fairly intensive study in the last two days confirms the high opinion that has always been expressed about them. I have no doubts at all—and indeed great confidence—that we shall get on very well together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1170, 11/5/67.]
In view of that statement only four short weeks ago, and while I am very glad of the tribute which the noble Lord has repeated, it seems strange that in such a short time it is found that this change is necessary. One hopes (and perhaps the noble Lord can comment on this) that The Times in its leading article to-day has not put its finger on the nub of the problem when it says:
"Put in the simple terms in which Arabia and other parts of the Middle East will see it, is Britain preparing to sell more of its friends down the river?"
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is not a fact that Sir Richard Turnbull has served his country well?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, in line with the question which has just been asked—a question which I have put to the Government once before—if it becomes clear that the fulfilment of their policy will entail a lamentable bloodbath in Aden and the Federated Government, will the Government still rigidly adhere to their policy, or will they be willing to modify it?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the question about Sir Richard Turnbull and the remarks made about him a few short weeks ago are concerned, I see nothing inconsistent in this and in the Government's latest decision. We still have the highest regard for Sir Richard Turnbull. I can confirm, of course, that he has served his country well, and has

1607
continued to do so beyond the age when he might normally have expected to retire. As my right honourable friend explained in another place, the change is due to the need for a change in background and what has been called the style, modalities and methods of dealing with this problem. This is no reflection at all upon Sir Richard Turnbull, and I cannot see that there is anything inconsistent in this policy.
As to future policy in the area, I have said, and I say again, that we contemplate no change in this policy; but of course it will be our aim—it has been all along and will continue to be—to keep the bloodshed down to an absolute minimum in this very difficult period that will face us between now and independence. This is a classic example of the struggle for power that goes on when a withdrawal is contemplated. I should like in this context to pay tribute again, as I have before, to the way our Armed Forces are playing their part in these terrible conditions in South Arabia.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I revert for one moment to a point raised at the beginning of his observations by my noble Leader about the unfortunate leaks which have taken place? What I am going to say is certainly no possible reflection on the Minister who is answering here, and who always treats this House with complete frankness and courtesy. But, having been responsible for public relations in Sir Winston Churchill's Government, I would ask this question. Is it not really impossible to suppose that the large number of leaks which have taken place on this subject—and this is not a unique occasion—could have arisen without the knowledge, if not the approval, of some of the Ministers concerned? I am not making a Party point upon this matter, but it is really quite intolerable that Parliament—either House—should be treated in this way. I honestly should have thought that for the Ministers closely concerned with the negotiations it was almost equally embarrassing.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, what the noble Earl said in his last few words is of course the key to the whole thing. The Government can have no possible interest in allowing or encouraging these
1608
leaks. They are as embarrassing and unwelcome to us as to this House and to the other place. This is not a new development in public life. I hope that no one will suggest that the business of leaks to the Press, and of the Press revealing confidential matter, has suddenly become a problem. This is a problem about which my noble friends on this side, I recall, had occasion to complain when noble Lords opposite were in office. There is nothing new about it. It is a natural risk of public life and of Government. We regret these leaks and we will do all we can to prevent a recurrence of them. But I think it wrong and misleading to suggest that we are faced with a completely new problem.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord says that there is nothing new about this. I am not wishing to disagree with that comment, but is it not the case that these leaks are taking place far more frequently than ever in the past, and cannot the noble Lord say that steps really will be taken—and the utmost possible steps—to try to trace the source of this leak, whoever it may be, and to prevent such leaks from occurring in future? Also, if this leak was through the indiscretion of a Minister, and not through something improper happening, should that not be told to Parliament?
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that these matters have occurred so much more within the term of office of the present Government that he should look most carefully at the source from which these leaks may arise, having regard particularly to what has been said, with a view to making an example of any person found guilty of it? This matter has now got beyond the stage when we can just gloss these things over. We must do something serious about them, and whatever the cause or reason behind them we should make an example of any person, whatever his office, who may be found guilty of leaking matters of this kind.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, without commenting on any of the observations made, I think I should say that we have passed a long way from Question Time. A number of noble Lords have offered views, and I would, with great respect, suggest that if there are any more points to be raised they

1609
should be raised strictly in interrogatory form.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may we have an answer to the point I raised?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the direct answer to the noble and learned Viscount's question is that I have no statistical evidence that there has been greater frequency of leaks under this Government than under any previous one, and I should doubt whether that is so. However, this does not affect the fact that we regard this leak, as all other leaks of confidential and secret information, as of great seriousness. This is no disposition on the part of the Government to gloss these things over. There is now a well established procedure for investigating leaks. This one will be investigated, and if there is anything that transpires that is worth saying in this House or in another place, I am sure the Government will arrange to say it.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord says that there is a well-established procedure for investigation when these leaks are noticed. Can he tells us, regarding any of the other leaks we have had in this last three months, whether the source has been discovered and, if so, who was responsible and what happened to him?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will realise that I could not disclose information of that kind at this time, even if I had it by me. But I can assure him that when a leak has taken place it has been fully investigated, although not always successfully.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, in view of the importance of this matter, can it be agreed through the usual channels that after the Recess a debate on it may be held in order that it is fully discussed and properly explored?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking whether this House could profitably hold a debate about leaks, I am afraid I would not commit myself to that view. I think it would be a very strange kind of debate. But I never like to turn down a suggestion from any noble Lord, certainly not one from Lord Wakefield of Kendal, and
1610
the usual channels can discuss any subject. But, as I say, I think it would be a curious kind of debate.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if such a debate were held, would it not have to be on the integrity of the British Press, which is wholly antagonistic to the present Labour Government?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before this matter goes too far, may I say that if the Government investigate this matter and find any culpable person, I would not of course ask them to hold their hand. But so many leaks may occur. I could cite one that occurred in Sir William Harcourt's time, which is rather amusing. But so many leaks occur through things for which people can hardly be held responsible, that I should not wish the House to take a very fierce view while it was still in ignorance.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will take note of and, of course, pass on all that has been said on this subject. I should like to say, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, that I think that in the vast majority of cases the British Press behave with notable integrity and restraint, and I personally am not surprised if, when they come into possession of a piece of information, they publish it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think the House may feel that they have explored this matter sufficiently for the moment.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I revert to the original subject and ask this question? Is it not very unfortunate, from the point of view of timing, that this Statement should be made on the third day of the Royal Saudi Arabian State Visit to London? Is it not well known that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, however distinguished he may be an an ex-Ambassador, is well known to be a friend of Colonel Nasser, in contra-distinction to his predecessor, who has taken exactly the opposite view?
A NOBLE LORD: Disgraceful!
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this is a most unfortunate element to have crept into the debate, and I think the noble Lord may, on reflection, regret that he said it. I also do not believe that there is anything particularly relevant or

1611
dangerous in the fact that this Statement was made at this time. The most far-reaching and friendly discussions are going on with King Feisal at the moment, and I do not think—indeed, I can assure the noble Lord—that this announcement has caused any deterioration in those discussions.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, contrary to many of the views expressed by noble Lords opposite, is my noble friend aware that, while paying the highest tribute to Sir Richard Turnbull for the work he has done as High Commissioner in South Arabia, many noble Lords on this side of the House feel that the replacement of a High Commissioner with experience in East Africa by a High Commissioner with wide experience in the Middle East will enormously strengthen the hands of the Government in the very difficult negotiations that lie ahead?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that remark and I am sure it reflects the view and the hope of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

REORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY
4.11 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat another statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence: it concerns the reorganisation of the Infantry. The Statement is as follows:
"As the White Paper on Defence explained, a wide-ranging examination of the long-term structure of the Army is being carried out. The Government has already taken decisions about the organisation of the Infantry. Since we must now consult a wider circle about putting these decisions into effect, I thought it right to inform the House about them now.
"The Infantry of the Line is at present grouped into thirteen Brigades or Large Regiments and the Parachute Regiment. Each contains either three or four battalions. It has become clear
1612
that the present groupings are too small to meet the needs of the future.
"Accordingly, the Infantry of the Line, apart from the Parachute Regiment, will be organised into five new larger groupings, to be known as 'Divisions', each being formed by amalgamating either two or three Brigades or Large Regiments. The names of the new Divisions will be as follows:

The Queen's Division, which will consist of

The Queen's Regiment,

The Fusilier Brigade,

The Royal Anglian Regiment;

The King's Division, which will consist of

The Lancastrian Brigade,

The Yorkshire Brigade,

The North Irish Brigade;

The Prince of Wales's Division, which will consist of

The Wessex Brigade,

The Mercian Brigade,

The Welsh Brigade;

The Scottish Division, which will consist of

The Lowland Brigade,

The Highland Brigade;

The Light Division, which will consist of

The Light Infantry Brigade,

The Royal Green Jackets;

The Brigade of Guards also will become a Division.

"These large groupings will allow for contraction, or for expansion, with the least possible difficulty. In the new organisation it will be easier to smooth out inequalities in manpower as between one battalion and another. The reorganisation will make for efficency in recruit training and economy.
"The new organisation will be introduced by planned stages and will be complete by the middle of 1969.
"The aim is to meet the needs of the future while preserving the best features of the regimental system.
"I have arranged for the details of the reorganisation to be available in

1613
the Library and they will also be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Following are the details of the reorganisation referred to by Lord Chalfont:

REORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY
Introduction:
1.The White Paper on the Defence Estimates 1967 (Cmnd. 3203) stated that a wide-ranging examination of the long-term structure of the Army was being carried out, and that it was hoped to announce further plans for the long-term size and shape of the Services later this year. Decisions have already been reached on the future organisation of the Infantry. As these are of very close concern to the Army the earliest opportunity is being taken to announce them.
Present Organisation:
2.The Infantry is at present organised into Brigades or Large Regiments. The Brigade of Guards contains eight battalions. The Infantry of the Line is made up of ten Brigades, three Large Regiments and the Parachute Regiment, each containing three or four battalions. A Large Regiment is a more closely integrated group than a Brigade of Infantry of the Line. This organisation is set out in the Annex.
Divisions of Infantry:
3.It has become clear that, for the reasons given below the present groupings of battalions within Brigades and Large Regiments are too small.
4.The Infantry structure of the future must allow for contraction, which could be considerable, or for expansion in the number and size of infantry units with the least possible difficulty. The present structure is a well established organisation but it is now necessary to develop it further into larger groupings to meet such changes.
5.Recruiting is largely on a territorial basis. There arc inescapable fluctuations in the recruitment to individual Brigades and Large Regiments. The formation of larger groups for personnel management purposes will make it easier to eliminate any inequalities in strength and in specialists.
6.With larger groupings, it will be possible to concentrate recruit training into fewer Depots; this will make for training efficiency and for economy.
7.The Army Board have rejected the possibility of a Corps of Infantry devoid of subordinate groupings of Regiments. A single Corps would he unwieldy and impersonal to a degree inimical to effective personnel and general management. What is needed is a reduction in the number of groupings, not their abolition. They have accordingly decided that the Infantry should be reorganised into larger groupings to be known as "Divisions".
8.The Infantry of the Line, less the Parachute Regiment, will be organised into the new
1614
Divisions by grouping together existing Brigades and Large Regiments as follows:

Division

Existing Brigades and Large Regiments

The Queen's Division

The Queen's Regiment

The Fusilier Brigade

The Royal Anglian Regiment

The King's Division

The Lancastrian Brigade

The Yorkshire Brigade

The North Irish Brigade

The Prince of Wales's

The Wessex Brigade Division

The Mercian Brigade

The Welsh Brigade

The Scottish Division

The Lowland Brigade

The Highland Brigade

The Light Division

The Light Infantry Brigade

The Royal Green Jackets

9.The Scottish and Light Division are smaller than the others but each has distinguishing characteristics justifying a separate identity. In general the new groupings reflect geographical contiguity of home recruiting areas. In each Division a Headquarters will be formed, superseding existing Headquarters of Brigades and Large Regiments. Officers will be gazetted, and soldiers enlisted, into the Division. Whenever possible, officers and soldiers will be posted to the Regiment of their choice. Basic training will be carried out in Divisional Depots. Regiments will preserve their identities, territorial affiliations and titles. To facilitate posting between battalions, there will in due course be some rationalisation of dress and eventually a Divisional cap badge will be introduced.
10.The Brigade of Guards, which is already roughly of the size proposed for a Division, will continue as a separate organisation. In conformity with the new nomenclature its title will be changed to The Guards Division.
11.The Parachute Regiment, because of its special characteristics, will not be included in any Division of Infantry and will remain in its present form.
12.The new Divisional organisation, which will be introduced by planned stages, will be complete by the middle of 1969.
The Future:
13.The new system of Divisions of Infantry will meet the needs of the future while preserving the best features of the regimental system inherited from the past. It will be flexible enough to meet all the demands that may be made upon it and will thus provide a stable enduring structure for the Infantry.

PRESENT ORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY
The Brigade of Guards:

1st and 2nd Battalions, Grenadier Guards.

1st and 2nd Battalions, Coldstream Guards.

1st and 2nd Battalions, Scots Guards.

1st Battalion, Irish Guards.

1st Battalion, Welsh Guards.

The Lowland Brigade:

The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)

The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment).

The King's Own Scottish Borderers.

The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles).

The Queen's Regiment:

1st Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Queen's Surreys).

2nd Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Queen's Own Buffs).

3rd Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Royal Sussex).

4th Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Middlesex).

The Lancastrian Brigade:

The King's Own Royal Border Regiment.

The King's Regiment (Manchester and Liverpool).

The Lancashire Regiment (Prince of Wales's Volunteers).

The Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire).

The Fusilier Brigade:

The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers.

The Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers.

The Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment).

The Lancashire Fusiliers.

The Royal Anglian Regiment:

1st (Norfolk and Suffolk) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

2nd (Duchess of Gloucester's Own Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

3rd (16th/44th Foot) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

4th (Leicestershire) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

The Wessex Brigade:

The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment.

The Gloucestershire Regiment.

The Royal Hampshire Regiment.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment (Berkshire and Wiltshire).

The Light Infantry Brigade:

The Somerset and Cornwall Light Infantry.

The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry.

The King's Shropshire Light Infantry.

The Durham Light Infantry.

The Yorkshire Brigade:

The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire.

The Green Howards (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment).

The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding).

The York and Lancaster Regiment.

The Mercian Brigade:

The Cheshire Regiment.

The Worcestershire Regiment.

The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's).

1616

The Sherwood Foresters (Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Regiment).

The Welsh Brigade:

The Royal Welsh Fusiliers.

The South Wales Borderers.

The Welsh Regiment.

North Irish Brigade:

The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.

The Royal Ulster Rifles.

The Royal Irish Fusiliers (Princess Victoria's).

The Highland Brigade:

The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).

Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons).

The Gordon Highlanders.

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's).

The Parachute Regiment:

1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions, The Parachute Regiment.

The Royal Green Jackets:

1st Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (43rd and 52nd).

2nd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (The King's Royal Rifle Corps).

3rd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (The Rifle Brigade).

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. He will of course appreciate that we cannot give our approval to these proposals until we have heard a great deal more about the details and the reasons for them. I think it is only nine years since a very thorough reorganisation of the Infantry was carried out, and it seems to many of us that the new system established in 1958, with the large regiments, has hardly had time yet to settle down and get working, and there are many people who are most anxious that nothing should now be done which might upset the operational efficiency of the Infantry.
May I ask the noble Lord to say what is the main reason for this change now? Is it simply in order to achieve greater flexibility? I think we agree that under this new set-up it seems likely that it will be much simpler and easier to transfer officers and men from one unit to another; but, after all, in two world wars, under much more difficult conditions, the regimental identities were preserved because the value of the regimental spirit was always recognised. Or is t he reason for taking this action that it will be much easier in future for the Government to

1617
make cuts, to disband units by detaching them from one of these new large Divisions, than it would be under the present system? If so, under what principle are these reductions to be made? Are they going to be made in accordance with our commitments, or are they going to be made to fit some financial ceiling which has no relation to our military commitments?
In particular, may I ask the noble Lord to confirm what I think was probably implicit in his Statement. He mentioned the Scottish Division, which will consist of the Lowland Brigade and the Highland Brigade—and these, of course, have already been agreed upon. Can he confirm that the Highland Brigade and the Lowland Brigade will each continue to consist of the present four regiments, the Black Watch, the Gordon Highlanders, the Queen's Own Highlanders, and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, and the four Lowland regiments in the Lowland Brigade, and that there will be no interference with their identity, their uniform or their regimental organisation? Further, will the Government bear in mind that the amalgamations which have already taken place among Highland regiments are really as much as can possibly be afforded, and that any further reductions in the future would very gravely damage recruiting in an area where the ratio of recruitment to the population is probably higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the reasons for this reorganisation are, as I have indicated, that the Brigade system as it is at present constituted—a system of Infantry Brigades—does not solve the problem of the inequality between recruiting in regions. I agree with the noble Earl that Scotland is a special case; indeed, that has been taken account of in this reorganisation. But we have to minimise the effect of these variations in recruitment by making the organisations larger and therefore covering a wider region of the country.
Secondly, it is, as the noble Earl suggested, and I confirm, much easier to move officers and soldiers between one battalion and another if the two battalions concerned are part of a single organisation. Experience in the functioning of the present system has shown that larger
1618
groups are needed. So far as flexibility in the size of the Infantry as a whole is concerned, this will make it easier to alter the number of battalions in the Order of Battle, not only to reduce the number but, if necessary, to increase it. With regard to the reductions and the increases I think I can assure the noble Earl that these decisions will be taken on the basis of a whole complex of factors, including the Defence expenditure and the commitments that we have to carry out.
So far as the Scottish Division is concerned, the future of the regiments, as in the case of all the other Divisions that are being formed, is that certainly for a time the Brigade cap badges and other insignia, and the identity of regiments, will be retained. But it is possible that when this system has settled down there may be some move towards a more divisional esprit de corps, which might even be reflected in Divisional cap badges.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that we have not yet sufficient details to decide on the general principle which has been enunciated in regard to the new Divisional organisations. I wish to make one point, however, and that is that I believe the new organisation, so far as it affects Wales, will be totally unacceptable to Wales. There are English Divisions; there is, as we have just heard—and I am very glad of it—a Scottish Division, but there is no Welsh Division. I am quite sure that my fellow-countrymen will not put up with that, and I am most surprised to hear it from the lips of a former member of the South Wales Borderers. It there can be a Guards Brigade turning into a Guards Division, why cannot there be a Welsh Brigade turning into a Welsh Division? Is it not a fact that the noble Lord's Regiment, the South Wales Borderers, my Regiment, the Welsh Regiment, and the Royal Welch Fusiliers have some of the finest recruiting statistics in the islands?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, you can well imagine that I am predisposed to sympathise with anything that has to do with the susceptibilities of Wales and especially with the future of Welsh infantry regiments. But I fear that in this case the facts of life must take precedence over whatever affiliations I or the

1619
noble Lord may have had in the past. There are, after all, only three Line Regiments in Wales. They may indeed be the most distinguished Line Regiments in the British Army, but there are only three of them, and this would make too small a unit. To have kept the Welsh Brigade, even as a Welsh Division, in being would have created a precedent that all other Brigades would have wanted to follow. The noble Lord will realise that the analogy of the Brigade of Guards, or Guards Division, is not complete, because there arc many more battalions in the Household Brigade, in the Foot Guards, than in the Welsh Brigade, which has only three of the best Regiments in the British Army.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, surely if the Government wished they could raise at least one more battalion in Wales. May I stress once more to the noble Lord, and ask him to look into this question of the national identity of the Welsh Brigade. Surely to a Welshman I need not stress that. I am sure I have his support. I would ask him to use his undoubted charm on his colleagues.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will of course take note of what the noble Lord has said, and I can assure him that I will represent his views to my colleagues. The question of whether we can raise another battalion in Wales is in no doubt. As he says, we have one of the best recruiting records in the whole Army, matched only, I think, by the Scottish Division, as it will be, but the question of raising another battalion is outside the frame of reference of this reorganisation.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I make one remark which is meant to be helpful. I do not know whether the noble Lord realises that in the Highlands—talking about my own Seaforth, Cameron and Queens' Own Highlanders, Black Watch, Gordons, and Argylles—people do not join the Army, they join the Regiment. This has always been the case in the Highlands. I think it is worth remembering that you could very seriously affect recruiting at some future time when you needed it.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, being a member of a war-like tribe my
1620
self, I know only too well that our countrymen tend to join infantry regiments and not the Army. My own view of this reorganisation is that within the requirements of reorganisation, which are imperative if the Army is to function efficiently over the next 10 or 15 years, we have done our best to preserve what is good in the regimental tradition.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke about the changes making the training of recruits more rapid. Long experience has shown that there is a great psychological difference between people of the Highlands and people of the Lowlands, and a great deal of time will be saved if the training of Highland recruits is carried out in one place and the training of Lowland recruits in another unit. There is a great deal of time and expense to be saved in that way, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government to keep that in mind in training recruits.
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, of course we will keep that in mind. There is a need here for economies and rationalisation, but within that need we will, of course, bear that sort of consideration in mind.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Statement means that the name of every infantry regiment of the British Army will disappear from the Army List?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords, that is not so. The regiments will retain their names and identities. The only difference will be that, instead of being parts of infantry brigades, they will become integral parts of infantry divisions of the names I have mentioned.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is obviously a subject which will be of great interest for some months to come. In view of the fact that we are in the midst of the Water (Scotland) Bill, if we continue discussion on the Statement I will be in grave difficulty with my Scottish friends who wish to speak and then depart North for the Whitsun holiday. May I suggest that we now move back to the Bill?

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.25 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, from the subject of the infantry of the British Army may I return to the more pedestrian matters of the Water (Scotland) Bill. From the leakage of the secrets of State may I come down to the question of the water leaks which occur in the inefficient distribution of water at the present time in Scotland and which this Bill seeks to remedy. I would join with other noble Lords in giving a warm welcome to this Bill, the general principles of which are accepted on all sides.
I was particularly persuaded by the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, his clear exposition of the reasons for having an ad hoc regional authority and the importance of the ad hoc regional authority. It is therefore rather interesting to see in the report in the Scottish Press to-day of evidence given to the Royal Commission on Local Government, sitting at present in Edinburgh, that the Directors of Education were pressing their views in favour of regional education authorities, but that these proposals were countered by Mr. Norman Graham, Secretary of the Scottish Education Department, who said that the ad hoc system had been condemned and they knew no reason why it should be more successful now. The serious problem, he said, lay in having two local government authorities both dependent on local government finance structure. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to give us an assurance that Mr. Graham was speaking for himself, that his views are not those of the Government and that St. Andrew's House is not speaking with two voices.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has raised the question of Orkney and Shetland being linked with Caithness in one regional authority. I hope that the Government will take another look at this absurdity. During the war I served for a time in Ultima Thule and in a modest way was responsible for the provision of water for the troops, as I happened to command a battalion that
1622
was moved into a new area. The water supply is what one might call a very ad hoc thing throughout these islands of Orkney and Shetland. It is impossible to work a large system of water supply; water is taken from the locality. Some of the islands are large; they have hills and a good water shed, and it easy to collect the water. All that is needed for organising a good water supply in the greater part of these islands is an intelligent plumber. There is no need for a water board at all. If the problem in Orkney or Shetland, or in any of these islands, becomes too difficult they can do as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, suggested and call in consultants.
The absurdity of this proposal to link the islands with Caithness can hardly be credited. Here you have Orkney and Shetland looking to Aberdeen for their main communications, looking to Aberdeen for their Hospital Board, looking to Inverness for the Highland Development Board, looking to Inverness for the Crofters Commission; and now, under this Bill, they will have to look to either Wick or Thurso for their water supply. The idea does not stand reasonable examination, and I hope that something can be done to put this matter into proper perspective.
To change to another subject, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, raised the question of how the river purification boards are likely to be affected by the regional water boards and water development boards. I think it is most important that before the major water developments take place, when they are planned, it should be written into the Bill that purification boards should be consulted at that stage. If water is suddenly extracted from a river either by a regional board or by a development board, without the purification authority knowing, then the purification authority will have immediately to raise its standards; and that may have serious repercussions on industry. It is absolutely vital that the purification boards should know what is going on at the earliest possible moment. Already in their sixteen years existence they have gained tremendous local knowledge. They have the understanding of how to gauge rivers; they have the knowledge of the flow of the rivers, and they have the understanding of the measurement of the rainfall which affects the problem. They

1623
also employ people called hydrological engineers. Hydrological engineers are not the same species of engineer as the water engineers, who are the engineers of the type that will be employed by these water boards and water development boards.
I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, of the assurances he gave me when we were discussing the last purification board Act in this House, of the high quality of the scientists and engineers already employed, or to be employed by the purification boards; and he said that there was no need for we ordinary mortals to have any fear about their probity or skill. Those employed in the purification boards have that knowledge which the water boards will not have. Therefore I think that it should be written into the Bill that there should be, at a very early moment in thinking out the scheme, consultation with the purification boards. I would also point out that in the Lothians area 50 per cent. of the river water comes from underground sources, and the problem of the water before it reaches the rivers should be considered.
In the Third Schedule to the Water Purification Act 1951 the river purification boards are included among the bodies to whom notice of proposals to make a Water Order are required to be given. This provision seems insufficient, since by the time that stage is reached a draft Order will already have been published, and the only public remedy would be a formal objection, leading to a time-consuming public inquiry. And once you get the water engineers up against the hydrological engineers, you have two sets of experts fighting each other at an inquiry. I suggest they would be much better occupied being made to thresh out their problems at an early stage. My Lords, this situation of too late consultation with the purification boards has already occurred once in Scotland, in the Lothians area, and a repetition of this in the future could be averted if a requirement for this earlier consultation is written into the Bill. It is because of this that I would plead that the Government give consideration to an Amendment to this effect.
4.35 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, with the knowledge and consent of my noble friend Lord Bowden, whose name appears on the list of speakers in mistake for my own, I hope I may detain your Lordships for a few minutes in connection with what is a purely Scottish problem. As I am sure everyone will agree, we are indebted to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hughes, for his clear explanation of the Bill, but there are one or two points which the staff consider to be most important. Amendments have been put down centring round Clause 20. Of course, I do not propose to discuss those Amendments at the present stage, but I sincerely believe that if between now and the Committee stage the Department and my noble friend Lord Hughes, with his long and varied experience of local government in Scotland, get together, with the assistance of the representatives of the staff, they will be able to resolve the difficulties and effect adjustments.
Ordinary organisation causes problems, and with this Water Bill there is a major reorganisation for Scotland. I believe I am correct in saying that 199 separate authorities will disappear in due course, when this Bill becomes law. On reflection, noble Lords will realise how all the staffs of those authorities must feel concerned for the future. But I believe that if what I have suggested takes place between now and the Committee stage we may be able broadly to overcome these difficulties to the satisfaction of all concerned, and that when it becomes law the Bill will enter on its new stage with the goodwill of all concerned.
4.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. In doing so I have the unanimous support of seven water authorities; namely, the Counties of Ross and Cromarty, the Royal Burghs of Dingwall, Tain and Fortrose, the Burghs of Cromarty and Invergordon, and, last but not least, Stornaway in the Isle of Lewis. Noble Lords who are familiar with this area and others like it, and indeed those who are not familiar with it but who look at a map, will come to the same conclusions, I think, as those which are so well set out in the Final Report of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee. In this the Committee advise that Ross and Cromarty Water

1625
Board should cover all the water authorities that I have just mentioned.
I will not go into all the conclusions that made this the obvious course, as they are all detailed in paragraph 86 of the Report. But, broadly speaking, they give as overriding reasons—and this applies to the Highland counties generally—the widely flung landward areas, almost wholly covered by mountain mass, the population for the most part scattered sparsely in glen and coastal lowland and therefore served perforce by local water supply systems. The Report continues that any amalgamation with another county would be quite unsatisfactory, creating managerial difficulties, and would be inefficient and uneconomic.
I know that Orkney and Shetland wish to continue as two separate water authorities, and I have no desire to introduce any spanner into their works; yet we should object very strongly if any change introduced by this Bill were to alter the position of Ross and Cromarty. I would draw the attention of the House to the difference in population within the area which I have mentioned. The two water authorities in Shetland would serve a population of under 18,000, while the three authorities in Orkney would serve a combined population of under 19,000. The 3,000 square miles of Ross and Cromarty have a total population of over 57,000, of which 43,000 live in the landward area and within six small burghs. This Bill is well reasoned and workable, and I would urge your Lordships to give it your support.
4.42 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:
My Lords, I should like to make one or two remarks before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replies to the debate. I support all that my noble friend Lord Lothian has said, and would commend the principles lying behind the Bill. I should like to ask one or two questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. These water boards are, of course, regional water boards, and rightly so. What will be the relationship between the county councils and these regional boards? Can the regional boards operate quite independently of the county councils or the city councils within their areas? In other words, will they be all-powerful bodies?
1626
I should like also to join my noble friend Lord Lothian in his question as to whether the Bill will contain any provisions relating to appeals. If a local authority has recently embarked upon a big, expensive new water supply, as is the case in the county council of which I am a member, the costs involved are very considerable, and are met partly by central grant and as to a large part from the ratepayers. When these supplies are taken over will the Boards pay compensation to the county council and, through them, to the ratepayers for the amount of money which they have been spending in recent years in putting in a new water supply? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is aware of the Alewater scheme, which is a very large scheme and one which is not yet finished, but which will make a great contribution to the water supplies in the Borders of Scotland.
May I ask the noble Lord if he can say whether the boards will be anxious to develop new water supplies so as to increase supplies of water everywhere? Of all the local authority subjects one comes up against when speaking to people all over the country, the subject of water is always predominant; there just never seems to be enough water. I hope that most of the new regional water boards will pursue actively and energetically the question of getting enough water. It is not only a question of the needs of industry and housing. The agricultural industry to-day, with its modern equipment and methods, requires water, and its needs will increase as the years go by.
The noble Marquess asked whether the boards would have upon them representatives from industry. May we be assured that the agricultural industry will be well represented upon them? When I look through the list of the boards and the areas into which they are divided, I am struck by the fact that the overwhelming number of boards which are being joined together in these regions deal with industrial subjects and areas. I hope very much that the interests of agriculture will not be overlooked, as I think they are apt to be at present; it is certainly unfortunate when they are overlooked.
Finally, I would ask the noble Lord to remember, when he is considering appointments to the boards, that women

1627
are as heavy users of water as men. Therefore, when he is thinking of choosing people to serve upon water boards, I hope he will remember that in local authorities there are a great many first-class women who are interested in health, welfare and water supplies. I hope that we shall not be faced with a whole body of regional water boards to which not one single woman is appointed. The noble Lord knows that this is one of my "King Charles's heads" with which I pursue him from time to time, but I thought that if I got my word in now he would have no excuse, when the moment for appointment comes, to say that the idea had never occurred to him. With those few remarks, may I say that I support the Bill, and hope that it will prove to be a very useful piece of legislation for Scotland.
4.46 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment or two? The Orkneys have been mentioned, and I know the Orkneys fairly well. I was taking a walk one day in the Orkneys and came upon a small crofter's house. There was a dear old lady of about 65 tending a cow. I sat down and had a little talk with her and said, "When did you last go across to Caithness?". She said, "I've never been to Caithness". I said, "Why not?". She answered, "I would not trust my life with those Sinclairs".
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to ask one question of the noble Lord. Lord Hughes; and I apologise to him for not being present when he started his speech. I should like to take up a point which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, which was that the Bill does not anywhere say what the duties of the regional boards are to be. It may well be argued that since it is monopolistic this is not very important, as it is not possible to lay down duties and see whether or not they are being carried out. But it raises the question of how the ordinary member of the public can have any influence on the regional boards. How is the member of the public to get anything done, and what kind of pressure can he bring to bear?
Most of these regional boards, so far as I can see, will consist of representatives from the local authorities. Local autho
1628
rities vary in the degree of sensitiveness which they show towards members of the public and public representation, but this organisation set out in the Bill is one step away from a local authority. It would not appear to me that it would be very sensitive to public pressure. It would be interesting to know how representations could forcefully be made. This is something which is very real and which not only affects industry and agriculture, but private houses and ordinary people. How can an ordinary member of the public get his views put across to such a body? I welcome the Bill as a step forward, but I should be grateful if the House could be given some idea how the point which I have outlined could be met.
4.49 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the welcome which has been given to the Bill, and I will endeavour to answer some of the points that have been raised during the discussion. The noble Marquess asked whether there would be any provision for a public inquiry where there were conditions arising under Clause 5. I would remind your Lordships that Schedule 3 to the Bill lays down the procedure to be followed in the circumstances. A draft order has to he advertised, so there is an opportunity for objections. Under the Bill the Secretary of State will consult interested authorities about his proposals, and if there are objections which are not withdrawn the order has to have the approval of Parliament.
These are very wide safeguards, and it seems inappropriate, having regard to all this, that the Secretary of State should be required, in addition, to hold a public inquiry. The Secretary of State already has power to hold an inquiry into any matter which may be considered necessary under Section 73 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946. Should he consider that he needs the benefit of an inquiry into a draft order under Clause 5, he would not hesitate to use the power which he already has under that previous Act.
The question of the value of having direct representation of industry on regional water boards was discussed, I think fairly fully, in another place. It was decided that that was not necessary because, having regard to the wide nature of the representation which is to come from the local authorities, in the sort of

1629
regional boards to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, particularly referred, it is virtually impossible that the local authorities could keep out of membership all the representatives of the agricultural industry who form such a large part of their own membership. It would require an exercise in ingenuity almost beyond that of the ordinary county council so to devise the representation as to keep them all out. So I do not think there need be any undue worry that these boards will not have within their membership people with experience in almost all of those subjects in which the boards would be interested.
The noble Marquess raised the question of bridging finance. The special financial arrangements to which I referred, and which are contained in Clause 11(5), are meant to ease the transition from varying rates to a common regional rate. For those authorities whose rates will go up as a consequence of regionalisation part of the increase will be deferred by a similar deferring of part of the reduction which some of the other authorities will get. It is purely an adjustment between the rating authorities concerned. That is why I was able to say that if we had a proposal which was accepted by all the authorities concerned, the Secretary of State would have little difficulty in putting it into effect. I must, however, at the risk of disappointing the noble Marquess, make it quite clear that there is in this connection no intention involving an injection of additional Exchequer funds.
He also raised the question of staff who carry out omnibus duties. In addition to water supply, he mentioned sewerage, lighting and a variety of other services. It may be that in the more remote areas it will be necessary for the existing local authority staff who are responsible for some of these other subjects as well as for water to continue to carry out some minor functions on behalf of the new water board, at least for a transitional period. Clause 25 provides that a local authority may provide a regional water board, or a water development board, with such services as the board may request. This will help local authorities whose employees are not being transferred to the new board but whose duties would otherwise be fragmented because of the transfer of water functions.
1630
Those who are engaged full-time on water supply will, of course, transfer to the new boards, if they so wish, under Clause 20.
The noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, raised the question of consultation with river purification boards. I would not dispute for one moment the importance which they rightly attach to this matter; and my right honourable friend entirely shares their view of its importance. But it does not require a statutory obligation to consult. After all, water cannot suddenly be abstracted from a river. The water board will require to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to an order under Section 21 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946, and the board will have to serve notice on any interested river purification authority. The Government's view is that water boards should carry out the widest consultations with all interested parties, and that could mean not only river purification authorities but also fishery boards, the Nature Conservancy, angling associations and others.
The omission of a reference to any one of these in a Statute might be regarded as meaning that consultations with them were not needed. I assure noble Lords that steps will be taken administratively to advise boards by departmental circulars to consult widely at the earliest stage in the formulation of their proposals to develop a scheme. This is best done by persuasion, rather than by requirement, and by having regard to the common sense of the people who are going to do these jobs. Nobody goes out of his way to make difficult what would otherwise be an easy job by ignoring the people with whom he is going to work, and this is the best safeguard to ensure that, so far as possible, difficulties will be eliminated in advance. The Government have set an example in this. All these discussions that are taking place at the present time come very much into this category of early inquiries, so that one can find out where the difficulties are, where the disagreements may be, and give the maximum amount of time for ironing them out and reaching agreement. I think noble Lords will have no occasion to be worried about the way in which the new boards perform these functions.
More than one noble Lord raised the question of Orkney and Shetland, and if

1631
I refer particularly to the way in which the arguments were deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, it is perhaps because he may be conceived to have a special interest in this matter beyond and above that of the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. It was stated earlier on by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that we should be careful about getting into discussion of constituency matters. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was so regarding it. I do not think so. But we must be equally careful—and perhaps the intervention of the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, makes it unnecessary for me to say so—not to get into the position of regarding Orkney and Shetland as being a Liberal colony.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord telling me, and indeed the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape. that he has been "got at by those Sinclairs"?
LORD HUGHES: Perish the thought, my Lords! What I would say on this is that I have listened very carefully to all that has been said, and if eventually it should prove that we can do something about it, it is not because we regard Orkney and Shetland as a Liberal colony. If we should decide that we cannot do anything about it, it is not because the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has brought any particular pressure to bear on me to regard the interests of Ross and Cromarty as being supreme over those of Orkney and Shetland. The one certain thing that has emerged from this Bill and the discussion, is that whatever happens there will not be unanimous approbation in the Lords about the way Orkney and Shetland has been dealt with, because if I satisfy the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. and the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Balerno, the Sinclairs, led by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, will be after me.
I hope that I misheard the noble Lord, Lord Henley, because I thought that at one point he made a reference to a "Scotch" water board. I would remind him that it is perfectly proper, although some people regard it as a disgusting habit, to talk about Scotch and water, but "Scotch" water is something of which we do not admit the existence.
1632
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to an apparent discrepancy in the views of the Scottish Office on the value of ad hoc bodies. In the first instance, it is possible that strong arguments could be advanced against an ad hoc education authority, without necessarily implying that every other ad hoc body suffered from the same disadvantages. I do not propose to express any views on that subject. But I can assure the noble Lord that the opportunity has been given to Departments in the Scottish Office to put forward departmental views in relation to the reorganisation of local government. and no steps whatever have been taken by the Secretary of State to vet these views in any way. The Departments are free to put forward views which may or may not coincide with those put forward by other Departments, and the Secretary of State is not under any obligation to back one or other of them.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that particular assurance, as well as for his other assurance about purification boards.
LORD HUGHES: I thank the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, raised the question of safeguarding the rights of staff. Clause 20, I think it is, talks about those employees who are employed solely on water duties. This does not mean that employees who are engaged partly on water duties and partly on other duties may not be taken over, if they are willing to transfer. It is simply that it was not thought desirable to make it mandatory on the new boards to take such officers into their employment. Indeed, to do so might well frustrate the general activities of local authorities. It might be that manpower would be better used if some of these officers remained with a local authority and were employed in, for example, its engineering department. The problem must be kept in perspective. The information I have is that about 75 per cent. of the employees are engaged whole-time on water duties, and under the Bill these will automatically transfer; but many of the others may be taken over as well.
I should like, however, to give the noble Lord, Lord Burden, the assurance which I have given on previous Bills when this question has arisen; that we

1633
have not had difficulty in the past in satisfying the staff that the arrangements being made in relation to compensation and other matters were fair, and I do not expect to have any such difficulty on this occasion. If the noble Lord should find it necessary at the next stage to table an Amendment on this matter, I assure him that it will receive very careful consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, asked whether local authorities would be compensated for having their assets taken over. The answer is, No. This reorganisation represents a sharing of responsibilities on a regional basis, and all the local authorities who become involved in the regional boards will have not only their assets but their liabilities transferred to the new boards for the benefit of the whole community. Some, of course, will feel that they have got a better bargain than others. It may be that some of those who have spent a great deal of money on improving their services may be among those who will find that the rates will diminish, and that some of those who have not done quite so much, or who have found it easier to meet their particular requirements, may have to pay more. But the emphasis is on a sharing of these responsibilities, and the boards will take over both liabilities and assets.
The noble Baroness also asked: what will be the relationship with the county councils? The regional boards will be completely independent bodies. They will be independent of the county councils in the same way as the counties are independent of the boroughs, or the boroughs are independent of the counties. Technically, they are entirely independent. In practice, however, they will have some common membership, and we have no doubt that they will work in close collaboration on all matters in which they have a common interest.
Then the noble Baroness asked whether the boards would be able to augment water supplies in their own regions, because experience has shown that, no matter how much there is, there always seems to be a need for more. There will be a statutory duty placed on the boards to provide wholesome water supplies for the whole of their districts. The only limitation on what can be done is that it should be capable of being carried out
1634
at reasonable cost; and I am quite certain that this obligation is one that almost every board would be expected to keep firmly in mind. Everybody wants a water supply, but people do not want to have to pay "through the nose" for it.
The final point (I am sure the noble Baroness would never forgive me if I did not answer it), was the question of women's membership of these boards. This, of course, is primarily a matter for the local authorities, and if—and I have no doubt that she is perfectly right—there are so many capable women in the local authorities who can become members of one or other of these water boards, and if at the end of the day none of them is so serving, the reflection will certainly not be on the Secretary of State, and certainly not on the noble Baroness. It may be that, to put the best possible view on it, the local authorities so value the services of these women that they wish to keep them entirely to themselves.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In commending the Bill to your Lordships, I can be relatively brief since it is tolerably straightforward. Its purpose is to establish new salaries negotiating machinery, and this, as well as being of topical interest, is a matter of some importance. Perhaps, first, I might briefly explain the situation which has given rise to the need for new salaries negotiating machinery.
The present negotiating body, the Scottish Joint Council for Teachers' Salaries, consists of representatives of the education authorities and of teachers, with an independent chairman. The Secretary of State, under existing legislation, appoints the negotiating body and has the duty of prescribing in regulations the salaries that education authorities must pay to their teachers; but he has no part in the negotiating processes. It is this latter aspect

1635
that has given rise to considerable difficulty in recent times.
To illustrate how the present machinery works, let us assume that the teachers want their salaries to be increased. They lodge a claim with the teachers' panel of the Scottish Joint Council, and they in turn present it to the employers' panel. The two panels then engage in negotiations, and after several meetings extending over weeks or months they may reach agreement that certain increases in salaries should be granted. The next stage is for the Scottish Joint Council to submit their agreement in the form of a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who, however, at present, is quite free to accept, modify or reject a recommendation from the Scottish Joint Council.
It is not difficult, my Lords, to envisage the vexation and frustration that can be caused by the rejection of a recommendation from the Council. Nevertheless, it can happen that the Secretary of State, for wider considerations than the Council have taken into account, is unable to accept their recommendation. This indeed happened in connection with the last revision of salaries, just as it happened under the previous Administration.
It seemed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the time had come when the whole salaries negotiating machinery ought to be revised with a view to remedying the defects in the present arrangements. Apart from the difficulty apt to arise because the Secretary of State is not involved until after the negotiating processes are concluded, it was clear that the present system could, and did, lead to delays in reaching a final settlement. Accordingly, the Secretary of State put proposals for new negotiating machinery to the local authority and main teachers' associations last summer. These proposals were subsequently discussed in detail with the interests concerned and general agreement was reached. It is with this new negotiating machinery that the present Bill is concerned.
I now turn to the Bill itself. There are three main features in the proposed negotiating machinery which distinguish it from the present arrangements. First, the Secretary of State, through officials of his Department, will be represented on the
1636
management side of the new negotiating committee; secondly, agreements reached in the committee will be binding on the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, if there is disagreement between the two sides of the committee the issue in dispute will go to arbitration, and the findings of the arbiters will be binding on the Secretary of State, save in exceptional circumstances. The provision for the appointment of arbiters has been the subject of some controversy in another place and I shall return to it later.
As will be apparent to your Lordships, under these proposals the Secretary of State no longer will have the all-powerful position that he has at present. He is quite prepared to accept this, subject to certain essential safeguards, in order to secure speedier and more effective negotiating procedures. The main safeguard is that his representatives on the management side will have control over the total sum which can be offered to the teachers' side for the purpose of a salaries settlement but not over its detailed distribution. This matter has already been discussed with the local authority associations, and they fully appreciate that the Secretary of State could not undertake to participate in the new negotiating machinery in a minority position, as is proposed, unless there were some arrangement whereby the Government had the controlling say as regards the total cost of a salaries settlement.
Clause 1, it will be observed, provides for the constitution of one or more negotiating committees. The intention is, however, to proceed at the outset with only one such committee. This is in deference to the wishes of the majority of the bodies concerned. This single committee will have within its purview the salaries of teachers in primary and secondary schools and in further education colleges. This clause also places on the Secretary of State the duty to determine the bodies to be represented on the new committee, and the number of representatives. The main interests are already agreed as to their prospective representation. Before I leave Clause 1 I might refer to subsections (4) and (6) which cater for the possible need to remove a body from membership of the negotiating committee. In such a circumstance, the Secretary of State's determination for this purpose will have to

1637
be embodied in an order which would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament.
What happens when the negotiating committee get down to business is dealt with in Clause 2; and herein lies the second main feature of the new arrangements to which I have already referred: that if the committee reach an agreement their recommendation must be implemented by the Secretary of State. It is also proposed in future to dispense with the practice of prescribing salary scales in regulations. Instead, the Secretary of State will lay down the salary scales in the less formal and more comprehensible style of a memorandum which will be given mandatory effect by means of an order made by him under subsection (6).
Clause 3 deals with the situation that will arise if the committee find themselves unable to reach agreement. To prevent deadlock from continuing the clause provides for arbitration; and, as I mentioned earlier, it was this provision that gave rise to the only real controversy on the Bill in another place. What was at issue was not the proposal for arbitration of an effective kind, which is the third main feature of the new machinery proposed in the Bill. This indeed was welcomed by all the local authority and teachers' associations, particularly when it is compared with the present Scottish Joint Council's arbitration arrangements which do not commit the Secretary of State in any way whatever. The difference of opinion has arisen over the Government's proposal that the appointing authority for arbiters should in future be the Minister of Labour. The Educational Institute of Scotland have taken exception to this proposal. They want the arbiters to be appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session, as happens at present in the context of the limited arbitration available under the Scottish Joint Council's constitution.
My Lords, the Government's intentions in this matter are quite simple and open. They wish to see introduced in the wholly new arrangements of the future the familiar procedure whereby the Minister of Labour provides the facilities for arbiters and appoints the arbiters. This is an arrangement that has won acceptance over the years, both in the public and private sectors. On the other hand, the services of the Lord President of the
1638
Court of Session are invoked for the appointment of arbiters in salaries negotiations only in the case of Scottish teachers; and, as I have already pointed out, the resultant arbitration is of a limited or non-committal kind. In the Government's eyes there is no justification for importing the present arrangement into the quite different process proposed in Clause 3 whereby the results of arbitration will be binding on the Secretary of State.
The Opposition in another place argued the E.I.S. case at length. This case was based mainly on the premise that arbiters appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session would be seen by the teachers to be completely impartial, whereas arbiters appointed by the Minister of Labour, a colleague of the Secretary of State, would be seen, shall I say, to be less completely impartial. The fact is that arbitration under the auspices of the Minister of Labour is recognised to be wholly impartial: indeed, I have never heard any suggestion to the contrary; otherwise it would not have stood the test of time in the way that it has done.
I now move on to Clause 4, which deals with the action to be taken following a reference to arbitration. The nub of this clause is that the results of arbitration are binding on the Secretary of State unless by virtue of subsection (2) it is resolved by each House of Parliament that national economic circumstances justify the setting aside of the arbiters' recommendations. As your Lordships will appreciate, no Government could bind itself by Statute to accept, without safeguard, whatever findings independent arbiters might reach. But the safeguard provided by subsection (2) is one which cannot be invoked lightly by the Government. Indeed, before the arbiters' recommendations could be disregarded by the Secretary of State two hurdles would have to be surmounted. First, the Government would require an Affirmative Resolution, and not simply the acquiescence of each House of Parliament; and, secondly, each House must be satisfied that national economic circumstances justify the course proposed. If Parliament on any occasion should resolve that an arbitration award ought to be set aside it is then left to the Secretary of State, under subsections (3) and (4), to determine what changes, if any,

1639
would be justified in teachers' salaries at the particular time.
My Lords, Clauses 1 to 4 are the important and substantive clauses of this Bill: the remainder are largely consequential and supplementary in character, and I do not think I need elaborate on them. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this Bill will meet what is the earnest desire of all concerned with teachers' salaries: the teachers themselves, their employers (the education authorities) and the Secretary of State whose interest derives from the fact that the larger part of the cost falls on the Exchequer. What is desired is negotiating machinery of an effective kind; machinery that will obviate troubles of the kind that have surrounded several salaries settlements in recent years, and machinery that will shorten the time between the presentation of a claim and the final implementation of an award. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)
5.21 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his clear explanation of the Bill and the way in which he has presented the case for it. As he made plain, the Bill in its main provisions has the assent of all parties, all those concerned in Scotland, and it is really only on one issue that there is a certain amount of controversy. The noble Lord told us that these proposals had been put to the education authorities in Scotland and that with the exception of this particular proposal they had received general assent. The fact that these proposals are identical, or practically identical, with the actual terms of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, applying to England and Wales, is neither here nor there. If these proposals are likely to work in Scotland, the fact that they are applied elsewhere should not in any way be taken as a disadvantage; in fact if there has been satisfactory experience of them elsewhere that would be rather an advantage. But I do not think that that can yet be claimed for these proposals.
My Lords, there are one or two minor differences from the English Act to which I may perhaps be allowed to refer. One
1640
is that Section 7 of the English Act empowers the Secretary of State when making an order under Sections 2 or 4 to make
"such transitional, supplementary and incidental provisions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary or expedient."
No doubt the Government have decided that they do not need this power in Scotland, and perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why that is so. Then Clause 6 of this Bill has no counterpart in the English Act. This clause empowers each education authority to pay teachers not covered by the scales set out in orders under Clauses 2 and 4 "such remuneration as they think fit". I should like to ask whether the noble Lord can say who are these teachers, and why it has not proved possible to devise arrangements to cover them in Scotland, when apparently it has been possible to do so in England within the framework of the negotiating machinery. I am not suggesting that the arrangements should be the same, but as it has been possible to do this in England one wonders why it is not possible to do it in Scotland.
As the noble Lord said, the present Scottish system has one inherent defect, which is that the Secretary of State, who has to find most of the money has at present no part in the negotiations. Perhaps I should rather describe that as one of the main inherent defects. The noble Lord has indicated, as I understand it, that what is likely to happen under the proposed system in negotiations is that there will be a management side and a teachers' or employers' side. The noble Lord has said that, so far as the management side is concerned, the representatives of the Secretary of State (of whom I understand there are to be two; it will be a small minority in numbers, but a very powerful one) will state what is the maximum amount of money available for distribution. I hope that by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is not intending to give the impression that this amount is not negotiable; that it is the maximum amount, which the Government have fixed for good and all, and that no negotiation is available upon it. I hope that he is merely giving an indication to the management side of what their starting figure or target figure may be. Does the noble Lord, Lord Hughes wish to intervene?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords; I have changed my mind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is a point of considerable importance, and ties in with what I shall say in a moment or two.
I should like, in passing, to ask whether it would normally be one of the Government representatives, the Secretary of State's representatives, who would conduct representations on behalf of the management side. I hope that on the teachers' side also there will be an agreed spokesman in the negotiations. No one can force, and certainly no one ought to try to force, all teachers to belong to one organisation. But if there is more than one organisation representing a substantial number of people in the profession it is only right that they should be represented on the committee.
I do not want to say very much on the question of keeping negotiations confidential while they are in progress—an issue to which the noble Lord did not refer—or on the question of making agreements subject to the confirmation or rejection of the constituent organisation. I would only urge that the Secretary of State should be as liberal as he possibly can on both points; and that the organisations, for their part, should be prepared to make concessions. There must be conventions about these things, of course, but it is not asking too much to expect all concerned to adjust their constitutions and practices in order to enable them to observe the conventions. On the other hand, it must be possible for negotiators to consult the appropriate committees and secure confirmation of what they have done, just as after signing a Convention the Government seek the confirmation of Parliament before ratifying it, if any change in the law is involved. It is all a question of the point at which agreement is reached, and I doubt whether agreement will ever be achieved unless an opportunity is given to the various organisations, including representatives of the Secretary of State, to refer back proposals before finally agreeing to them. I would ask the noble Lord what further progress has been made on these issues which I know the Government have been doing their best to resolve.
My Lords, if agreement is not reached, as the noble Lord says, Clause 4 pro
1642
vides for arbitration on matters in respect of which agreement has not been reached. I take it that this means that while broad agreement may be reached, there may be outstanding matters, matters of detail, on which it has not been possible to reach agreement; and where agreement cannot be reached the matter will be referred to arbitration. Under Clause 3(1) the Secretary of State has to
"make arrangements whereby, in such circumstances and subject to such exceptions as may be provided by the arrangements, matters in respect of which agreement has not been reached in a committee in accordance with the foregoing provisions in the Bill may be referred to arbitration."
From what I understood the noble Lord to say, invariably they would be so referred. Perhaps he will confirm that.
It may well he that one or more of the three organisations on the teachers' side (I understand that there arc to be three, or it is hoped that there will be) will not be able to agree with proposals acceptable to the rest, and it seems likely that reference to arbitration will be quite frequent, at least on some points, because of the disparity of interests of the three teachers' organisations. This underlines the importance of ensuring that the arbitration procedure is universally accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has explained the Government's approach to this matter and the reasons for replacing the Lord President of the Court of Session, as the person who appoints the arbiters, by the Minister of Labour, thus following the pattern of the English Act. I thought that he made a better case for this than had previously been made in another place. Even so, there are causes for some doubt.
The arguments put forward in another place for not opposing the change were that the only people who opposed it were the Educational Institute of Scotland. But of the teachers' organisations the Educational Institute has had the longest experience of the present method of appointment. I am not sure whether the Government have asked the other organisations which method they would prefer. My information is that one would prefer the present arrangement. The remaining organisation has closer links with the corresponding English organisation and for that reason is perhaps more ready to accept the change.
LORD HUGHES: My Lord, I take it that when the noble Lord is referring to "other organisations", he is speaking only about teachers' organisations and not about local authority organisations.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is so, my Lords.
The other argument is that the Lord President has no experience of this field and no special competence in appointing arbiters for salary negotiations. He has had to do it on several occasions, however, and, as the Government admit, he has
"exercised his present function with the highest distinction and judgment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1497; 25/4/67.]
If the Lord President's choice of arbiters commands the approval of the Government and the organisations, it does not seem to matter whether he consulted them before making the appointments or not—consultation being quoted as another point of advantage in changing. The E.I.S., I gather, would in some ways prefer not to be consulted on the choice.
The point on which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has laid great stress is that circumstances have now changed, and the position now under Clause 4 is that the Secretary of State, except in the circumstances indicated in subsection (2), will be bound by the decision of the arbitral boards (to use the term of the Prices and Incomes Board). Surely this makes it all the more important that the arbiters should be wholly acceptable to all parties. I am bound to say that I think it is for the Secretary of State to convince the teachers' organisations, which he has failed to do so far, that this is the best way of doing it. He has failed in particular to convince the Educational Institute, which represents four out of five teachers in Scotland.
The Government have so far refrained from referring to the Report of the National Board for Incomes and Prices, No. 15 (Cmnd. 3005). I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, in his place, because the care with which the noble Lord went into this matter was, I know, greatly appreciated in Scotland. The Report says:
"We conclude that the only rational way of determining an increase in teachers' salaries in either England and Wales or in Scotland is through a separate examination of the problems of each … we recommend that the
1644
Government, in developing the two different educational systems of Scotland and England and Wales, should not regard themselves as bound either way to negotiate with one group of teachers the same average salary increases as have been negotiated with the other".
The Report went on to make the point that negotiations for teachers' salaries in Scotland and in England and Wales should be conducted at approximately the same time, provided it is recognised that awards to teachers should be related to the needs of the educational system in which they are employed, rather than to awards made to teachers in a different system. I regard that as an important proviso. Negotiations have started in England and it is not easy to get these two adjusted, especially as the Bill provides that these matters are capable of being raised at any time, either by the teachers or by the Government, and the committee machinery set in motion.
They also suggested that legislation for new negotiating machinery in Scotland should be framed so as to make possible the appointment of the same chairman to the two arbitral bodies. I would ask the Government whether, in preparing these proposals, they accepted the principle of these conclusions of the Prices and Incomes Board. Are they prepared to accept that, even though the negotiations of salaries in the two educational systems are governed by almost identical legislation, the level of remuneration in one system should not be tied to the level in the other if the needs in the one differ from the needs in the other at any given time? Do they accept that there should be the same chairman of both arbitral bodies and that the task of these bodies is to see where the systems differ and, in consequence, where remuneration differs, rather than keep them in line so far as the total of increases is concerned?
If they accept both these propositions, there may be something to be said for making the change proposed in the Bill and having the same chairman to preside over both arbitral bodies, not in order to keep the awards in line but, on the contrary, to ensure that the two systems are treated differently where they need different treatment. If we can get this point clear, it should go a long way towards meeting the objections that have been made. If the Government do not accept these propositions, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to persuade the E.I.S.

1645
of the need for this change. For my part, I recognise that the system already adopted in England has advantages over the existing system in Scotland, but it does not follow that the Scottish arrangements should follow the English in every particular; nor does it follow that merely because the Ministry of Labour procedure has been found widely acceptable it is necessary to replace a system which has been found acceptable in Scotland, although admittedly, as the noble Lord said, in slightly different circumstances.
So far as the change in the arbitration arrangements is concerned, there is the strongest opposition in the E.I.S., which represents, as I have said, four out of five teachers in Scotland. They consider the reasons for the change that have so far been put forward not plausible—in fact, so implausible that they believe there must be some more cogent reason which the Government are unwilling to disclose. The noble Lord, by implication, addressed himself to that suspicion, but the fact remains that this suspicion has not yet been allayed. What matters, surely, is that these arrangements should get off to a good start. At the moment it looks as if, should it prove impossible to resolve this difficulty one way or another to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, they will never get off the ground at all. Therefore, I strongly urge that the Government should either accept the responsibility of convincing teachers that the change is for the better, or else should give way and keep the present machinery.
5.40 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, for the past twenty years or so there has been in the teaching profession in Scotland a considerable unease, to put it mildly, over their salaries and remuneration. I welcome this Bill as being a step forward. Over the last five or six years considerable progress has been made towards getting better agreement with the teaching profession as to their remuneration. That is why I think it is a pity that at this juncture (and I propose to speak only to this point) there should be inserted into this Bill the provision that when a final decision has to be made and an arbiter is appointed there should be a change from the arbiter appointed by the Lord Pesident of the Court of Session to the arbiter appointed by the Ministry
1646
of Labour—a requirement in the English Bill.
One of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was that the Lord President appoints an arbiter for wages only in the case of teachers. I do not find that a very convincing argument. The teachers are working in a separate educational system from that of England, and their salaries are rather different from the wages negotiated by trade unions. I can see the Government's point in trying to make things legislatively tidy: that is something that Government offices love to do. So we have one arbiter appointed both for Scotland and for England.
In this connection I would refer to the evidence that Sir Roy Wilson, the President of the Industrial Court, gave to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. Among other things, he said:
"In the first place, I have always regarded it as axiomatic that under the voluntary system of arbitration which exists in this country arbitrators should be entirely independent and free from the advice and influence of the Government or a Government Department. I believe this to be the universal and the correct view. The Industrial Court should remain entirely independent of its decision. That independence could, in my view, be modified only by Parliament."
This is what four-fifths of the teachers in Scotland have got their teeth into: they have their teeth into this principle of an independent arbiter, and that is why they want to continue the existing practice of the arbiter being appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
The present arrangements have worked well in this respect. There have been something like four or five arbitration cases, and only one of those has gone in favour of the teachers. This being so, it might have been thought that they would want a change of arbiter but they do not. They want an arbiter in Scotland who can go ahead, without any tiresome delays, and whose decisions will be clear-cut and objective. We have a well-tried and trusted system. To change this system, which the teachers of Scotland like and want to continue, at the moment when we are winning their confidence on this difficult question is the greatest pity.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that this Bill is substantially the same as the English Bill. We in Scotland have no objection to copying what is done in

1647
England if it suits us. But that is no reason why we should have imposed upon us something from England which does not suit us. At this particular juncture in the history of Scotland the thistle of Scotland is particularly prickly. It must be remembered that the educational system of Scotland is different from that of England, just as the judicial system of Scotland is different from the judicial system of England.
I wonder whether the English will ever learn. You English can lead, you can guide, and you can greatly influence other nations with which you are associated; hut you must remember that you cannot drive us. In no small measure the breakup of the British Empire has been due to this failure of the English to recognise this in time. The process started, of course, with Ireland and the failure to recognise, until too late, that Home Rule was the right action; and so half a century ago the British Empire began to break up. In this Bill we see—I would almost say a deliberate attempt, but perhaps I should not say that it is deliberate—something that is being done to impose on Scotland a crucial and controversial matter, and one which differs very much from its counterpart in England.
Many of us in Scotland feel that to have a common chairman for the two different arbitral bodies is wrong. If this is not the intention, then let the Government say so. But in doing so, they must say that they disagree with the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report No. 15, which deals with the Scottish teachers' salaries. There it says:
If the same chairman were appointed to the two arbitral bodies this would ensure that arbitration was governed by the same criteria, subject to the fact that there were two structures and levels of salaries and two different systems of education."
Two structures, two levels of salaries and two different systems of education; but one arbiter from England. Can anything be more absurd or more calculated to raise the hackles of the Scots? Can any stupidity of Government be more meant to raise the national passion? I am not a Scottish Nationalist in the narrow sense, but with many other Scots I have a passionate desire to see our country retain its own distinctive ways. Some of them are much better than the English, and some of them are much worse. But we
1648
should like to have our own faults: they are our own.
Last Tuesday, the fiery cross was out in Scotland. In the results of the local government elections yesterday heads rolled in the mud: two Lords Lieutenant, and at least one (I am not sure if it was not two) Convener of Counties. I would plead with your Lordships to take heed of this before it is too late. I do not want to threaten your Lordships, and I certainly do not want to threaten the Government. I merely want to remind you of two things. The first is that the teachers of Scotland will, in the long run, make a much deeper mark on the future of Scotland than any Act of Parliament. The second is the pictures in the corridor of your Lordships' House, painted last century. The subject of the debate of two of them was Home Rule. My Lords, beware!
5.50 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I did not anticipate wrongly that, if there was going to be disagreement on anything in the Bill, it would follow the pattern in another place, and I thought objection or discussion would be very largely confined to the arbitration procedure. I did not expect to find that the Scottish National Party was on the verge of obtaining so distinguished a recruit. But if I might first of all deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I would say this. He said that we have no equivalent to Section 7(5) of the English 1965 Act. This is because the draftsmen considered that we did not need this kind of provision to cover the transition from the present procedure to what the Bill proposes. The transition in England was a rather different one: it went from a different starting point. For example, the salaries had never been prescribed in regulations in England. So it is a purely drafting procedure and, of course, draftsmen nowadays are not encouraged to put things in Bills unless they are absolutely essential; and they themselves are not anxious to put things in unless they are essential, because they are over-burdened with work as it is.
The other point raised was that there was no counterpart to our Clause 6 in the English Act of 1965. The explanation is a reasonably simple one. The

1649
Scottish salaries regulations apply only to full-time certificated teachers. There is power in Section 83(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act enabling education authorities to pay what salaries they think fit to part-time teachers and to uncertificated teachers. Clause 6 merely continues this power if Section 83 of the Act is repealed. There was no corresponding statutory provision in England when the 1965 Act was considered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? First of all, is the situation the same in England, that it is left entirely to the discretion of local education authorities in England what they pay to such people? Secondly, are there no discussions going on at the present time to ensure some measure of uniformity in this matter?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, I am afraid I do not know what the English position is. I think it would be wrong to say that there are discussions going on at the present time to achieve some measure of uniformity in these matters. But it would be wrong to conclude from that that there was any terribly wide divergence as between one local authority and another. The noble Lord is well aware that, as soon as one local authority takes a decision favourable to a particular section of employees, it does not need the fiery cross to enable that piece of information to get to the knowledge of anyone who could seek to take advantage of it. Therefore, there is not uniformity, but there is not terribly wide disparity in what is done at the present time. The nearer authorities can get together in this matter, the better. But beyond that I am afraid I cannot go at the present time.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but is not the difference in this case that these particular people have no association of any kind to represent them, and that therefore the chances of what is done by one local authority being repeated by another are not so great as where there is a union or association representing the parties concerned?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, there is a certain measure of truth in what the noble Lord has said, but, of course, it
1650
is not for any of us here to dictate to the teachers' associations whether or not they should think it is proper to represent these people. We know that there are very strong views held on the employment of uncertificated teachers by some, perhaps all, of the teachers' organisations. I regret to say this, but I think we should probably serve the interests of these people better by leaving the matter as it is, rather than by attempting to bring them into a machinery which perhaps some parties at least would not welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also referred to Government control of the total sum, and expressed the hope that this would not be a completely rigid operation. Of course, as the noble Lord is aware, this is not a completely new feature of negotiating machinery. In the Whitley Councils for the Health Service the arrangements throughout have been that the Government, the Ministry or Department, have taken part in these negotiations. Obviously the negotiations would fail at some time or other, perhaps more frequently than otherwise, if the Government representatives arrived always on the basis of saying: "This is the amount. You may argue as much as you like, but this is the one thing about which there will be no negotiations." So long as it is accepted by the other members of the negotiating body that the Government are coming forward with a realistic proposal, that there is not a sort of horse trading, and that the Government will give reasons for putting the sum forward in the first instance, obviously there will he from time to time room for negotiation of the total sum.
It would be ridiculous to have the arrangements breaking down solely on, perhaps, the point of another £50,000 or another £500,000—I am talking very loosely, and the figures must be related to what the total would otherwise be. If the negotiations were going to break down only for the lack of something of that kind, it would be ridiculous of the Government representatives not to take it into consideration. I have a feeling that as I have mentioned figures I could get into dangerous ground. Let me make it quite clear that £50,000 in relation to an award of £5 million would be comparatively unimportant; £500,000 in relation

1651
to an award which might otherwise be £750,000 would be totally unreasonable. I am quite certain that the noble Lord is right in expecting that reasonable working of the machinery would require that this should not be an absolutely inflexible sum in every set of circumstances that arises.
On the subject of keeping the negotiations confidential, this is a matter which is not comprehended in the Bill, but to which some thought has been given. The Secretary of State in this regard has suggested that the standing orders of the new committee might provide that as full and informative statements as can be agreed by the two sides, and compatible with the pursuit of further negotiations, should be issued for publication after each meeting of the committee. A broad measure of agreement on this proposal has already been reached in discussions with all the main interests, except the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association. That Association are as yet undecided whether they can agree to their representatives being fettered in any way from divulging information to their general membership. The Secretary of State has made it clear to the Association that he would like to see them represented on the new negotiating committee, but that if they elect to come in it must be on the basis that they abide by the new committee's rules of procedure. No other course, I am sure your Lordships will agree, would be feasible.
The second point was on the subject of the ratification of the decisions. This was the point the E.I.S. had raised. It was reported in last week's E.I.S. journal that the Council of the E.I.S. have agreed not to pursue their claim for ratification. So it would not appear that that was any longer an issue between us. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked whether we accepted that teachers' remuneration should not be tied to remuneration in England and Wales. We intend that there shall be separate salary negotiations. This, after all, is the purpose of the Bill, which can take account of the distinctive educational systems North and South of the Border. There would be an advantage in negotiations for teachers in Scotland going on at the same time as those in England and Wales, in order that they could be considered in
1652
the same economic climate. It is the Government's intention to bring the two sets of salary negotiations into phase at an appropriate time in the future.
Having said that, may I say that I do not wish to go beyond that just now, because I should like to look carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said in their references to the Prices and Incomes Board. I am quite certain that I am at one with them, on this matter of the arbitration procedure, in seeking to have something which can be agreed by the E.I.S. It is true that it was said in another place that it was only the E.I.S. that objected. When one then proceeds to look at it on the basis—as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said—that the E.I.S. represents four-fifths of the teachers concerned, the "only" would appear to be misplaced. But that is not so when one considers that the teachers are one side of the organisation and the procedure, far from raising the hackles of Scottish local authorities, did not seem to arouse any mistrust in them at all because, after all, they are familiar with the operation of the other procedure.
It was not any incipient Scottish nationalism on the part of the teachers that led them to object to the alteration. It was the fear that they were exchanging a system of arbitration, which they felt was completely independent, for one which they felt might not be so. I do not wish to say overmuch on this subject because there are obviously further discussions to take place with the E.I.S., and as I said in my opening remarks I hope that in all the circumstances they will find it possible to modify their stand.
However, I must say this. There is no system being imposed on Scotland which it does not have at the present time. This present system of arbitration through the arbiters appointed by the Minister of Labour works very satisfactorily in fields far beyond manual workers. It is applied over a wide range of provisions, and I have not heard any criticism of this system by those who come under it. I could understand the objections of the E.I.S. if the suggestion was being made—and I do not think they have made it, and I am quite certain that noble Lords here have not made it—that the Minister of Labour was going to

1653
recruit as arbiters the services of professional men who have such little regard for their own integrity that they would be prepared to accept arbitration on the basis that they were working to specified instructions of the Minister. It would be the very negation of arbitration, and no one has ever suggested that. It would be an insult, a completely unjustified, unwarranted insult, to men who have rendered valuable service in the arbitration field, to suggest that their integrity is complete until they come to look at Scottish teachers' salaries and then, for some reason completely unstated, they change character and throw overboard all the things which should be inherent in an arbiter.
It cannot be suggested that in those circumstances the Minister of Labour can, or would, wish to bring any influence to bear on them. However, I recognise the fact that people may hold suspicions quite sincerely that there is some ulterior motive in a change, even although they may not he justified in doing so, and I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. The Government must pursue this matter further, and if they wish to continue on the lines laid down in the Bill there must be further efforts to persuade the Educational Institute of Scotland that what is in the Bill is suggested because the Government believe that it will be in the interests of teachers to have this done, and not because they have any ulterior motives in the matter.
I would remind your Lordships of what I said in my opening remarks. The Secretary of State is divesting himself of exceedingly wide powers, and he does this gladly. To do so, and then to have the whole exercise nullified by turning it over to false arbiters would indeed be the height of folly, because the arbitration would only have to be once of the character which some people fear—that it is not fair arbitration—for the whole machine to be completely discredited. I think this is the best safeguard that the E.I.S. can have, and I am quite certain that they, with the Education Department, will be prepared to look at this matter
1654
again. If they accept the fact that the motives of the Department and the Secretary of State are not ulterior, I do not think they will have difficulty in the end in accepting this principle.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I think the point at issue is that one of the main apprehensions of the E.I.S. is that there will be one and the same arbitrator for England and for Scotland. If he has the background knowledge for England, he will not have the same background knowledge for Scotland, and vice versa. If we appoint a Scotsman as arbiter, the poor English will suffer. I think this is one of the main misgivings so far as the E.I.S. is concerned.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I had intended to come to that point. I think it is useful that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has laid particular stress on this, because I can assure your Lordships that my honourable friend finally responsible for education matters at the Scottish Office will be looking carefully at what is said in this House to-day; and I am quite certain this is a point which he will feel is worth exploring further with the E.I.S. If it should be on that point that their difficulties are entirely centred, then I think we are much nearer a possible solution than might otherwise be the case.
I think I have covered most, if not all, of the points which have been raised during this debate. I hope that by the time we come to the next stage it will have been possible to reach agreement on this one outstanding issue. I can assure your Lordships that if we have not reached agreement, it will certainly not be because the Government have neglected any opportunity of doing so. We think that this Bill is so very much worth while that we should not like to lose the advantages of it if there is any possibility of obtaining agreement on the one point at issue.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC RECORDS BILL [H.L.]
6.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. To conclude the Sittings, here is a tiny Bill in two clauses, and your Lordships will not, I know, want me to take longer than I need over its Second Reading. Its sole effect is to reduce from 50 years to 30 years the period for which public records, subject to certain exceptions, are closed to public inspection. This is a Bill which has a history behind it, and I am afraid I must remind your Lordships of that history.
Before 1958 transfers of departmental records selected for permanent preservation to the Public Record Office were dependent on arrangements made with individual Departments and on mutual convenience. Access was at the discretion of Departments, who were asked to open for public inspection down to whatever date they judged suitable, as nearly as possible without reserve, all records which they had transferred to the Public Record Office. By 1958 the majority of Departments allowed access up to 1902, but there were a number of variations from this practice. So there was nothing very systematic, and in a sense the whole question was on a rather amateur basis.
To some of us it may be surprising to be reminded that until 1916 no formal records of any Cabinet meetings were kept. It was only in 1916 that the Cabinet Secretariat was created. The Committee of Imperial Defence had come into existence in 1904, but none of its records were available to the public. In 1952 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler as he then was, appointed a Committee, of which Sir James Grigg was Chairman, a Committee on Departmental Records, and this Committee reported in July, 1954. The Committee recommended that Cabinet papers and departmental records should become available to the public 50 years after their creation.
In recommending this period for Cabinet papers, the Committee drew attention to the need to provide adequate
1656
safeguards against, first of all, the premature publication of confidential information which could handicap current administration, and secondly, the impairment of the convention of collective responsibility of the Government or the responsibility to Parliament of individual Ministers for their own Departments. In recommending the same period for departmental records the Committee had in mind what they described as "the quality of un-self-consciousness" which they thought would he impaired if an official knew that what he wrote would be made available for public inspection during his lifetime. The Committee also said that their general recommendations would sufficiently tax the resources of Departments without the added complication of different dates for the release of Cabinet documents and departmental records, and pointed out that their recommendation would result in a substantial increase in the amount of departmental records which would become available to the public.
The Public Records Act 1958, which the present Bill would amend, gave effect to the recommendations of the Grigg Committee, and Section 5 made provision for access to public records. Subsection (1) provides that records to which the public had not previously had access
"shall not be available for public inspection until they have been in existence for 50 years or such other period, either longer or shorter, as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval, or at the request of the Minister or other person, if any, who appears to him to be primarily concerned, for the time being prescribes as respects any particular class of record".
Subsection (2) of Section 5 provides that where records were obtained under conditions under which allowing their inspection by the public might constitute a breach of faith, such records would only be made available, even after 50 years, in special circumstances or under special conditions.
Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Act provides that where records created at different dates are, for administrative purposes, kept together in one file, all records in that file shall be treated as if created on the date of the latest record in the file. Thus the release of records under Section 5 is governed by the date of the most recent record in the particular file. Section 5 therefore gave effect to the

1657
Grigg Committee's recommendation providing the general rule of release of records after 50 years and enabling the Lord Chancellor to prescribe shorter periods or longer periods for different classes of records.
Under the powers to shorten the 50-year period Lord Chancellors have released a considerable volume of records. The most striking example is when I made an order for the release on February 10, 1966, of all the First World War records up to December 31, 1922. But the War Diaries of the First World War had already been released in 1965, and in some other instances records relating to particular departmental activities have been made available earlier than 50 years, when it had been thought desirable that the information in them should be made publicly accessible. Sometimes they have been made available much earlier; for example, the papers relating to the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Halsbury on Decimal Currency were released after six months. More usually, however, if I make an order for a longer period than 50 years it is 100 years, and if I make it for a shorter period it is usually 5 years.
The Grigg Committee had also recognised that it would not be possible for all records to be released at 50 years. Their object was to ensure that
"all records which it is practicable to open to the public after 50 years are in fact available at that time".
This has been the policy of successive Lord Chancellors when considering whether to prescribe periods longer than 50 years for any particular class of records. Those for which longer periods have been prescribed fall into the following categories: first, those containing information about individuals whose disclosure would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons or their immediate descendants (such as criminal or prison records, records of courts martial, records of suspected persons, and certain police records); secondly, those containing information obtained under a pledge of confidence, such as the census, and various individual returns used in publishing statistical compilations; thirdly, certain papers relating to Irish affairs; fourthly, certain exceptionally sensitive papers which affect the security of the State. In addition certain papers,
1658
the ownership of which is shared with "old" Commonwealth countries, cannot he released until all the Governments concerned have given their consent.
Classes of records which have been closed for periods longer than 50 years will, of course, remain closed for the period prescribed after the 30-year rule comes into force. Like all my noble and learned predecessors since the Act, I have the great advantage when an application is made to me to make an order as to a specific class of documents that the Act created an Advisory Council on Public Records, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whom I am very glad to see here this afternoon, is Chairman, and that Advisory Council has always been the greatest possible help to Lord Chancellors in discharging their duties under this Act.
I come to the reasons why this Bill proposes to reduce the 50-year period. Although the effect of the Public Records Act 1958 had been to release a great quantity of records for public inspection, there was soon growing criticism of the 50-year rule. The study of recent history had attained full academic recognition and was attracting much interest from the universities and in the world at large. Many scholars of standing and repute were said to feel seriously hindered by the 50-year rule and to consider that the whole field of scholarship had suffered as a result.
It was also suggested that as a result partial and biased accounts of our affairs gained currency, in which the British case went by default and British historians were handicapped in correcting them. These criticisms went too wide to be capable of cure by the exercise of the Lord Chancellor's power to prescribe periods shorter than 50 years for the release of classes of documents or by the exercise of the power under Section 5(4) of the Act, which I have not yet mentioned, under which the Keeper of the Public Records is enabled to allow inspection of closed records by a particular person when authorised to do so by the department concerned. The lack of sufficient flexibility of departments in authorising the Keeper to allow inspection under this subsection was also a subject of complaint.
In 1964 the 50-year rule was considered by the Advisory Council on Public

1659
Records. The functions of that Council as laid down in the Act are:
"to advise the Lord Chancellor on matters concerning public records in general and, in particular, on those aspects of the work of the Public Record Office which affect members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by the Public Record Office".
The Council's Report (which is laid before Parliament) recommended unanimously that the closed period should be reduced to 40 years. They also recommended that scholars undertaking research within the closed period should be given more liberal access to official papers. A parallel recommendation was made by the Scottish Council on Public Records.
In amplification of their recommendation the Council attached to their Report a copy of a letter dated October 26, 1964, in which the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, as Chairman of the Council, had informed me of their decision. That letter sets out the arguments for relaxing the 50-year rule to which I have already referred. It also mentions the argument in favour of a closed period which had been referred to by the Grigg Committee: that good administration requires that a suitable period should elapse before records are made available to the public, so that Ministers and officials should be absolutely free to express their views without fear of publication for a long time thereafter. The letter stated that all members of the Council considered 50 years too long; most thought 30 years too short. After fluctuating between 35 and 40 years they had unanimously recommended the latter.
In considering the proposal of the Advisory Council to reduce the 50-year period to 40 years it is useful to consider the position in other countries, although such information as is readily available concerns the records of diplomatic affairs only and is subject to qualifications in matters of detail. Perhaps the most important, from our point of view, is the position in the United States and Canada. The United States and Canada allow conditioned access after 30 and 35 years respectively, with facilities for the earlier release of special categories and for specially authorised inspection of closed records, somewhat on the British lines. The following allow free access, with similar "escape" clauses after 50 years:
1660
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, New Zealand, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and South Africa. In France various categories are "open" from different dates, which range from 1815 to 1914; in Italy searches of records later than 1870 have to be specially authorised. The same is true of Turkey for records after 1860, and of India for records after 1900. I do not know what the position is in Russia.
The 50-year rule is therefore by no means exceptional. But 50 years is admittedly an arbitrary figure, and another, lower, figure might equally be regarded as preserving the confidential nature of a Minister's relations with his colleagues and his senior advisers and as likely to preserve the quality of "unselfconsciousness" in official records. But in fixing a new figure it was necessary to consider at the same time the Council's other recommendation of more liberal access to closed records and the establishment of a body to advise on subject matter and vet applicants.
This raised rather more difficult issues. While on the one hand there is much force in Lord Acton's dictum:
"to keep one's archives barred against historians is tantamount to leaving one's history to one's enemies,
the proposal raised the following difficulties. First, except for the established doctrine that former Ministers are entitled to have access, in order to refresh their memories, to Cabinet papers which they wrote or saw during their period of office, and that access to War Cabinet papers has also been permitted to the official historians of the two World Wars, it is a firm principle that access to Cabinet and Cabinet Committee papers still within the closed period is not given to any "outside" individual. Secondly, the Council's proposal would enable the Government to circumvent the recognised convention that one Administration does not have access to the policy records of its predecessors simply by authorising an historian to have access to them to write a book. Thirdly, the suggestion that a Committee of Historians should advise upon the professional standing of applicants for access to closed records would burden them with a most invidious jurisdiction which might well involve the task of adjudicating upon the merits of several candidates.

1661
My Lords, the Government have gone some way to resolve this dilemma by proposing to extend the range of official histories, which have hitherto been confined to the two World Wars, to include selected periods or episodes of peacetime history, on the basis that although works of this kind would not necessarily be suitable for publication during the closed period, they would enable important periods in our history to be recorded, while official records could be supplemented by reference to the personal recollections of those actually involved in the episodes. They also propose to extend to other overseas departments the Foreign Office practice of publishing selected documents concerned with our external relations.
In these circumstances the Government consider that it is both safe and desirable to introduce a lower figure than that recommended by the Advisory Council, and have fixed 30 years as the period which they consider would be reasonable for a closed period for Public Records. This decision was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on March 9 of last year. He pointed out that the Opposition Parties would of course be associated with its implementation and referred to the necessity of further consultations about the arrangements to he made for this purpose. On August 10 last year he was able to announce that the Leaders of both Opposition Parties had agreed to the Government's proposal and that Her Majesty the Queen had been graciously pleased to approve the disclosure of Cabinet documents falling outside the 30-year period. I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that the past practice of making any change of this kind only after full discussion with Opposition Parties is a right course to adopt.
In the Eighth Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Public Records which they have recently made to me, covering the year 1966, the Council say:
"We also welcome the Prime Minister's further statements of March 9 and August 10, 1966, concerning proposals to reduce the general statutory closed period for public records to 30 years: we hope that the necessary legislation will soon be introduced. We consider that the introduction of a 30-year rule should meet the legitimate requirements of most scholars; but we foresee that there will still he cases meriting special access either to records within the 30-year period or to records
1662
closed for a longer period under Section 5(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, and we hope that departments will continue to give sympathetic consideration to applications for such access."
The Report will, of course, be laid before Parliament as soon as it is printed. The facilities provided by the Act of 1958 for granting special access to closed records will remain unchanged, and the proposals which I have mentioned are also designed to assist in attaining the objects the Council had in mind in the latter part of their statement.
The Bill makes a simple amendment to Section 5(1) of the Public Records Act reducing the 50-year rule to 30 years. It gives effect to the existing practice of the Public Record Office in providing that documents becoming 30 years old will be made available on January 1 next following that date. This is purely a question of what is practicable. It is clearly impracticable for the Public Record Office to release, each day of the year, records which have passed out of the closed period that day; and it has therefore been their practice to make this an annual event at the beginning of each calendar year. Clause 2(1) of the Bill brings it into force on January 1, 1968, to give the Public Record Office and Government Departments time to complete their administrative arrangements.
Although Section 3(4) of the Act of 1958 requires that Public Records selected for permanent preservation shall be transferred to the Public Record Office after 30 years, some Departments have been unable to meet this timetable which, as long as there was a 50-year rule, did not matter, but they have now had to take steps to ensure that these records are in the Public Record Office by the date the 30-year rule begins to operate, and every endeavour is being made to comply with the requirement. But there may at the outset be cases where some delay will occur.
It is also necessary for some Departments, especially the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office, to review their selection so as to ensure that records which had previously satisfied a 50-year test for sensitivity were not sensitive if released for public inspection after 30 years. There is clearly the possibility of records falling into one or other of the categories to which I have referred

1663
though they were thought not to be within these categories when considered in the context of a 50-year rule. It is not, however, the intention of the Government to countenance any evasion of the 30-year rule through the Lord Chancellor's exercise of his powers to prescribe a longer closed period. The same principles wilt apply to prescribing periods longer than 30 years as have applied for the prescription of periods longer than 50 years.
The sort of cases one has in mind—and they are only examples—are those of confidential correspondence with or about British firms that have been operating continuously in foreign countries, where disclosure of the correspondence might now have adverse repercussions on trade; comments by Ministers and officials on events and personnel abroad which could be exploited by hostile propagandists or otherwise used to embroil us with foreign rulers or statesmen whose public careers have spanned a 30-year period. With regard to the Government's proposals to extend the range of official histories to peace time, it has been agreed that the selection of topics and questions of publication shall be referred to an all-Party group of Privy Counsellors. It is intended to consider not only political topics but other topics of general interest, although free from acute Party controversy.
Here, then, my Lords, is this small Bill which is put before your Lordships' House with the approval of all Parties. I hope that these two little clauses will be found unlikely to give rise to a number of Committee points. The number of additional documents which are likely to become available on January 1 next year is something like 150,000 files. As your Lordships may know, the accommodation for readers at the Public Record Office is not as I should like it to be. But for our economic difficulties we had hoped to be able to start an additional building last summer. It has had to be postponed. However, arrangements will he made which I hope will provide places for a further 40 readers. I hope that they will enjoy themselves at that very interesting and very well-run place, the Public Record Office. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.36 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I greatly welcome this Bill. If I have to leave before the end of the discussion I hope your Lordships will excuse me, but it is owing to a long-standing engagement. Historically, the Master of the Rolls is the Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England. But now all this has gone. He is now Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records. The Council, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor said, is engaged in considering these public records, and in the last three years, particularly, there has been an overwhelming demand by historians for a relaxation of what is called the 50-year rule. This is all due to the impact of modern history. We do not now go back so much into mediæval times, or even back 100 years. Researchers, scholars, and indeed the world at large, like to know the history, even of such events as the First Wold War and the beginnings of the last war.
Historians have complained greatly, not only because they are impaired in their own researches but because other countries open their records more freely and more recently, and therefore their historians get a good start. This has been the case whether it be the United States, with its 30-year rule, or, a good many people, even a 20-year rule. This applies to Commonwealth countries, such as India; and in Israel the records are open in regard to some of the controversial events of the last 20 to 30 years. Therefore there may exist partial accounts of the great events of history which may operate to the detriment of this country and, indeed, to the detriment of history generally.
In view of this great demand by historians, and bearing in mind all the considerations, the Council considered the question of restricting further. One has to place the importance of our administration of our affairs against the demands of historians. The reasons were all too cogent. Whether it be Ministers or civil servants, they must be able to write their memoranda, their minutes and their papers without the fear of their being disclosed too soon. Of course, the 50-year rule was laid down by the Grigg Committee on the basis that there would be statesmen—

1665
for instance, a man like Sir Winston Churchill—who could start writing important minutes at the age of 30, and that it would be undesirable for those to be brought up against them at the age of 80.
The 50-year rule was really applied for that contingency, so that Ministers should not be challenged afterwards in the course, for instance, of their working life. It is the same with civil servants, too, but it was thought that perhaps 50 years was rather too much for them. A 30-year span, however, might mean that a civil servant, who so often may influence policy, would find it very embarrassing to have documents brought up against him. At all events, the fundamental reason for the restriction is good administration, which must take the paramount ground; and historians, for all they say, must take second place. There is also this further reason. If the period is rendered too short, there is a danger that the most sensitive documents will not leave the Departments concerned and will not come to the Public Record Office to be seen.
So on the whole we recommended 40 years, but the Council themselves were delighted when the Prime Minister announced in another place, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has himself announced to-day, that the 30-year limit could safely be made. When the matter came before the Council they wholeheartedly welcomed it and felt that it satisfied the legitimate demands of historians and enabled this country and its historians to work comparably with other countries. That is the fundamental principle behind the change, subject always to the power of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and it may be necessary to use it on occasions—to make an order fixing a longer period, as he does now in some cases. It may be necessary to make even more of those orders if there is sensitive material which may be harmful, as well as allowing the shorter periods about which we know.
We must also bear in mind the power for controlled access. One knows that sometimes, when statesmen retire and write their memoirs, they get special access to their own papers. There is still to be power to have controlled access when it can be given without harm to the interests of the State. But with those
1666
qualifications the Council, as I say, wholeheartedly welcomed this measure. As the noble and learned Lord has said, it means a great deal more work for the Public Record Office. They do not have enough accommodation at the moment, and they are doing all they can to cope with the greatly increased number of research workers, historians and others who are coming now that these new documents are being made available. This is a Bill which is to be warmly commended.
6.44 p.m.
LORD BRIDGES: My Lords, may I add my deep thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the full exposition he gave of the history of this very complicated matter? Needless to say, with most of what he said I am in the fullest agreement; in particular, with what he said about extending the range of official histories to selected periods of peace-time history. As one who was closely concerned with civil histories in the Second World War, this is something which is very near to my heart, and I am very glad to hear that that is going to be done.
I am concerned with only one thing. I speak as a former civil servant, and the official file is one of the tools of a civil servant's trade. I am speaking of the sort of files in which a civil servant has to put together the facts of some difficult and complicated question, to give advice to his superiors, whether civil servants or Ministers. He has to analyse the position and set out all the courses, and not cover up any uncomfortable facts. That is a job which has to be done fearlessly and frankly, and if it is going to be done as it ought to be done, the people concerned must have confidence that their advice will not be disclosed prematurely. That, of course, is the basis of the whole confidential relationship between civil servants and Ministers, and likewise between Ministers and the Cabinet.
How long a period is necessary for that confidence? Fifty years is/ obviously too long, and I entirely agree that forty years would be absolutely safe. I admit that if the closed period is going to be reduced to around thirty years I shall have certain misgivings as

1667
to whether that will give public servants the degree of confidence which they ought to have, so that they can put out the facts absolutely fearlessly, without any thought of their being disclosed prematurely. This question is, in a sense, rather subjective and it depends upon what one feels. It is not the sort of matter on which one can ask a computer for the right period. I am trying to see how I can bring this subject alive, so to speak.
I remember a quotation from my father's collection of the worst lines from the best authors. This was the first line of a German poem. I shall give it to your Lordships in English as I do not know German:
"Eternity, eternity—
How long art thou, eternity?"
Of course, it is a very silly quotation and does not deserve an answer. But it does point to what the civil servant has in mind when he is setting out the facts on an uncomfortable, perhaps disagreeable, question as fully as he can. What he really wants to feel is that disclosure will be so long ahead that there is no harm in spilling all the beans.
I do not think I shall make any impression on your Lordships unless I try to give some instances of the field in which this applies. I should have thought it applied much more to our relations with other countries than to our internal affairs. I think that in 30 years we sort out most of our internal difficulties in this country to such an extent that disclosure would not be embarrassing. But I am not at all sure about the disclosure of the part played by particular people in dealing with or recommending courses to be pursued or negotiations to be undertaken with foreign countries. I am thinking of this primarily from the point of view of the national interest, but it could also have an effect on individuals.
A man between the ages of 25 and 30 might be serving in, shall we say, the Ruritanian Department of the Commonwealth Office or the Foreign Office. He might be appointed 30 years later as High Commissioner or Ambassador to Ruritania, and then people would ask what he knew about Ruritania. It would appear that he had served in the Ruritanian Department and people might rush off to the Record Office to see what they
1668
could find out about what that individual had said 30 years earlier. Your Lordships may think that that is a rather fanciful example, but there are certain particularly sensitive areas, more especially in our dealings with foreign countries, where a firm rule that you must always throw all the records open after 30 years would prove embarrassing.
I am afraid I did not follow all the details the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave about the practice of foreign countries, but I gather that there are a good many of them who do not throw all of their records open in anything like so short a period as this. I admit that I hope that the special powers enjoyed by the Lord Chancellor to prescribe not only shorter but, on occasions, longer periods will be considered for use in regard to certain specially sensitive areas, where it is found that longer periods are needed for the protection of public servants who are working in that field, and to give them the necessary confidence. I hope I am not wrong in putting forward the suggestion that that line should be considered and not ruled out of court as impossible.
If I may, I should like to make just one other point, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, also mentioned. What happens if the public servants in a Department or branch are not really confident that it would not be contrary to the public interest that the facts regarding some negotiation with which they were concerned should be disclosed at the end of the 30-year period? I think it is quite obvious what would happen. However strongly a man may feel, however anxious he is to do his duty, I do not think one can compel him to write out all his arguments and thoughts and put them on the file if he thinks it wrong that he should do so. If he takes this view, what will he do? He will do one of two things. He will either write a very short Minute and ask if he can speak to the Permanent Secretary or the Minister and explain his position more fully, or he will write a little note and say, "Perhaps you will read this but do not put it on the file".
In either of those events, two things will happen. Not only will the Department not have a proper record for its own use as to why particular decisions were reached, or the basis of the advice on

1669
which they were reached, but when the papers do go to the Record Office that particular paper will not be on the file and the historians will not be able to get it either when the papers go to the Record Office or at any subsequent date. That, I think, is a factor concerning human nature which I think it right to take into account, and perhaps I may add it as a subsidiary argument. I hope that this will lead to further consideration being given to prescribing a somewhat longer period than 30 years, at any rate, for the time being, in what I have described as certain very sensitive types and areas of work.
6.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I feel that I owe an apology to the House because I may be either saying things which are repetitive or using arguments which have been squashed in advance, as I have not really been able to follow things very closely. Basically, I should have liked to oppose this Bill. I regard it as damaging and possibly dangerous. It seems to me that people in high positions—not only Cabinet Ministers, who are the first people who come to mind, but many other people in high positions—are even to-day, as things are, tremendously obsessed (I am not blaming them; it is almost impossible to avoid this) with looking over their shoulder. In the good old days people did not bother about looking over their shoulder: they did what they thought was right. Of course, many people differed from them and thought they were wrong, but they were acting according to their consciences.
Nowadays, everyone is always thinking, "How is it going to be considered?"—and every time one reduces the period one makes this position much graver. Imagine a young man—say, an Under Secretary—hoping for a political career in which he might end up as, perhaps, Prime Minister or Lord Chancellor 30 or 40 years ahead. That is perfectly feasible. He will imagine, "I must be very careful what I say; this may be used against me." It is extremely important that people should feel that their confidences will remain, not for ever but for a very long period.
It seems to me that it is one of the curses of modern life that we are all watching
1670
our step—and the whole of the jargon that goes with that is bad. If one calls it democracy, it is the bad side of democracy. People want to do what they think is right, and what they think is right will constantly clash with what they will find if they look over their shoulder. For myself, I have got to a period in life when there is nothing over my shoulder to look at; therefore, I am able to speak with greater freedom. This, of course, is very desirable in itself—that people should be able to speak with that extra freedom. I should not in the least mind if the gap was a 100 years.
On the technical side, too, I am surprised at the Bill, because the Bill is saying, as the previous Act did, that there is power to alter it to anything you like, at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, upwards or downwards. That is an overall statement which covers this position as it covered the old one. I do not know what limitations there are on that; but it may be asked: "In that case, why are you bothering?". The reason why I am bothering, my Lords, is because it gives a lead to what the Government feel and what I quite accept many people on the Opposition side of the House also feel, and to my mind that lead is a bad lead. In a case of emergency there arc these ample powers. Incidentally, I think one thing that needs watching is the safeguarding of the position of the Crown, because the Crown is brought into issues and it might be exceedingly undesirable for there to be revelation after 30 years.
I well understand the entirely different position which arises over the official histories of the war. That is a series, and it is absolutely vital that the information should be collected at the earliest possible moment, before it is too late. when it may not be so readily available. But we do not treat that very seriously when you think that in the case of the First World War whole patches have been completely ignored by the Government. For instance, after 50 years, in the case of the East African Campaign we still stop almost in the middle of a sentence. Part II was never done. We have had nothing on the North Russian Campaign, nothing on the South Russian Campaign, nothing on the fighting in Afghanistan; nor have we had the second Dardenelles report, nor filled

1671
the gaps in the Mesopotamia report. All that has been left, and that is 50 years ago. I think that is a major case against, I was going to say the Government of the day, but I admit that it perfectly well applies to the previous Conservative Government. I think it is quite inexcusable. It was a war series, and it ought to have been treated in an entirely different way from the general question.
I know all this has been urged because researchers want it. That leaves me completely cold. Researchers have no business to want it, and to my mind they should not be encouraged to mix up history with contemporary research—and 30 years is contemporary. That is a very good definition of "contemporary"—30 years. The whole basis of history should be perspective and balance, and it should he absolutely dispassionate. To judge the events of 30 years ago, with all one's immature reactions to those events, and with all the prejudices of one's upbringing and background, is to he in absolute conflict with everything which can be called history. By all means let people write about things: that is always interesting. It is quite right that people who have been in public life should write about their experiences; but that is quite different from revealing public documents dealing with those matters. I am quite unmoved by the fact that a number of historians want to write about things, but these cannot make up the full story and therefore they must he misleading. It takes generations before all the facts are available, because all the facts are not those which emerge purely from Government documents.
There is a very big task for people during the 30, 40 or 50 years period, and for public servants in connection with, say, the Record Office. That task involves collecting the documents, seeing that they are recorded, filed, and put in their proper places so that everything is ready against the day when they can be released. During the 30, 40 or 50 years period they should be engaged in collecting all the authorities and seeing that when the time comes people will find that the maximum amount of information is available. At the present time, we are always absorbed with the question of foreground. Thinking of
1672
the foreground is quite the most dangerous basis on which judgment and statesmanship can be based. In the first place, the facts are not complete. They have not, like old wine, had time to mature. We want records to help us in our judgments. Those judgments are not going to be wisely formed on the basis of documents revealed after 30 years. It is to my mind a complete conflict with everything which stands for judgment from an historical angle.
My Lords, I hope I have not said anything which other people have said before me; but I feel it is very important that these points should be emphasised. I hope sincerely that there will be second thoughts and that this Bill will be dropped. If there are exceptional cases—and one can never make laws to cover everything—the previous Act already has powers to deal with them. I referred to one case, that of the Official History of the First World War. There may well he others that could arise. They can be dealt with in the way provided for by the earlier Act. But as a general lead as to what is desirable, I think that the provision in this Bill is dangerous and absolutely in conflict with all that we mean by statesmanship, and also from the point of view of being helpful to later generations in guiding them in the policies of their own day.
7.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have stayed until now have been rewarded by a most interesting debate to which experts in their own spheres have contributed; they have certainly illuminated what seemed to be a very bare Bill in itself. I should like to join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in expressing the appreciation that we all feel for the comprehensive and fascinating manner in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us about the background to this Bill, and how he expected it would be operated if it were brought into effect. I need not detain your Lordships for long on this matter. May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, that he certainly did not say exactly the same as was said by others; and I may add that what he did say was very worthy of attention.

1673
It seems to me that the core of this matter is simply that the practice of keeping public records secret has one justification, and one only; that is, the public interest, and the effect on the conduct of our affairs, whether collectively or individually. It is that effect which has to be considered in conjunction with any proposal to alter the present practice. For my part, I was extremely glad to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who has such an important role to play in these matters, say so categorically that the fundamental consideration so far as the time limit was concerned must be good administration. I think his words were that good administration must constitute the paramount ground, and that the needs of historians must take second place. I think all who have spoken to-day would agree with that.
Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, have expressed the thought that it may well be that, if your Lordships accept the proposals in this Bill and 30-years is substituted for 50-years as a general limit, it may fall to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to make rather more exceptions than he has had to make in the past. I was not entirely clear from what was said by the noble and learned Lord whether this was what he himself anticipated would happen. But I am certain that in matters of this kind it can well be left to the noble and learned Lord (who has the benefit of the advice of the Advisory Council) to judge where the public interest lies and how the public interest can best be served. Where a longer period is necessary, he will make provision accordingly.
The noble and learned Lord said that he did not expect that there would be a great many points to be raised at the Committee stage on a Bill of this kind We shall have the opportunity of looking at the matter again between now and the Committee stage. My only comment would be that there are so many noble Lords who have played a part in public life that when they have read the debate in Hansard they may discover points that they may wish to raise on the Committee stage—although the only salient point is whether the period should be 30 years or 40 years, as the Advisory Council originally suggested.
1674
But in view of the agreement between the Parties, and in view of the fact that the Advisory Council (though, in the first place, it recommended 40 years) has now acceded to the 30-year proposal in this Bill, I think it would be difficult for your Lordships to take a contrary view, although I feel a good many of the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I am sure that this will be borne in mind.
With these few remarks I would once again thank the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for his most interesting and comprehensive explanation of this matter. At a late hour, on the eve of going into Recess, I feel that we ought to express particular appreciation of his having done so, rather than to have treated this in a rather summary manner.
7.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception given to this small Bill. It was a great advantage to the House to have the benefit of the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with his experience as Chairman of the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council themselves hesitated between a period of 35 years and one of 40 years. Eventually they agreed on 40 years. It is therefore a comfort to me that the Council have unanimously approved the decision to reduce it to 30 years. The noble and learned Lord was too modest in saying that his only power now is as Chairman of the Advisory Council, because by Section 7(1) of the Act he is still responsible for the custody of the records of the Chancellory of England including the Patent Rolls.
The House will have been particularly glad to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, with his unrivalled experience, and we have all had very much in mind the considerations to which he has referred. It was only after the most anxious consideration and consultation with the Leaders of the other political Parties that this decision was made. The precise period must, of course, be a matter of opinion; but, as the noble Lord realises, this Bill makes no change at all in the powers of the Lord Chancellor to make orders prescribing longer or shorter periods. I am sure that if any Department or Ministry feels they have a

1675
specially sensitive class of papers they will apply to the Lord Chancellor to make an order in respect of that particular class of document.
I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, does not really approve of the Bill at all. He took part in the debate on the 1958 Act and he is not, I think, in favour of any reduction at all. My Lords, these things are, of course, matters of opinion. The noble Earl does not think that researchers should be encouraged at all, but I would suggest for his further consideration that the country is placed sometimes in a rather difficult position. For example, American historians, and some of other countries who have access to their documents may write a history about a matter in which we were involved, and may so write that matters appear to have been to our detriment; and our historians cannot correct that because we do not allow our historians to have access to our documents.
I would also suggest this further point for his consideration. It is not only civil servants who, very naturally, want to be protected against too early disclosure of their documents. The same, naturally, applies to Ministers. But the decision to reduce the period from 50 to 30 years was, after all, taken by Ministers, and by the Ministers of this Government, only after consultation and agreement with the Leaders of other political Parties. Therefore, if Ministers feel that 30 years is supportable, one might feel that the most distinguished civil servants might be in the same position. After all, very few people are likely to be Cabinet Ministers, or Permanent Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries. I suppose, earlier than 35; and after 30 years they would be 65, and no longer occupying those respective positions.
My Lords, I am very much obliged for the consideration which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has given to the Bill. In answer to the point he made I feel sure that successive Lord Chancellors may be relied upon to do the right thing in relation to particular documents, or classes of documents, without, of course, using that power on such a scale as in effect to reverse the decision to produce the documents, in general, after 30 years instead of 50 years.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY