Sitting of 23 January 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  Mr. Francis Pym discharged from the Committee of Selection; Mr. R. W. Elliott added.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    International Monetary Fund
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake to make a statement to the House after the next review of the United Kingdom economy by the International Monetary Fund in February, 1968.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The talks with the Fund next month and in July and November will be informal and confidential, and I cannot bind myself to make statements after them.
    Mr. Ridley: But if the right hon. Gentleman is a sort of puppet on a string with regard to the International Monetary Fund, should not this House be informed of the conditions which are laid down in relation to the economy?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's permise or the conclusion erected upon it.
    Mr. Dickens: What consultations took place with the I.M.F. before the review of public expenditure which was announced last week, and what consultations will take place with the I.M.F. during the preparation of the next Budget?
    Mr. Jenkins: I had no consultations with the Fund prior to the review of
    186
    public expenditure. There will be consultations in February, as the Answer implies and as the House knows, about the general economic situation, but this will not, of course, include detailed budgetary discussion.

    Letter of Intent (Borrowing Requirements)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the tenth paragraph of the letter of intent sent by his predecessor to the International Monetary Fund on 23rd November, 1967, the under taking to keep the borrowing requirement below £1,000 million for 1968–69 includes money borrowed to finance further schemes of nationalisation.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Yes, Sir. Any Government payment that falls to be made in cash enters into the calculation of the borrowing requirement.
    Mr. Ridley: Has the right hon. Gentleman therefore taken into account the possible effect of the Transport Bill and other Bills now before the House in agreeing this figure of £1,000 million?
    Mr. Jenkins: As I informed the House, all relevant considerations are taken into account.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Blakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cuts he proposes to make in public spending in order that full advantage may be taken of the opportunities provided by devaluation.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has now made with his review of public civil expenditure; whether he will now indicate what specific cuts will be made in 1968–69; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Higginsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cuts in Government expenditure it is now proposed to make as a result of the review announced on 18th December, 1967.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I refer the hon. Members to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, 16th January, which was published as Command Paper No. 3515.—[Vol. 756, c. 1577–1620].
    Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that figures published yesterday show that the number of civil servants increased by 57,000 in the three years up to last October? If it is possible to make massive reductions in the Armed Forces, why is it not possible to make similar reductions in the size of the Civil Service, as opposed to just holding the numbers?
    Mr. Jenkins: If it were possible to make reductions, I would be eager to do so, and I do not regard what we are laying down for the forthcoming year as being the last word in this respect, but I must have regard to the duties imposed on the Civil Service. I well remember, having been a Departmental Minister myself recently, the pressures which were put upon me from both sides of the House to improve recruitment in many aspects of Government service.
    Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures so far published still leave a number of ambiguities? Can he tell us what the figures in the first column in his table of public expenditure for 1967–68 would have been before allowance had been made for the £400 million of cuts announced before Christmas, since it is far from clear what the situation was?
    Mr. Jenkins: That is a somewhat hypothetical and detailed question. If the hon. Gentleman would put it down, I should be glad to answer.
    Mr. Mendelson: But would my right hon. Friend not agree that the relevant rearrangements are those which will release resources for the export drive? Would he, therefore, not listen to those voices which urge him to produce psychological cuts which show only that we are being harsh to our own people?
    Mr. Jenkins: All cuts which produce results are of relevance to the situation, but I intend to have regard to the facts as well as to psychology of the situation.
    Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman said that my Question was hypothetical and detailed. What was hypothetical about it and is £400 million a mere detail?
    Mr. Jenkins: That sum is not a mere detail, of course, and the situation is set
    188
    out as clearly as it can be, but if the hon. Gentleman wants some elucidation and will put down a Question, I will gladly answer it.
    Mr. Rankin: Would a cut in private capital wealth not be or more help to the country in its hour of need and would my right hon. Friend consider that?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think that that is a different question.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke1: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as against the projected savings of £300 million in the recent statement, the winter Supplementary Estimates of this year have already gone up by £320 million?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that certain winter Supplementary Estimates were laid for expenditure which has already taken place, but I am not aware that Members of the Opposition have urged me not to undertake the payments involved, of which the biggest item was for combating foot-and-mouth disease.

    Scotland (Government Offices)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs have been created in Scotland in new Government offices or agencies which have been sited there since October, 1964.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 19th December, 1967.—[Vol. 756, col. 354.]
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Financial Secretary aware that nearly 7,000 of the 7,500 jobs provided in this way in Scotland result from decisions taken by the Conservative Administration before 1964? Does he agree that this shows that the record of his Department has been somewhat meagre?
    Mr. Lever: The decisions in many of these matters were taken by the Conservative Party, but they were confirmed and implemented by us. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, in this matter of employment in Scotland, the provision of Government offices is only part of the story and that the Labour Government

    189
    have given twice as much money towards encouraging employment in the last three years than did the Conservative Government in a similar period.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least two Government agencies in the agricultural sphere, one being the Meat and Livestock Commission, are admirably suited to go to Scotland? Is he further aware that in a letter to the Scottish T.U.C. the other day the Prime Minister said that the Government would continue to look at the possibility of this happening? Is "a look" by the Prime Minister adequate in this matter?
    Mr. Lever: We of course do our best to encourage the development of these offices in Scotland, but there are other factors which must be taken into account.

    Computer Centres
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will complete consideration of locations for computer centres.
    Mr. Harold Lever: I cannot give a date at this stage.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is there any reason why Scotland should not have a second computer centre? Will this be considered?
    Mr. Lever: Certainly.

    State Lottery
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the evidence submitted to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire in favour of a £1 million a week prize State lottery producing a net profit to the Exchequer of £200 million a year, he will take steps to introduce such a weekly lottery.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: My hon. Friend's suggestion will receive the same consideration as do the many other suggestions for raising revenue which I receive.
    Mr. Roberts: This may be what I am afraid of. Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a lottery of this type, given maximum publicity—with £1 million in prizes being shown on television and tickets costing Is. each on sale in
    190
    shops generally—could contribute materially to Exchequer revenue?
    Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that I have not yet had very much opportunity for considering suggestions for raising revenue, so we had better see how that works out. I will, of course, take all considerations into account, including the factors which he has quite fairly brought to the notice of the House. Hon. Members will be aware that there is a Private Member's Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) due to be discussed in the near future.
    Mr. Tinn: Would my right hon. Friend seriously consider giving his support to that Bill, to which I hope the House will give a Second Reading?
    Sir G. Nabarro: Certainly not.
    Mr. Jenkins: I will certainly be interested to see what view the House takes on the Bill.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Chancellor bear in mind the fact that there is a good deal of opinion in this House and elsewhere that gambling in Britain is already excessive and that for the State to add no the burden would be immoral and unacceptable to millions of men and women in this country? Will he study the Churches Commission on Gambling to ascertain the facts of the situation?
    Mr. Jenkins: In. my previous job I had a good deal of contact with the Churches Commission on Gambling, and, on the whole, I prefer to have the Commission's advice direct rather than via the hon. Gentleman—however powerful, even if unauthorised, a spokesman he may be.

    Wealth (Distribution)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the fact that the richest 10 per cent, of the population own more than three-quarters of the total individual wealth, what legislative plans he has to provide for a fairer redistribution.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that I cannot anticipate fiscal legislation.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In spite of that, would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in principle, restraint by wage earners on the one hand and gross inequality of wealth on the other are incompatible with each other?
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that, even in principle, I should not anticipate fiscal legislation.
    Mr. Cant: Will my right hon. Friend avoid the habit, to which some Chancellors are prone, of introducing new taxes without due consideration? While agreeing with the principle of a wealth tax, may I ask him to accept that he should set up a working party to conduct a full investigation into this type of tax with a view to introducing it in 1970?
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I will take note of what my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not the Chancellor recognise that the greatest need now is to increase incentives to the acquisition of wealth rather than to add to the disincentives to its holding?
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I will take note of all the advice I am given by all sides.

    Private Education (Tax)
    Mr. Juddasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make arrangements to estimate the total amount of Income Tax exemption in 1967–68, in respect of fees paid for private education.
    Mr. Harold Lever: If my hon. Friend is referring to the exemption of the profits of schools which are recognised as charities, I am afraid that the Inland Revenue does not have the information which would be needed in order to make the estimate.
    Mr. Judd: At a time when we have had to significantly reduce our educational commitments, would not my hon. Friend agree that the country can no longer afford what is a subsidy to private education on the present scale?
    Mr. Lever: I am afraid that, without the figures, it is difficult to assess the gravity of the matter, as my hon. Friend would wish to have it assessed.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Would the Financial Secretary say how many millions of £s are saved to the State by parents who freely and willingly choose to bear their own children's educational costs? Would
    192
    the Treasury care to pay tribute to those who are saving the nation a great deal of money in this way?
    Mr. Lever: I am not able to document that debating point, either.

    Developing Countries
    Mr. Juddasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he will make concerning the needs of developing countries in the context of measures for improved international liquidity.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The new I.M.F. scheme for special drawing rights will, when activated, be of both direct and indirect benefit to the developing countries.
    Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that at a time when Britain is giving a lead in this matter, many of us would welcome any initiative we might show to look at the real needs of the developing countries in this respect?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Sir, and I would like to see this scheme activated as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so. It would, as I say, help the developing countries both by increasing their liquidity and by increasing the liquidity of other countries, a matter of importance to them from the point of view of world trade and aid.
    Mr. Maclennan: While recognising that any improvement in the world liquidity situation would be of enormous benefit to the under-developed countries, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is looking at the proposals which have been made for linking access to rights with assistance to under-developed countries, in particular the proposals which have been put forward by Mr. Maxwell Stamp?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of these proposals and I am aware of the general proposition which my hon. Friend puts forward. I think that such a link could be a useful device at some stage, but I believe that the first task is to get the special drawing rights established and accepted.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Alisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has made of the extent to which the introduction of Corporation Tax in 1965 has led to an increase in company profit retentions in

    193
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: These matters are kept under continuous review. Special factors affected the periods for which figures are so far available and it is too early to draw any firm conclusions about the effect of Corporation Tax on company retentions.
    Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reviews under which this is continually kept is the Board of Trade regular survey sample of companies and that the latest survey suggests that in the 12 months ending 1st October, 1967, the level of company retentions dropped by £75 million compared with 1965? Is this the rational aim of Corporation Tax and recent increases in the tax?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir, but special factors have operated in the last two years or so. While we will certainly continue to watch the position carefully, I would expect a different position to develop in future.

    Spirits (Excise Duty)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to separate the duty on spirits from die regulator.
    Mr. Harold Lever: No, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell: Why is this not being done following the discussion on the last Finance Act? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that otherwise the Government may find that they are having automatically to raise the duty on Scotch whisky to an incrediable figure, thus damaging an important export-earning industry?
    Mr. Lever: This proposal was debated and rejected on a Division during the Report stage of the last Finance Act. I am afraid that I cannot go beyond that.

    Non-industrial Civil Servants
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many non-industrial civil servants there were at the latest convenient date; how this compares with the number a year previously; and what functions now performed by the central Government he
    194
    proposes to eliminate in order to secure a reduction in these figures.
    Mr. Harold Lever: In October, 1967, 469,670. The comparable figure for October, 1966, was 440,400. Future work will reflect the policy changes announced on 16th January.—[Vol. 756, c. 1591.]
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the last Answer mean that the figure will increase or decrease? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the very heavy calls on manpower and finance which result from this steady increase in the non-industrial Civil Service? Cannot the Government get rid of some of its functions, perhaps starting with the Land Commission?
    Mr. Lever: In fact, in accordance with decisions already taken by the House, we had anticipated a significant increase— of 11,000 above those figures—in the Civil Service concerned. We will try to hold that increase back to the present numbers, which will, in effect—in order to implement the policy decisions of the House—amount to a cut in the numbers employed.
    Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend note that, when it suits their purpose, hon. Gentlemen opposite, acting as constituency Members exert all sorts of pressures for works and services to be carried out in the constituencies, and then, when acting as a body, they are opposed to an increase in the number of civil servants? Will he ignore this masochism and see that, if it means that this Civil Service has a contribution to make in the provision of civil services, its numbers will not in any way be cut down?
    Mr. Lever: It is interesting to note that the percentage of the working population employed in the Civil Service compared with 15 years ago shows that, if anything, there has been a slight reduction in the proportions. I take fully into account the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend.

    Nationalised Industries
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to restore the cuts made in Government investment in nationalised industries.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 17th January.—[Vol. 756, c. 649.]
    Mr. Tuck: What about the pre-election pledges that if private industry could not do the job the Government would step in and establish industries themselves? Where is the science-based industry we have heard so much about?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think my hon. Friend is talking about two different things, public industry stepping into new fields and investment programmes of industries which are nationalised at present. Certain cuts were made there which it was thought reasonable and economical to make, but of course investment in nationalised industries is as important to the industrial infrastructure of the country as investment made in other industries.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a revised annual estimate of central and local government expenditure and the expected net capital borrowing requirements of the nationalised industries for the financial years 1968–69 to 1970–71.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Public expenditure estimates for 1968–69 and 1969–70 have been published in the OFFICIAL REPORT following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, 16th January, and also in Command Paper No. 3515. Public expenditure estimates for 1970–71 are not available. The borrowing requirements of the nationalised industries in 1968–69, but not in the later years, will be published at the time of the Budget as usual.— [Vol. 756, cc. 1577–1620.]
    Mr. Biffen: The Chancellor will recollect that the White Paper gives the figure for the nationalised industries as an aggregate one. Since that must have been arrived at from the component totals of each nationalised industry, can he, for the convenience of the House, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the component figures?
    Mr. Jenkins: Not in answer to a supplementary question, but if the Question is tabled I will answer it.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that this revision will involve no alteration in the 4 per cent, housing loans undertaken by the 1967 Act?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that that begins to arise on this Question.
    Mr. Higgins: The Chancellor is not listening. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked whether the Chancellor would circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Will he do so or will he not?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am sorry. I understood the hon. Gentleman to ask whether I would state them in answer to a supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry. If that is the case, I will certainly circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT any available figures which are of use to the House.

    Export Rebate
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to restore the export rebate.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Our exports have been made more competitive by devaluation and under present circumstances the Government have no intention to restore this rebate.
    Mr. Tuck: Is it not about time that the Government realised that it is no use their sitting with their backsides in a trough full of cold water which is rapidly freezing, surrounded on all sides by guns, but that they ought to get out and heat that trough and get ahead with producing wealth and encouraging exports?
    Mr. Jenkins: I found my hon. Friend's metaphor a little mixed, but I endeavoured to follow it is closely as I could. It certainly is our intention to get out and increase exports, but it has also to be borne in mind, as I have told the House on previous occasions, that there is a danger of escalating protectionism throughout the world and we have to be careful not to assist that process.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: What representations did the Government receive from the Americans in regard to our export rebate, and what representations have the British Government made to the

    197
    American Administration about the proposals announced by President Johnson recently?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not think it is primarily a matter of representations, but we must watch and see very carefully what the Americans do about the possible introduction of an export rebate.
    Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend take up strongly with the United States Government this action, which may have a very harmful effect on our exports to the United States when, as he mentioned, we voluntarily withdrew ours?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that the American action could have a very adverse effect and could lead to a very undesirable process. We must consider our own position in relation to what they may or may not do.
    Sir S. McAdden: Can the Chancellor tell us, if this export rebate was so soon to be done for, what it was begun for?
    Mr. Jenkins: It was begun in circumstances in which devaluation had not given our exports a competitive advantage, in order to give them a small competitive advantage. The advantage arising from devaluation, if fully exploited, should of course be far bigger than anything resulting from the export rebate.

    Close Companies (Dividends)
    Mr. Costainasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the Inland Revenue does not cause close companies to declare higher dividends than are consistent with the Government's policy of dividend restraint.
    Mr. Harold Lever: No special steps are required.
    Mr. Costain: Does not the Financial Secretary accept that there is confusion in different policies involved here? What steps will he take to see that they do not conflict with each other?
    Mr. Lever: There is in fact no conflict between provisions relating to close companies and the Government request for dividend restraint by publicly quoted companies for reasons which have emerged in the creation of this set-up.

    Valuers
    Mr. Costainasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many qualified valuers are employed in the Government's service; whether he is satisfied that the number is adequate to deal properly with the valuations instituted by the Capital Gains Tax and the betterment levy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Harold Lever: At 1st January, 1968, there were 2,154 qualified valuers serving in the Valuation Office. Despite the shortage of valuers and the pressure of work upon the office, I have no reason to think that the valuations to which the hon. Member refers are not being properly dealt with.
    Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that there is delay in valuations due to the shortage of valuers? What steps will he take to ensure that the Chancellor in his next Budget does not make any more legislation which needs more valuers?
    Mr. Lever: The office is certainly working under pressure but getting on quite satisfactorily with its work. As to the future, in view of the national shortage of qualified valuers, the Inland Revenue is trying to train some younger people and has 335 cadet valuers in post at present.
    Mr. Tinn: Does my hon. Friend recall that I drew his attention recently to two cases of newly established firms in my constituency, in a development area, which are being seriously inconvenienced by delays in valuation?
    Mr. Lever: I think that is a different point, but if my hon. Friend finds that the delay has not been cured I shall be happy to take the matter up.

    National Savings
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net increase in National Savings in 1967; and what were the comparable figures for 1966, 1964 and 1962, respectively.
    Mr. Harold Lever: £108 million, a decrease of £29·5 million, £357 million and £238 million respectively. The 1967 figure is partially estimated.
    Mr. Taylor: As the best way in which the average citizen can back Britain is through National Savings, what new initiative is the Financial Secretary taking to restore the 1964 figure?
    Mr. Lever: These selected figures given in answer to a selective Question reflect among other things very heavy Defence Bond redemptions in 1967, which were very much higher than in the earlier years which appear more favourable. The hon. Member can rest assured that we have very much in mind the necessity to give maximum continuous encouragement to National Savings.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the Financial Secretary agree that, quite apart from particular years, more genuine new savings mean a less need for taxation, and therefore will he urge on the Chancellor speedy action and include within that action maximum encouragement to saving?
    Mr. Lever: I would entirely agree with the first proposition. In so far as my right hon. Friend needs any encouragement on the second, he will certainly have it from me.

    Taxation
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount he now estimates will be raised in taxation in the year 1967–68.
    Mr. Harold Lever: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the revised estimates which will be published in the Financial Statement.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the Financial Secretary agree that the burden of taxation under this Government has become quite intolerable and is stifling initiative and enterprise? Will he ask his right hon. Friend seriously to refute that taxation must go up again in March?
    Mr. Lever: The hon. Member's supplementary question, I fear, bears little relation to his main Question. I take it that he was not asking for a specific answer to his rhetoric.

    European-based Companies (Development)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to promote the free movement of capital
    200
    and revise Corporation Tax, in order to facilitate the development of European-based companies able to compete on an international scale in advanced technologies.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: None, Sir. But the subject of technological co-operation will play an important part in the consultations we are now to have with our colleagues in Europe.
    Mr. Biffen: None the less, would the Chancellor take this opportunity of affirming that it is a first priority of the Government, as indicated in the Letter of Intent, that as soon as the balance of payments shows a definite improvement policy will be taken to promote greater freedom of movement of capital?
    Mr. Jenkins: This is a wider question than the one the hon. Member originally asked. I am most anxious to encourage technological co-operation. There is no evidence that this is being held back by lack of freedom of movement of capital at present. The position remains as stated in the Letter of Intent, although I am not quite sure that the hon. Member stated it precisely.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The question also refers to Corporation Tax. The Chancellor will note that our system differs radically from that around which the Europeans will harmonise. What are his proposals to revise our system of Corporation Tax to harmonise with theirs?
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member can hardly think that I am going to tell him that now.

    Gold
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the consultations he has had with representatives of the United States Government with a view to securing the demonetisation of gold.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have had no such consultations.
    Mr. Roebuck: Might not the step indicated in my Question well curb the monkey tricks of General de Gaulle? Is it not rather sad that my right hon. Friend is prepared to act as General de Gaulle's poodle and to kick in the teeth Commonwealth Prime Ministers from South-East

    201
    Asia in pursuing his curious doctrine of wanting to get into Europe?
    Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend, who has strong views on this and on many other matters, seems to be raising a large number of issues which do not arise directly from the question whether I should or should not consult the United States Government about the demonetisation of gold.

    Scotland
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will publish a White Paper on the effects of devaluation and the connected measures upon Scotland.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell: As the Secretary of State for Scotland has limited his statements to the fields within the responsibility of the Scottish Office, will the Government issue a comprehensive statement, including, for example, one concerning the investment grant postponement, since these grants form one of the main benefits of a development area?
    Mr. Jenkins: Scotland, like other development areas, has been protected, in that there have been no cuts in development area expenditure. I do not think that it would be particularly useful to publish a White Paper dealing with the effects of devaluation upon a particular part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will not my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper showing the effects of these cuts on the Scottish Departments? Is he aware that we are all very anxious to know how the cuts will affect health services, housing, and education? Surely there is nothing inconsistent with Government policy in our being told the facts about Scotland.
    Mr. Jenkins: I am very anxious that the House should know the facts about Scotland and about other matters, but I think that a detailed breakdown of the sort my hon. Friend refers to is within the purview of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than of myself.
    Mr. MacArthur: Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this position? Is he not aware that for some months the Government have been making it clear that there are to be cuts in Scotland and that local authorities and other bodies in Scotland are waiting to have details of these cuts? We know that the road, education, and housing programmes are to be slashed. There will also be cuts in local authority investment programmes. What are the details of these cuts? Why will not the Government come clean and tell us what the cuts are to be?
    Mr. Jenkins: The details of these cuts, as with the details of cuts for England and Wales, have been outlined. If any further Questions arise, they should be tabled to the Ministers concerned.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the shipbuilder's relief is to be withdrawn, as well as the export rebate, to which shipbuilders were entitled as an option.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's statement on this in the House on 22nd November, 1967.—[Vol. 754, c. 1434.]
    Mr. Digby: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken into account the fact that in fixed price contracts already negotiated this relief has been taken into account and that he is placing a new burden on the industry?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am not placing a new burden on the industry because, as my right hon. Friend made clear, the industry is maintaining the relief which it had, which was an alternative to the export rebate, which rebate is being abolished, but it is not being abolished for the shipbuilding industry.

    Gaming Machines (Tax)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his present estimate of the income from the tax on gaming machines.
    Mr. Harold Lever: The Budget estimates included a little under £3 million on this account.
    Mr. Gardner: I accept that it is a useful and honourable way of raising revenue, but does not my hon. Friend think that to charge a tax of £75 on a bona fide sporting club which makes a net profit of just over £125 from a machine is a little unfair? Will he ask the Chancellor to look at this matter when he is preparing his Budget?
    Mr. Lever: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend to look at the matter, but I know that my right hon. Friend would not wish at this point to have any comment on this subject from me.

    Income Tax Allowances (Dependants)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Inland Revenue Department that when Income Tax allowances for dependants are discontinued those concerned should be given details of assistance available from the Ministry of Social Security.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: There would be great difficulty in putting upon the Inland Revenue responsibility for advising about the whole possible range of social security benefits.
    Mr. Gardner: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is a humane service which might be provided? Is he aware that people are often denied supplementary benefits which are available to them, even after weeks, indeed years, of argument with the Inland Revenue authorities about tax allowances, simply because no one tells them? Will he look at the matter again?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of the particular case which brought this matter to my hon. Friend's attention. I am glad that he chooses to present the Inland Revenue in a humane way. The Inland Revenue is a very heavily burdened Department and there are limits to the burdens which I can or should place upon them.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reduction he in tends to make in the number of civil servants as a result of proposed cuts in Government expenditure following devaluation.
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is now taking to curb the growth in numbers of civil servants.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is the intention, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 16th January, to plan the staffing of Departments in such a way that over the year 1968–69 there will be no further net increase in the number of civil servants as a whole.—[Vol. 756, c. 1591.]
    Mr. Goodhart: As the Chancellor himself presides over one of the Departments which has grown most rapidly in the past three years, will he give the House a firm assurance that the staff of the Inland Revenue will not increase this year?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am certainly applying this stringency to Departments, including those within my immediate purview, but I could not give a particular assurance at this stage about any particular Department.
    Mr. Ridsdale: What proportion of the increase of 57,000 civil servants since 1964 is permanent and what proportion is temporary? How many of the 200,000 extra local government employees are permanent and how many are temporary?
    Mr. Jenkins: I could not say that without notice.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will not the introduction of prescription charges involve additional civil servants? Does he not want to abandon this absurd project?
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No. I think that my hon. Friend underlines the general plea that policy changes, many of them advocated from both sides of the House——
    Mr. Manuel: Not this one, though.
    Mr. Jenkins: Not exactly all of them—are much easier to advocate than it is to realise what it means in terms of civil servants.
    Sir J. Eden: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can do better than that? Why cannot he make a start with the occupants of No. 10? Is it not clear that they are all redundant?
    Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Public Sector (Investment)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much investment in the public sector rose in the third quarter of this year, before devaluation.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Public sector fixed investment, revalued at 1958 prices and seasonally adjusted, increased by 1½ per cent, between the second and third quarters of 1967.
    Mr. Digby: Did it not increase by no less than 7 per cent, in the previous quarter, at a time when investment in manufacturing industry was declining? Is not this most undesirable?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks is undesirable, he fact that there was a greater increase in the second quarter or a very much smaller increase in the third quarter.

    Bank of France (Central Bank Arrangements)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will renew Central Bank swap arrangements with the Bank of France.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: These arrangements continue in being.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May we take it from that most welcome news that the French Government can be relied on to report on the progress of the British attempt to return to solvency and keep the Government up to the mark, when the Chancellor appears to lack the determination to do so, judging by last week's events?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman constructs extremely elaborate supplementary questions. My answer to the Question relates to the Bank of France. I answered the Question which was asked.

    Tax Collection
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, before considering rates of tax generally in preparing the next Budget, he will ascertain how much solicitors for Government Departments are trying to collect in over due Income Tax, Surtax, pay-as-you-earn,
    206
    Corporation Tax and Selective Employment Tax.
    Mr. Harold Lever: It would not be possible to ascertain this amount without a disproportionate amount of work.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the Financial Secretary agree that there are probably tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions, overdue in the hands of Government solicitors, and that if he collected all that money there need not be any increase in taxation on 19th March?
    Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman is the first hon. Member—and I hear from many of them—to suggest that the Inland Revenue is too lenient in enforcing the collection of taxation.

    Steel Industry (Borrowing Requirement)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the borrowing requirement of the nationalised steel industry has been taken into account in arriving at the forecast of the net borrowing requirement for 1968 contained in his predecessor's Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The needs of the British Steel Corporation, as of other nationalised industries, were borne in mind in arriving at the figure of £1,000 million.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friends are very keen to talk about sacrifices by others. Is not it time the Government started to sacrifice some of their own claptrap about nationalisation in order to enable us to satisfy our creditors in the terms they are laying down for us?
    Mr. Jenkins: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about claptrap, he should ask a supplementary question relating to the Question he put down and not something he prepared. The Question relates to the borrowing requirement of a nationalised industry, and no doubt he would wish on reflection, as would the whole House, the proper capital requirements of that industry to be met.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most surprising

    207
    question from a Scottish Tory, because this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee Scottish Tories urged far greater expenditure on national sewage?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am not in the least surprised to be informed that, even in the Scottish Grand Committee, there is a contradiction between what hon. Members opposite say in particular and what they say in general.
    Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the Question. It is not whether the industry's borrowing requirement has been borne in mind but to what extent it has been taken into account. Will he answer that question?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Sir. But I think that what the hon. Gentleman probably does not appreciate is that the borrowing requirement is not directly related to any particular item of expenditure, whether current or capital, but is the difference between the total of Government expenditure and the amount brought in in revenue. It is therefore not possible to answer the question in as precise a manner as the hon. Gentleman would like. But certainly it was taken fully into account.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

    Suez Finance Company
    Mr. Alisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to their official holdings in securities of the Suez Finance Company.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Her Majesty's Government are not seeking to dispose of the shares at present.
    Mr. Alison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who now controls the company, where most of the assets are held, in Egypt or outside, and how the security of our assets is likely to be affected by recent events in the Middle East, particularly our proposal to withdraw from that area?
    Mr. Jenkins: The company is under French control and my understanding is that most of the assets are held outside
    208
    the Middle East. The company is to a very large extent a general investment company.

    Imports
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to checking imports, he will require importers to pay cash at the time of the placing of the order, in accordance with the system, details of which have been sent to him, adopted a few years ago in Italy with satisfactory results for the Italian balance of payments.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. I am not convinced that such a scheme could usefully be introduced in this country.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: The scheme as put in the Question is perhaps a little exaggerated. But would the right hon. Gentleman take it from me, for I was in Italy in April, 1964, when the Italian Government required importers to pay cash within 30 days of the goods arriving, that it had a very salutary effect on the Italian balance of payments at that time? Would he consider something along those lines?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, as he puts it, the facts in the Question were a little exaggerated. They were somewhat inaccurate, but I did not point that out until he raised it. But he subsequently raised the question again accurately, and it is true that in 1964–65 die Italian Government made a remarkable swing-round from a position of deficit to a very large surplus, but it is difficult to argue that that particular proposal was unique amongst those which effected that. There would be certain practical difficulties about applying it here in present circumstances.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Will my right hon. Friend not be so ready to dismiss the suggestion out of hand? Is he aware that a great many goods are being imported into this country that we do not need and cannot afford and are bad for the country's economic health? While none of us wish to be identified as protectionists in outlook, because we are an exporting nation, there is a point where reason flies out of the window and common prudence and ability exercised by many of our international competitors is

    209
    not matched by equal vigilance at our own ports.
    Mr. Jenkins: I was at fault if I gave the impression that I dismissed this or any similar suggestion out of hand. All these suggestions must be considered very seriously, but I am not convinced that this would be a useful measure at present. Apart from anything else, its immediate impact would be to worsen our short-term balance of payments.

  U.S.S.R. (FINANCIAL AND PROPERTY CLAIMS)
  Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in finalising the Agreement reached between him and Mr. Kosygin in February, 1967, en the settlement of mutual financial and property claims between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I have been asked to reply.
  As the House knows, the Agreement was signed on 5th January.
  Mr. Blaker: Why have the Government agreed to pay over to the Soviet Government £500,000 from the assets in this country, which would otherwise have been available to help meet the claims of the British claimants? Are not the British claims bigger than the Soviet claims? If any such payment were to be made, should not it have been the other way around?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I think that everybody who really thinks about this will realise that it was a very good business to get this Agreement out and to be able to settle it as we have for all the claimants, and that the payment out to the Soviet Union was very well worth doing.
  Mr. Heath: In order that the House can form a judgment about this, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the break-up of the respective claims to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, showing how the final conclusion was reached? Will he give the House the exact date on which the gold which had been deposited here by the central banks
  210
  of the three countries concerned was exchanged—shall we say—for Treasury bonds? Does he still recognise the claim of the central banks on this gold?
  Mr. Brown: I shall certainly arrange for the date on which the gold was, as the right hon. Gentleman delicately puts it, "exchanged" to be published, and I shall certainly consider the question of the break-up. My immediate reaction is that I see no reason why I should not publish that, but I should like to consider it. The third question was?——
  Mr. Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman still recognise the claims of the central banks on the gold?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I think that this must be regarded as a settlement of the whole thing.
  Sir T. Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed Agreement seems to quite a number of people morally and legally doubtful? Since it must be subject to Parliamentary approval, will he say why the £500,000 has already been deposited in the Bank of England to the credit of the Soviet Union without Parliament being consulted?
  Mr. Brown: The Agreement will be subject in due course to Parliamentary approval. If Parliament turns it down, that will be that. Our own judgment— and we are for the moment the Government—[Laughter.]—for the moment and for a long time to come—is that this is a very good Agreement and that it was well worth getting out in this way.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is true that the other three countries have been absorbed into the Soviet Union. Should they by any chance regain their nationality at some future point, would the right hon. Gentleman consider, before Parliament discusses this again, whether the debt could not be honoured in those circumstances?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has been much longer in my job than I have. He is therefore much better able to assess possible eventualities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In that situation I repeat to him that he would have liked to be able to make this Agreement.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend on 18th January to Questions by the hon. Members for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).—[Vol. 756, c. 1950.]
  Mr. Wall: Is it not now clear that the initiative lies with the Rhodesians and that very soon they are likely to break their last links with this country? Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider making some concessions at least to salve something from the debacle of Government policy?
  Mr. Brown: I am not sure who the hon. Gentleman thinks has to salve something from whose debacle. We have gone as far as we could go; the Smith régime has not moved at all. We both know that there are situations which, if they wished, they could take hold of and help. I do not think that we are called upon to do anything else now except to hold on to the course which not only we but the world outside believe to be the right course.
  Mr. Heath: Is the Foreign Secretary, therefore, saying that Her Majesty's Government propose to take no steps whatever to try to overcome the obstacles which emerged during the Commonwealth Secretary's visit to Rhodesia?
  Mr. Brown: No obstacles emerged during the Commonwealth Secretary's visit. The obstacles are that the Smith régime went back on agreements and arrangements which Smith had made. Difficulties are rising in Rhodesia. I suggest that the right thing for all of us to do is to hold the position and wait until people in Rhodesia understand what is happening, as, I believe, many of them are doing.
  Mr. William Hamilton: What formal knowledge does my right hon. Friend have of the development of an opposition party in Rhodesia, an opposition to the illegal Smith régime? What steps are
  212
  the Government taking to tighten up sanctions to expedite that development?
  Mr. Brown: The tightening up of sanctions, which are a matter of a mandatory resolution of the U.N., is, of course, for the United Nations. As for what develops in Rhodesia, on the whole I would not help events if I were to comment too much.
  Mr. Heath: I must press the Foreign Secretary. During the Commonwealth Secretary's visit, Mr. Smith asked for certain changes to be made in the "Tiger" constitution, changes which Her Majesty's Government said they found unacceptable. Is the Foreign Secretary saying that the Government are to take absolutely no action whatever to try to find ways round those difficulties with Mr. Smith?
  Mr. Brown: What I am saying is that Mr. Smith has gone so far back on agreements which he made that it is not for us to find ways round the difficulty. It is for him to go back to the agreement which he made and to work it out with his own people. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that he would do far better making that plain to Mr. Smith than trying to lecture us.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the "Tiger" constitution the Smith régime has introduced a great deal of racialist and repressive legislation which is moving it far away from the community of nations?
  Mr. Brown: That may well be so. At the time of the "Tiger" constitution, we thought that we had an arrangement on which we could get an honourable settlement. It is still the purpose of the Government to get an honourable settlement. I do not think that we can be asked to be those who move from here.
  Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon.Gentleman mean by his statement that there has been no further contact between the British Government and the Rhodesian Government——
  Mr. Faulds: What?
  Mr. Sandys: —between the British Government and the Rhodesian Government——
  Mr. Faulds: Since when was it a Government?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must contain himself.
  Mr. Sandys: —since the Commonwealth Secretary's visit? Does the right lion. Gentleman realise that if he allows things just to drift, he will find that the Rhodesian authorities have set up a new constitution and that after that there will be no possibility of a settlement?
  Mr. Brown: Even knowing the right hon. Gentleman as well as I do, I am very surprised that he should espouse an illegal régime as he does. We have contacts with the Governor; we do not have contacts in that sense with an illegal régime.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to develop alternative economic and technological links.
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the British application to enter the European Economic Community.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  I have nothing to add to the Statement I made to the House on 20th December.—[Vol. 756, c. 1267.]
  Mr. Roberts: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that we should now concentrate on economic and technological links in and out of Europe and forget our application, which is a dead duck? Would he further agree that we should now consider joining only when we are asked and on our terms?
  Mr. Brown: I am sorry that I do not agree with that. I would like to do so, because I like my hon. Friend, but I do not agree with it. We must pursue our decision to become full members of the Community, partly because of its economic advantages and partly because of the political advantages for Europe. But I
  214
  agree with my hon. Friend that in the meantime, while progress towards that desirable end is blocked, we should make as much progress as we can, technological and every other kind of progress, outside the Community.
  Mr. Winnick: While it is inevitable that sooner or later we shall join with other countries in a wider European community, why should we not accept the realities of life and see that there is no chance of our entering the Common Market for some time to come?
  Mr. Brown: Very often my hon. Friend's views on what are the realities of life and mine seem to differ. I still wish to try to arrange that we should become, with others, members of an enlarged community, as my hon. Friend puts it, as soon as possible, but I repeat that, in the meantime, we will do what we can to develop associations outside the Community while waiting to get the wider Europe for which we are looking.
  Mr. David Howell: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent Benelux proposals for closer economic and political links between the Five and Britain and the three other countries seeking entry to the Common Market, links outside the Treaty of Rome? What view does the right hon. Gentleman take of that?
  Mr. Brown: Of course I have seen them, and there is a great deal to be said for what is proposed. I am now considering what reply to make to Benelux and the other countries.
  Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the Benelux memorandum so that we can see exactly what is proposed? Would he also confirm that what he is now considering is consultation about matters outside the Treaty of Rome between the Six and ourselves and not between five or four or three members of the Six and ourselves?
  Mr. Brown: I thought that the Benelux proposals were already published, but of course I shall place them in the Library. As to developments outside the Common Market, it is no part of our business to disrupt the Community. Quite clearly, as we want to join the Community, nothing could be more stupid than to disrupt it. Therefore, if we could develop associations and

  215
  arrangements with the Six outside the Treaty of Rome, that would be perfect, but if we cannot it would be silly to deny ourselves the opportunity to develop them with those European countries with whom we can develop them, and we are pursuing every channel.
  Mr. Shinwell: In my right hon. Friend's original Answer to the Question, he informed the House that he had nothing more to say. Could he not have contented himself with that observation? In view of the economic plight in which we find ourselves and as there is a great deal of muddle—[Laughter.]—we know that there is muddle on the other side of the House and there is a great deal of muddle in the country—which causes confusion, why do the Government bother about this Common Market business? Why should they not be quiet about it?
  Mr. Brown: I do not accept what my right hon. Friend says about muddle. I do not accept that he or I or any of us in the House can ignore what will happen in the next decade, much less ignore what will happen over the next two decades. This will certainly require that we develop a more integrated Europe. I believe that my right hon. Friend and I owe it to those to whom we are to hand over affairs—[Laughter.]—the other side are clearly giggling a bit early in the day; the people to whom we will hand over affairs are my children and my grandchildren, and the children and grandchildren of others, and we need to hand over to them a more integrated Europe, a Europe playing a more powerful political part than the present disorganised Europe plays. My right hon. Friend and I ought to be devoting all our time to trying to bring that about.
  Sir G. de Freitas: Will the Foreign Secretary suggest to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology that when he speaks on Monday in the Council of Europe Assembly he should suggest for discussion the planning of a technological link, adaptable both to our associations with the Six and also to an expanding Community?
  Mr. Brown: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has that very much in mind. One of the
  216
  contributions that we can make, not by any means the only one, to a more integrated Europe is through technological development, putting our capacity for research and development and production in the greater home market. I would be very surprised if my right hon. Friend does not make exactly that point when he speaks.
  Several Hon. Members
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Private Notice Question, Mr. Braine.

MAURITIUS (STATE OF EMERGENCY)
Mr. Braine Mr. Braine (by Private Notice) asked the Commonwealth Secretary whether he will make a statement about the declaration of a state of emergency in Mauritius, and the sending of British troops from Singapore to restore order.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I very much regret to inform the House that there has been rioting leading to loss of life in Mauritius. A state of emergency has been declared and British reinforcements despatched. On 21st January the Governor informed me that there had been a series of brawls between communal gangs in Eastern Port Louis and these had escalated in violence and extent.
After consultation with the Prime Minister of Mauritius the Governor decided to declare a state of emergency in the eastern part of Port Louis. By yesterday, 22nd January, the violence had spread still further and the total number of dead had reached 14. The Governor therefore extended the state of emergency to cover the whole island. In these circumstances, both the Governor and the Prime Minister agreed that it was necessary to request military reinforcements. A small contingent of the King's Shropshire Light Infantry was sent to Mauritius and the first elements have already arrived in Mauritius. Two frigates are also on their way.
Within the last half hour I have been in telephonic communication with the Governor. I regret to say that the death roll has now reached 17. The Governor however, tells me that the island is now quieter though there is still danger of

217
outbreaks. Some shops remain shut in Port Louis, and there is a refugee problem with which the Government are coping.
Political leaders of the Mauritius Government and of the Opposition in Mauritius have both deplored this outbreak of violence. The whole House will share my hope that the Mauritius security forces will soon succeed in restoring order.
Mr. Braine: The House will be both distressed at these happenings and quick to note how fortunate it was that British troops were so readily available.
May I ask the Secretary of State two questions? Is he satisfied that the small contingent to which he referred is sufficient to restore order, and will he keep the House informed if there is any change in the situation? Secondly, is lie aware that although independence is clue on 12th March—a very short time away—the Government have been so far quite unable to inform Parliament about the promised defence agreement and arrangements for internal security which are to take effect after independence?
Can he say, therefore, whether it is proposed to adhere to the independence timetable even if, unhappily, the state of emergency continues?
Mr. Thomson: I am, of course, satisfied that in the present situation the number of troops sent is adequate. I shall continue to watch this situation very carefully indeed.
In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs told the hon Gentleman in the debate on Friday. I see no reason, in these regrettable disturbances, for reconsidering the date of independence.
Mr. James Johnson: I am choosing my words carefully. Is the Minister not aware that this gang warfare between the Moslems and the Creoles in Port Louis stems from a shabby deal over the choice of the mayor which was originally offered to the Moslem leader? This pledge was not carried out by the Parti Mauricien and hence we have had the fanning of much wider sections of violence by agents provocateurs who did not like the last independence elections?
Mr. Thomson: I would not like to follow my hon. Friend in his speculations as to the reasons. I would content myself with quoting to the House the explanation that the Governor gave to the people of Mauritius in his broadcast on Sunday evening. He said:
"I do not want to go too deeply into the causes of this violence at this stage."
He said that there was nothing at all to suggest that this was politically inspired and motivated and added:
"It appears to have its roots in gang rivalry."
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it intended that the defence agreement with Mauritius will or will not provide for measures to assist in the preservation of law and order internally?
Mr. Thomson: These events do not directly affect our undertaking at the Constitutional Conference of 1965, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, to make an agreement with Mauritius covering mutual defence arrangements after independence. Naturally, pending negotiations on the actual arrangements, the details of these negotiations must remain confidential.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my right hon. Friend say how well the Mauritius Government are coping with the refugee problem? Will he make further inquiries about this to see what help, other than military reinforcements, we can provide?
Mr. Thomson: Yes. I have only heard half an hour ago from the Governor that a refugee problem is, regrettably, one of the by-products of this violence. We shall certainly look closely into what we can do to help.
Mr. Maudling: Will any defence agreement in Mauritius make sense once we have left east of Suez?
Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. I think that it may well make sense but, obviously, these are matters that have to be very closely studied.
Mr. Mayhew: Is the Commonwealth Secretary aware that those who have been critical of our east of Suez presence have always made it clear that some provision should be made in the way of a small residual presence, in Australia perhaps, for maintaining—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This was always included

219
in the costings of resolutions passed at Parliamentary conferences and elsewhere. Is he aware that we have always said that there should be a small residual presence to look after our remaining commitments with the Colonies and Dependent Territories after we left? What do the Government propose for these residual Dependencies, the Solomon Islands and Mauritius, after we have left unless there is a residual presence in Australia?
Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend is perfectly right in the point that he is making. The House ought to recall that if, given such events, it was decided to send forces to Mauritius after we had withdrawn from Singapore, we should do so from our general capability bases in Europe, including the United Kingdom. We have always made it perfectly plain that we would have a continuing responsibility for maintaining internal security in our Dependencies, and we shall, of course, have to have the capability to do that.
Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the root cause of the trouble in Mauritius is growing unemployment? Would the Secretary of State consider bringing forward the financial talks that he is to have with the Mauritius Government?
Mr. Thomson: There are a great many things to be done between now and independence. The timetable for the financial talks has been agreed between the two Governments, and I do not think that these events would make it any more advantageous to try to rush the financial talks.
Mr. Heath: Will the defence agreement with Mauritius depend for its implementation, should over-flying rights not be available, on the use of Simonstown?
Mr. Thomson: We envisage that after 1971 there will be a number of route options open to us to fulfil our responsibilities in Mauritius and in other Dependent Territories.
Dr. David Kerr: While conveying our very deep concern to the island over these events, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can give us an assurance that the Government will look sympathetically at any request for aid in dealing with the consequences of the violence? Can he
220
say what steps the Mauritius Government are taking to make sure that this outbreak of violence, which may not have stemmed from political issues, is not allowed to escalate into a manifestation of political disturbance?
Mr. Thomson: The first thing to do in preventing these disturbances from escalating is to take the kind of steps to maintain law and order which we have taken. Her Majesty's Government give generous assistance to the Government of Mauritius. I have already said that we will look at the question of refugees.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that since die war there have been between 40 and 50 occasions when British troops have been called upon to restore order or to come to the aid of a civil power? Is it not becoming an alarming fact that we shall no longer be able to do our duty and carry out our commitments east of Suez if we withdraw our troops from that part of the world?
Mr. Thomson: I cannot accept that we will not be able to do our duty to our remaining Dependencies after we have withdrawn from Singapore. If, in the case of Mauritius, which will be an independent Commonwealth country in a very few weeks' time, it were decided to send forces at any time, then we would do so, as I have said, from our European capability.
Dr. John Dunwoody: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the position of Royal Navy personnel and their families who are stationed in Mauritius?
Mr. Thomson: So far as my present information goes, no harm has come to any people from Britain or, indeed, to any property owned by people from Britain.
Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the Government avoid taking it for granted that the Australians will grant us facilities to protect Mauritius or anywhere else, observing how shabbily the British Government have treated Australian interests in recent months?
Mr. Thomson: I was not taking anything for granted in giving the House the assurances which I have just given.
Mr. Hastings: The right hon. Gentleman spoke a moment ago about coping with future situations in Mauritius from the European capability. How will that be done? What transit airfields in Africa will be used, for instance?
Mr. Thomson: We are satisfied that there will be a number of route options available to us. I would not wish to go into details at this point, but I would mention Ascension Island
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY, 5th FEBRUARY
Mr. Speaker: Before we take the Ballot for Notices of Motions for Monday, 5th February, perhaps I should remind the House that this is the first such Ballot to be taken under the new Sessional Order to which the House agreed on 12th December last.
Under the terms of that Order, the successful Members whose names are called out are not required to rise and give oral notice of the subject which they intend to raise—indeed, they need not even be present—nor are they expected to give any written indication to the Table today.
222
All that they need do is to hand in notice of the subjects which they wish to raise to the Table or Table Office on a sitting day not less than nine days before the Private Members' Motion day in question—that is, in this instance, at any time up to the rising of the House on Friday.
The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

Mr. Tony Gardner.

Mr. Gordon Oakes.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Biggs-Davison Mr. Biggs-Davison rose——
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not hear the new method of procedure.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are we not permitted to resort to the old procedure if we so desire, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; he is quite right. We have said that hon. Members need not give oral notice, but that does not mean that they are not allowed to do so if they wish.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 5th February, I shall call attention to restrictions on the sale of arms, and move a Resolution.

HEARING AIDS
3.46 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Hearing Aids Council to register persons engaged in the manufacture or supply of hearing aids, to advise on the training of persons engaged in such business, and to regulate trade practices; and for purposes connected therewith.
This is the third time that I have sought leave to introduce this Bill, and I am hopeful that perhaps the third time will be lucky. My purpose is still to protect the hard-of-hearing from the hard-selling. I want to put service, education and information in the place of gimmicky sales promotion. Therefore, what I seek to do in the Bill is to help those suffering from a hearing disability and to protect them in the same way that we safeguard those whose eyesight is not so good and who need spectacles. No longer do people go to Woolworth's for spectacles; they have to be prescribed by a qualified person. A council for ears, just as we have the General Optical Council for eyes, can help in fulfilling this purpose.
When I tried to persuade the House to accept the Bill on Second Reading last year, I was up against the proposition that it did not fall easily into any category. Fifty-five per cent, of it concerned consumer protection and 45 per cent, concerned health. I have discovered that nothing annoys legislators more than a Bill which will not fit neatly into one department. I pay tribute to the Ministers and officials of the Board of Trade who since then have given their time and advice freely, and especially to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), and the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody). I am not quite sure who is the "darling".
Deaf people are vulnerable, and they are often elderly. They desperately want a miracle—something which will give back the hearing which they have lost and which will enable them to mix with their friends and relations without feeling embarrassment or foolish. The fact that friends and relations are impatient of deafness and that it is still too often the subject of a music hall joke adds to the
224
false pride that is ashamed to show it. They therefore desperately seek an invisible aid.
I hope that one of the by-products of the Bill would be social acceptance of this disability, just as we accept those unfortunate enough to have lost the use of either eyes or limbs, and that we shall get to the stage when there is no more reluctance to wear a hearing aid than there is to wear a pair of spectacles.
The council which I propose would do two things: first, regulate trade practices; and, secondly, seek to establish professional standards so that there are qualified dispensers of the aids. It would also keep a register of those so qualified.
A prosthetic device is not something like a vacuum cleaner, and it should be taken out of that kind of selling. It is something which a disabled person needs to have to bring him back into communication with the world and with which he needs to be well and truly serviced. I would commend to the House an article in a recent edition of Which? which shows that the best buy is still the National Health Service Medresco. For the majority of people, it is still a very good aid, although there are some whom it does not suit.
The article in Which? shows that the margin between the cost of production, which is £12 or £14, and a selling price which can be as much as £75 is very large. The large margin is sheer profit to the unethical salesman who does not make up the difference with the education, service and nursing of the person which are needed if he is to learn to use the aid properly. The way in which the mould is made and the person is taught to use his aid are of vital importance, and the user needs to be protected against those who do not give solid service. In my experience, it takes at least three months to learn to use an aid properly. That period of three months needs safeguarding.
The industry has sought always to establish higher standards, but so far it has not had the statutory teeth, and I am grateful that it is now seeking power, through my Bill, because the ethical firms have been at the mercy of the fly-by-night salesman.
I have almost 100 per cent, support for my Bill from leaders of the industry

225
like Montagu of Multitone, Sterling of Ardente, and Driver of the Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists. The one snag into which I have run is that of finance. In my innocence, I thought that it would be easy to get £5,000 a year out of the Treasury, in view of the fact that we spend £1 million a year on Medresco. However, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, if leave is given me to bring in this Bill, the industry will meet the whole cost, and no charge will fall cm anyone else.
The hard of hearing want clarity, rather than volume. For this Bill, I want a volume of support from the House, a token of which is shown by the Bill's sponsors, who include a former Conservative Minister of Health and the spokesman for the Liberal Party on health matters. From us all I want compassion and understanding, with some protection for the disabled whose disability lies in their ears. The Bill can be a major factor to achieve these aims.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Laurence Pavitt, Mr. Turton, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. W. T. Williams, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Dr. John Dunwoody, and Mr. Tony Gardner.

HEARING AIDS
Bill to provide for the establishment of a Hearing Aids Council to register persons engaged in the manufacture or supply of hearing aids, to advise on the training of persons engaged in such business, and to regulate trade practices; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 23rd February and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.54 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The principal object of the Bill is to improve the system whereby persons become justices of the peace in England and Wales. That system is unique in the whole world. Over 90 per cent, of the criminal cases in England and Wales are tried in magistrates' courts. All but 1 per cent, of them, which are dealt with by stipendiary magistrates, are tried by lay justices up and down the country. Their competence and suitability and the confidence which they inspire are of great importance to the ordinary citizen, for it is in the magistrates' courts more than any other court that he is most likely to come up against the administration of justice in action.
  The method of appointment of justices has been the subject of a lot of controversy during much of our history, particularly during the last century and a half. In this century, it has been considered by two Royal Commissions, one reporting in 1911 and the other in 1948. The principal recommendation of the 1911 Royal Commission, which was duly implemented, was that the Lord Chancellor—and, in the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy—who had long been responsible for the appointment of justices, should continue to exercise this function, but that he should be assisted by advisory committees which should be set up throughout the country for this purpose.
  The outstanding recommendations of the 1948 Royal Commission were the introduction of training schemes, the imposition of a compulsory retiring age at 75, and the payment of certain allowances to justices. Most of the 1948 recommendations were implemented either by administrative action or by the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. That was the last occasion on which any general review of the magistracy was undertaken.
  Suggestions have been made in the House and elsewhere that a further

  227
  fundamental review of the procedure, administration and jurisdiction of magistrates' courts should now be initiated. But, as the House is aware, an inquiry has been taking place since the end of 1966 into the whole structure of the higher criminal courts by the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions. Its report is likely to have a profound bearing on the arrangements for magistrates' courts as well. It would, therefore, be wiser to wait until the recommendations of the Royal Commission are known before any further inquiry is carried out into magistrates' courts, and it may be some time before that can be done.
  In the meantime, in the light of the experience gained since the last Royal Commission on justices reported 20 years ago or thereabouts, the need has become apparent for some changes in the magisterial system which can be carried out without any likelihood that they will have to be altered again in the foreseeable future. The Bill embodies those changes.
  Most of its provisions are based on the principle that the magistrates' courts should generally be compised of lay justices who are men and women of integrity and intelligence drawn, so far as practicable, from all sections of the community, holding all shades of opinion, and who have been specially selected for the important work which they have to perform as justices of the peace.
  Clause 1 of the Bill, which deals principally with the appointment of justices, provides in subsection (1) that no person shall become a justice of the peace unless either he is appointed by name to a commission of the peace or he holds one of the offices specified in the First Schedule. This means that, in future, with a few exceptions, the only way in which a person can become a justice of the peace will be by being appointed by name by the Lord Chancellor or, in the Duchy of Lancaster, by the Chancellor of the Duchy.
  The effect of this provision will also be that all ex officio justices—that is to say, all persons who are at present justices by virtue of holding some other office—will cease to be justices, with the exception of those mentioned in the First
  228
  Schedule who need to be magistrates to carry out their functions. I refer to people like the chairmen of quarter sessions and recorders. At the moment, there are about 2,000 persons who are justices because they hold some other office. That number compares with about 16,000 justices on the active list who have been appointed by name to a commission of the peace.
  If I may say so, the ex officio justices are a rich and somewhat strange variety. They include, among others, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Lord Privy Seal, Privy Councillors, High Court judges, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council, the chairmen of county councils and of urban and rural district councils, the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London, the mayors of boroughs, and the Vice-Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge. For some reason, there are three ex officio magistrates for Oxford but only one, by some unaccountable piece of inequality, for Cambridge. Curiously enough, among the ex officio justices are the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, so I suppose I ought to declare a self-denying interest in the fate of the Bill.
  The Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace of 1948 recommended that chairmen of county and urban district and rural district councils should cease to be justices ex officio. The Commission pointed out that the qualities that enable a chairman of a local authority to perform his duties as chairman with success are not of necessity those requisite for the office of justice of the peace, and, moreover, in many areas the question who is to be the chairman is decided more by rotation than by merit.
  It went on to say that if a chairman of a local authority is suitable for appointment as a justice, the ordinary procedure should suffice to ensure his consideration for that office. The Commission, however, did not recommend that mayors of boroughs or Privy Councillors and others, to whom it was good enough to refer as "high officers", should cease to be justices ex officio.
  Most of those who gave evidence to the Royal Commission thought that at least

  229
  some of the justices ex officio should be abolished, although there was not agreement on this point. But, in spite of the weight of opinion against the retention of at least local authority justices ex officio, the recommendation of the Royal Commission on this point was the only recommendation dealing with individual justices which was not implemented.
  The subject was discussed during the passage of the Justices of the Peace Bill through Parliament in 1949, but no provisions for the abolition of these justices were included in the Bill for reasons which were not, if I may say so, altogether clear, but partly it seems because it was thought that the position of local government justices ex officio could better be dealt with in the legislation on the future structure of local government which was about to be considered. This subject, however, was not pursued, and the position remains the same today as it was then.
  The Government take the view that the principle which should be applied to the appointment of justices is that only those who are specially selected for the purpose and who are able to give sufficient time to the work should be appointed. It therefore follows that there should be no justices ex-officio whatever, save only those who hold judicial offices in the courts in which magistrates are directly concerned, such as, as I have said, chairmen of quarter sessions and recorders.
  Added to this there is now a system, as the House knows, of compulsory training for all justices of the peace on first appointment. This training cannot in general be applied effectively to the ex officio justices because of the method of appointment of these persons and the short period during which most of them hold office.
  Advantage has also been taken in the Bill to make some tidying up proposals. Before I refer to those, I would like to mention the proposal in Clause 1(1) of the Bill to abolish the office of Keeper of the Rolls. Since the Bill was published, strong representations have been made for the retention of the ancient office of Custos Rotulorum on the ground that they play a useful part in the work of preserving some of the county records and archives in their respective areas. In view
  230
  of this, it is likely that the Government will move an Amendment to delete the provision for the abolition of this office, but this will not affect the provision that the Keeper will cease to be a justice ex officio under the Bill.
  Clause 1(2) of the Bill removes the requirement that a person who has once taken the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath as a justice shall take these oaths again if he is subsequently appointed a justice for any other area. Justices do move their residences from time to time and, under an arrangement which was introduced by the Lord Chancellor recently, a justice who has served for at least five years and then moves to another area is automatically placed on the commission for that area, though he is precluded from sitting in court until a vacancy occurs on his local bench and the advisory committee decide to recommend his appointment to the active list.
  It is obviously inconvenient and unnecessary for justices who are transferred in this way to be obliged to take the oaths once again, as they are under the existing law. There are other circumstances, with which I need not trouble the House, in which a justice may at present be required to take the oaths more than once.
  In addition to removing the necessity for what I might, without disrespect, call this superfluous oath-taking, the subsection also repeals those parts of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, which provide that the recorder of a borough and a borough justice shall not be capable of acting as such until they have made a declaration before the mayor or two other members of the council. The declaration, which is, of course, in addition to the judicial oaths, is to the effect that the recorder or justice will impartially execute his office according to the best of his judgment and ability. I suppose that if he fails to execute his office in that way he will be got rid of anyway; but, at any rate, it seems there is no object in retaining that provision.
  Clause 1(3) re-enacts certain old provisions whereby the position of a justice is not affected by any change in his name or his promotion to a dignity, and proceedings before justices are not affected by the issue of a new commission of the peace.

  231
  Clause 1(4) enables mayors of boroughs and chairmen of county and district councils to exercise the same functions as justices of the peace on the Supplemental List, notwithstanding that they will cease to be justices ex officio in consequence of the Bill. Justices on the Supplemental List cannot, as the House knows, sit in court, but they are permitted to perform the useful function of document-witnessing and the other functions which are set out in Clause 1(4) of the Bill.
  There has been some doubt whether all criminal courts have power to bind persons over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. Clause 1(5) is, therefor, declaratory of the power of all courts of record having criminal jurisdiction to bind over. The opportunity has also been taken in this subsection to abolish any right or power at common law of the Sovereign in person, or the Privy Council, members of the Privy Council or the Secretary of State, to commit to prison or to issue warrants of arrest or search warrants.
  We come now to Clause 1(6) of the Bill, which may well prove to be the most and perhaps the only controversial part of it. It provides for the issue of the commission of the peace to the City of London. At present, the City of London has no commission of the peace and it is the only area in the country which is not covered by a commission. The magistrates' courts for the City are composed of the aldermen who are justices ex officio by virtue of charters and have long performed valuable services as such.
  Under the Bill the appointment of justices for the City of London will be assimilated to that pertaining throughout the rest of England and Wales and according to the same principle. Aldermen will cease to be justices ex officio and the magistrates' courts in the City will be composed in future solely of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor by name to a commission which will be issued for the City and they will no longer be able to sit singly, as they do now, to try all cases. The City commission will be similar to that issued to each of the five commission areas established for Greater London under Section 2 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964.
  232
  In Clause 1(7) the Government are taking the opportunity of dealing with the position of the five stipendiary magistrates who are appointed under local Acts rather than under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. A stipendiary magistrate is normally appointed on the petition of the local authority for a single petty sessions area, usually a large borough with its own commission of the peace, like Manchester or Birmingham, but there are five stipendiary magistrates—in South Staffordshire, the Staffordshire Potteries, Salford, Merthyr Tydfil, and Pontypridd—who are appointed under local Acts of Parliament which were enacted mainly in the 19th century. Some of their provisions are somewhat archaic. These stipendiaries are now brought within the normal arrangements of the 1949 Act.
  Clause 2 reduces the retiring age for magistrates. A compulsory retiring age for lay justices was first introduced by the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, which required all justices except those who held, or had held, high judicial office to transfer to the Supplemental List on reaching the age of 75. Although some persons are no doubt well fitted to continue to serve efficiently as justices even after they have reached 75, experience suggests that the powers of the majority of lay justices at any rate tend to become impeded when they have passed 70. The Bill therefore reduces the age at which lay justices must transfer to the Supplemental List from 75 to 70.
  This provision does not apply to justices who are chairmen or deputy chairmen of quarter sessions, or to recorders, who hold or have held high judicial office, but the subsection does provide that all these persons must be placed on the Supplemental List when they reach 75, and in the case of chairmen and deputy chairmen and recorders they must transfer before attaining that age if they cease to hold office after they have reached 70.
  Subsection (2) applies a similar retiring age to stipendiary magistrates who are appointed after the passing of the Bill. Both Metropolitan stipendiaries and stipendiaries outside London will be required to vacate office at the end of the completed year of service in the course of which they attain the age of 70. At

  233
  present, stipendiary magistrates must retire at the end of the completed year of service in the course of which they attain the age of 72, subject to the proviso that the Lord Chancellor may authorise a magistrate to continue in office up to the age of 75 if he considers this desirable in the public interest.
  If the new retiring age of 70 were to be applied immediately to all lay justices there might be a shortage of experienced magistrates in some areas, and therefore, as the House will see, Clause 2(3) provides for the reduction in the age limit to be applied gradually, one year at a time, so that it will not finally drop to 70 until 1973.
  Clause 3 amends Section 13 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949 which enables the Lord Chancellor to make rules by Statutory Instrument governing the term of office and the procedure at an election of the chairman and deputy chairman of the justices in a petty sessional area. At present, a justice may vote at the election of a chairman and deputy chairman of his bench even though he has only just been appointed to the commission and has not had any opportunity to observe the suitability of his brother justices for these offices. The Clause will enable the rules to provide that no justice may vote at an election until he has served as a justice in the area for sufficiently long to enable him to understand what is involved and to know the merits of the justices for whom he will be able to vote.
  Clause 4 deals with allowances for justices of the peace. I think that it was Mark Twain who said that people will do almost anything provided that they are unpaid, but apparently there are limits. There is evidence that suitable candidates are deterred from accepting an appointment to the bench because they fear that they will incur out-of-pocket expenses which they cannot afford, and that, consequently, benches sit with an unusually large proportion of persons in the higher income groups.
  This is a question which the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace in 1948 was asked to consider. Before that time justices were not entitled to allowances of any kind. The Royal Commission recommended that justices should be paid their travelling expenses, and a
  234
  lodging allowance if they were away from home overnight, but came out against any payment for subsistence or for loss of remunerative time, because it felt that payments of this nature might lessen public confidence in an unpaid magistracy. It also thought that there would be very few cases in which such payments would secure the services of people with strong claims to appointment.
  The Government consider that the situation has changed significantly over the past 20 years, and during that time there has been continuing pressure on successive Governments, particularly from the Trades Union Congress, to widen the field from which justices are selected so that the bench is more truly representative of all social classes in the community. There is also abundant evidence from the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees, who nominate candidates for the bench, that many suitable people from the wage-earning section of the population cannot at present afford to serve as justices.
  We therefore propose, in subsection (2), the introduction of a financial loss allowance for justices of the peace. This will be on the lines of the allowance which was introduced by the Local Government Act, 1948, for elected members of local authorities. The current rates are up to £1 12s. 6d. for a period of not more than four hours, and up to £3 5s. for more than four hours. I want to emphasise that these are not flat-rate allowances which will be paid automatically for attendance on the bench. They must be claimed, and, within the maxima that I have mentioned, they will be payable only where a justice has suffered some actual loss of income or been put to extra expense, for example, where a small shopkeeper has had to pay someone to look after his shop while he has been sitting on the bench. I hope that this will dispel any suggestion of the kind which the Royal Commission envisaged, that people might be attracted to the bench because they think that they might earn more there than by their private exertions.
  In our view this modest Measure does not conflict with the concept of an unpaid magistracy. The principle is well accepted for local authority members, and no one thinks of them as being paid

  235
  for their service to the community. And, more recently, jurors have become entitled to a similar allowance. Only the lay magistrate in this field of service is expected to bear any financial loss himself, so the office of justice of the peace will continue to be an office of honour, and not an office of profit.
  We have brought in the reference to loss of National Insurance evidence to cover the rare situation where an unemployed justice might be denied unemployment benefit because he was required to sit in court on several successive days, and was held for this reason not to be available to take up employment.
  In relation to this part of the Bill, I should perhaps remind the House that, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced in November last, civil servants who are justices are allowed special leave with pay to carry out their judicial duties. Similar facilities are also granted to civil servants who are elected members of local authorities, and this allowance has been increased from 12 to 18 days a year. The House might like to know that nationalised industries, private industry and local government organisations have agreed, at the Lord Chancellor's request, to grant similar facilities to those of their employees who are appointed magistrates.
  Subsection (3) secures an improvement in the conditions governing payment of subsistence allowances to justices. The allowances were introduced in 1964, but they are not payable if the justice lives within three miles of the court. Subsection (3) removes this restriction. The House will be familiar with the case for this measure, which has been strenuously put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), whom I am happy to see in his place, who has carried out untiring efforts to achieve this reform by means of a Private Member's Bill.
  This is another situation which bears harder on the less well off justices. In most places it is not easy for a justice to undertake a round trip of six miles from the court to his home in the limited time allowed for a luncheon adjournment. If he cannot afford to lunch with his colleagues, he might have no alternative but to lunch in a cheap local hostelry, where
  236
  he might come into contact with defendants or witnesses. Apart from any embarrassment which this might cause, the House will take the view, I think that it is in the interests of justices that the members of the bench should be able to lunch together and discuss matters touching on their work in that refreshing interval. These two financial Measures will not, however, be introduced until economic circumstances permit——
  Sir Douglas Glover: I cannot understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last remark. Does he mean that the justices will have a private room in which to lunch? Whether they go into a cheap hostelry or an expensive one, they are just as likely to meet someone who has appeared before them when they were on the bench.
  The Attorney-General: But they will meet the more expensive crooks in the more expensive restaurants. I think that the intention is that they should meet together in a restaurant or hotel where, in the course of time, some arrangements of privacy can be laid on. I think that most restaurant owners near magistrates' courts are willing to undertake that sort of arrangement. [Laughter.] I hope that that is so. There is some derisive laughter from the benches below the Gangway opposite, but I certainly hope that that facility will be provided. I also hope that they will remember the lawyers and the Press in the course of that consideration.
  As I said, these two financial measures will be introduced only when economic circumstances permit. Subsection (4) removes a disability in Section 8(4) of the 1949 Act which, as at present drafted, precludes any arrangements being made for the payment of expenses to a paid chairman or deputy-chairman of quarter sessions, except at the time that his salary is determined. The subsection continues to disqualify them, like stipendiary magistrates and recorders, from any entitlement to financial loss allowance.
  Subsection (5) extends the benefits of the Clause to members of probation and after-care committees and members of case committees, most of whom are justices. Under the present legislation, the allowances for members of these committees are the same as for justices, but it is appropriate that they should continue to be so.

  237
  Clause 5 enables rules to be made for two purposes. Under subsection (1), rules can be made delegating to justices' clerks functions at present performed by justices and, under subsection (2), rules can be made prescribing the qualifications required by a person other than a justices' clerk who may have to perform the clerk's functions. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor considers that subjection (1) should help towards the efficient dispatch of court business by relieving justices of various functions of a routine or quasi-administrative nature which could be performed entirely satisfactorily by their clerk without the need to trouble a justice.
  The House will see, however, that limits are placed on this rule-making power. First, it relates only to functions preliminary or incidental to the proceedings before a magistrates court and thus clearly rules out delegation to the clerk of the court of the main functions of justices, such as the trial of an offence, the passing of sentence or the making of an order in a civil matter.
  Second, the power is restricted to functions which can at present be per formed by a single justice and thus excludes anything which has to be done by a court of two or more justices. Third, the issue or endorsement of war rants of arrest and other arrants—such as warrants committing to prison for non-payment of a fine—is excluded. Apart from these limitations, it is intended to provide in the rules that the delegation of functions to the clerk shall be subject to any directions given by the court, so that there will be no question of a clerk acting contrary to the policy or intentions of his own bench——
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Before he leaves that point, would my right hon. and learned Friend say something about the nomination of justices of the peace? Would he agree that the present practice, whereby political parties participate in the nomination, is possibly undesirable, and that perhaps it would be better to substitute the trade unions on the one hand and the chambers of trade on the other for the policital parties?
  The Attorney-General: This is not a convenient moment in my speech to deal with that point, but I will, nevertheless, deal with it. The present arrangement,
  238
  whereby the Lord Chancellor is advised by local advisory committees is, I think, now working reasonably satisfactorily. The principal test should be the capacity and integrity of the individual, but the Lord Chancellor is anxious that the bench should reflect a cross-section socially of the community, as far as that is practicable, and a cross-section of opinion. I do not think it desirable to have too hard and fast a political division on the bench. Many justices are wholly nonparty in their political allegiances.
  There has been a greater awareness, however, in recent years—without making a party point of this—of the need for benches to reflect opinion fairly and generally. The practice which existed in some county commissions in particular in the past of the bench being composed almost exclusively of the members of a single political party has been changing rapidly since the war. I do not think that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has in mind any fundamental change in the present arrangements, which seem to be providing general satisfaction.
  I was dealing with the provisions of Clause 5. The House must be assured, in regard to these interesting proposals, that the precise functions which are to be delegated to clerks under the power given in the Bill will be a matter for discussion between the Home Office, the magistrates and the clerks before any draft rules are submitted to the rule committee which, in accordance with Section 15 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, has to be consulted before such rules are made. As the House knows, the committee consists of the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, the Chief Magistrate of Bow Street and such other persons as the Lord Chancellor may appoint.
  It will, for example, be for consideration whether justices' clerks should be enabled under this power to issue summonses or to arrange adjournments in certain types of case, but, as I have said, these matters will require careful consideration before the rules are made.
  Subsection (2) enables rules to be made prescribing the qualifications required by a person other than a justices' clerk who may have to perform the clerk's functions. Under Section 20 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, a person may not be

  239
  appointed a justices' clerk unless, first, he is a solicitor or barrister of five years' standing, second, he is a solicitor or a barrister who has served in a magistrates court for not less than five years in a capacity specified in that Section, or, third, he has served in such a capacity for not less than 10 years before 1960 and, in the opinion of the magistrates' courts committee and of the Secretary of State, there are special circumstances making the appointment a proper one.
  Whereas, for example, in the big cities a justices' clerk is responsible for several courts sitting at the same time, some of those courts must be taken by a person other than the justices' clerk, who may not possess any of the qualifications to which I have just referred. Indeed, under the law as it stands at present, he need not have any qualifications at all.
  It seemed to us that this was unsatisfactory, and that a person who was to perform the more important duties of the clerk, such as advising the justices on a point of law or, in future, carrying out any of the functions of a justice that may be delegated to the clerk under the power contained in sub-section (1), ought to possess recognised qualifications.
  Precisely what those qualifications should be, the extent to which they should be based on the passing of examinations or service in a magistrates' court and what functions should be restricted to qualified persons will all be matters for discussions with those concerned, including the association representing the clerks and their assistants, before any draft rules are submitted to the Rule Committee.
  Clause 6 deals with the provisions of the Bill applying to Scotland. If hon. Members wish to ask questions on these provisions, they will be answered by one of my hon. Friends later in the debate. The effect of these provisions is to provide for entitlement to a financial loss allowance, abolition of the three-mile limit and a reduction in the retiring age of justices of the peace from 75 to 70, on exactly the same footing as England and Wales.
  The principal provision of the Bill which is not applied to Scotland—for reasons connected with the special arrangements which prevail north of the Border—is that concerning ex officio justices. As hon. Members from Scotland
  240
  will be aware, justices of the peace do not sit for judicial business in all parts of Scotland. The main burden of summary trial and criminal work in the counties is carried by the sheriff courts. In the burghs, much of the summary jurisdiction is exercised by the bailies, who are magistrates by virtue of their local government offices.
  It would apparently not be practicable to alter the position of the bailies by the Bill and it would be difficult, in the circumstances, to deprive other lay magistrates of their judicial functions at the present time. Further, if lay magistrates are to remain unaffected, it is thought that it would be inappropriate to do anything in Scotland to alter the position of Privy Councillors, judges, law officers and others. Clause 6 therefore omits any reference to justices ex officio.
  I apologise for having taken so much time in dealing with a number of matters which are largely of technical importance, but I hope that the House will agree that this is a worthwhile Bill and one that is likely to improve the administration of justice in the magistrates' courts. As I have said, these courts play a far greater part in the lives of the ordinary citizens than any other courts in the land. Well over 1 million criminal cases are tried by the magistrates every year, in addition to the great volume of civil matters, especially domestic proceedings, with which they deal. It is essential, therefore, that we should do all we can to enable these courts to maintain high standards and to ensure that the magistrates, wherever they may sit, have the confidence of the people among whom they work and to whom they administer justice.
  4.34 p.m.
  Sir Peter Rawlinson: In his full explanation of the Bill, the Attorney-General was right to stress the important part that is played in the administration of criminal justice by the unpaid magistracy. It is right that we should reflect that well over 1 million cases a year —indeed, I believe that the number is nearly 1½ million—are dealt with by the magistrates. This illustrates the dependence which we have upon them. If one translates that into court hours and into terms of a paid magistracy or the time of jurors, one sees that, in terms of

  241
  money saved, we have a great dependence on magistrates.
  The extent of the burden borne by these unpaid people who give their service in the magistracy is great. They give excellent service and it is rare, out of the 16,000 or so magistrates, that one comes upon a failure. I, too, wish to pay tribute to the devotion and service which the magistracy gives to the administration of criminal law in this country.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: Both my right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have referred to the inordinate number of people who appear before magistrates' courts. I trust that they have considered the fact that people guilty of motoring offences cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be included in the criminal classes.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: Motoring offences can be very serious indeed. In any case, the burden on magistrates includes indictable offences, too. About 88 per cent. of indictable offences, which are serious criminal cases, are dealt with by them.
  We are speaking of a system which we have had in this country for very many years. This system necessarily reduces the amount of jury trial. I recall a conversation I had in the United States Department of Justice, when a comment was made about it being comparatively rare in Britain for there to be a trial by jury in a criminal case—this because of the vast number of cases dealt with by the unprofessional magistracy. I believe that the system works well, although I would be the last to decry the importance of the jury, both in civil cases and in criminal trials. It is important always to associate the layman with the administration of justice, and the more that can be done the better it will be for the administration of justice.
  Trial by justices is, of course, trial by laymen. However, they need training, they need to know about punishment and they need to know about procedure. About 20 years ago, when I began to practise at the Bar, I recollect that sometimes an unfortunate impression would be given when the bench of magistrates would come into court, have a word with the clerk and the police officer, look at
  242
  the advocates appearing on behalf of the defendants—and wonder what those strange animals were doing there—and then proceed to hear the case. However, that has all disappeared and it is vitally important that persons presiding at any court should recollect the great adage of justice being seen to be done. They must also realise that manner and procedure in court are some of the most important things in the administration of criminal justice.
  To recruit 16,000 magistrates is a difficult task. I suggest to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) that those who have taken upon themselves the duty of administering justice—I do not mind to which political party they belong—do not allow political considerations to enter into the matter. I know what the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he intervened. I heard what the Attorney-General said in reply. In the same way, when we get off political matters, hon. Members address themselves to the task in hand. I am certain that when persons come to consider the judgment of other persons, they do that wholly divorced from any form of association that they may have or any political view that they may hold.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in saying that he knew what I had in mind in my intervention. I was not in any way referring to political considerations of that sort. I was referring to the recruitment of magistrates and I suggested that, rather than political organisations being responsible, other parties were best suited to perform the task of recruitment.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I do not think that that has become a problem. I support, and will support, certain provisions of the Bill because we need to recruit to the bench men of ability and integrity whatever experience of life they may have. Incidentally, the Attorney-General may appreciate that at present that of the four treasurers of the Inns of Court which govern the discipline of the Bar three are former Socialist Ministers.
  One is a former Home Secretary, one the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), who was Solicitor-General, and one a highly-respected and admired judge who formerly was a Labour Solicitor-General. I hope and believe that it will always be

  243
  maintained that the judiciary, unpaid or professional, has nothing whatever to do with a person's politics.
  The problem is finding people available to serve. Obviously, the most available to do the very arduous tasks involved in being a justice of the peace are usually elderly retired men or married women whose family responsibilities have lessened. I welcome the provisions of the Bill, for they will, I hope, alleviate the difficulties and give recompense for financial loss in recruiting from a wider section of the community. I believe that £360,000 has been mentioned as the amount needed to recompense for financial loss, plus allowances and pensions. I think that in this respect it will be well worth while.
  We shall still not get to serve on the bench the young salaried executive whose work is such that he cannot give time to serving on the bench. We get occasionally, but not very often, the young woman with a family, but such people find it extremely difficult to serve. These always will be difficulties we shall have to face, but when we can get people of these age groups and experience they are useful and important to recruit for service on the bench.
  Mr. David Weitzman: Is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said a good reason for not limiting the age to 70?
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I shall consider whether 70 as the maximum age is a sensible provision. This is something we have to bear in mind. Many hon. and right hon. Members who, so far as we can judge, give competent service, are over 70. As in other professions, there are men over 70. If they are competent enough to serve it should be considered whether we should permit them to do so. That is something we shall have to consider in Committee to find whether this is an advisable provision.
  Generally, we want to see that we get good service at minimum cost from those who will bear the brunt of the work in administering criminal justice. A vast expenditure would be involved if we had to substitute a professional judge for every unpaid magistrate. I do not look upon the abolition of ex officio justices as
  244
  a matter of principle. In the circumstances, I prefer it as a matter of good sense. In the ordinary borough when a councillor is elected mayor he becomes the first citizen and magistrate and a justice of the peace.
  I do not think that that is good sense. He has had no training but comes straight to the bench as a magistrate without any experience. He remains there for a very limited period. Looking at this question as a matter of good sense and of getting good practical results, I think that there is certainly a case for the abolition and that it is sensible to abolish ex officio justices.
  I ask the House to look at the merits of the matter and to look for the reasons for this proposal. Here, the Bill goes beyond looking merely at the merits and seeing whether this is good sense. The Government have decided, for reasons which do not seem to be good sense, to abolish and to extend this principle to the City, where there is a wholly different practice. This is the very opposite of pragmatic purposiveness.
  There is a very different system in the City. Provided that the situation is satisfactory, and that justice is being competently administered, we ought not to overlook matters of finance. We ought not to overlook the matter of waste of man hours and court hours. This is not the time to be profligate with either. If the standard is good and administration of justice in the City is approved by the highest courts, why alter it, especially if this will mean more money and more people being needed? If their standards are high, what is the point of substituting two or three people where one would be competent? This is sacrificing sense for mere uniformity. It is an academic and extravagant attitude to adopt at present.
  I suggest that it is bred from irritation that an old system has worked well for years and can still work well. This is the worst example of trying to be modern for modernity's sake and I do not think it suitable. In the City, when a man is elected to the Court of Aldermen, because the nature of his duties includes judicial duties, he has to be approved by other aldermen and he is obliged to study authorities and textbooks. He is obliged to acquire some academic knowledge, to

  245
  visit prisons in the London area, a detention centre and a borstal institution, to see things for himself.
  He is obliged to attend a minimum of six times at a court sitting—which is more than magistrates anywhere else are obliged to do—and he has to attend a magistrates' court outside the City. He is obliged to attend a course given by the chief clerk on the methods and problems of punishment, probation and treatment, and he is recommended to join the Magistrates' Association. This is based on the Lord Chancellor's syllabus, but it goes beyond that.
  This may be concentrated into a period which gives a man benefit, if he is to be an unprofessional, unpaid magistrate, far superior to that anywhere else in the country. Twice yearly he attends sentencing exercises and other meetings. He is in close contact with the recorder and other judges in the Central Criminal Court. There is no doubt that we get the best trained and qualified unprofessional magistracy in the City of London. My personal experience as an advocate appearing before that tribunal and others is that the City is on every occasion a well-administered court with proper procedure and proper attitudes.
  By the time the Lord Mayor presides, he has been doing this work for eight or 10 years. He is not the "Mayor of Little Puddletown", but the Lord Mayor of London, and after sitting on the bench for that time is a trained and experienced magistrate.
  Does the system work? The character of the City is entirely different from that anywhere else. It is a place where people work, but do not live. There is very little in the way of matrimonial work and very little juvenile crime because of the particular characteristics of the City. Obviously, in that jurisdiction there must be included cases of financial magnitude and complexity in which it is very important to have persons with some knowledge of these matters presiding over the court. A Customs case in 1963 occupied 26 days. There are many occasions when cases involving such matters are heard.
  How have they been discharging their duties? Who are the best judges? The Royal Commission of 1948, to which the
  246
  right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, talked of the
  "high standard of administration of criminal justice"
  and did not then—at a time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member of the House, though I was not—
  "recommend any change for the adult court."
  In 1948, the then Lord Chief Justice said that, although the High Court saw many cases from magistrates' courts, it was
  "rare indeed to find one brought from a decision of an alderman of the City. I do not recall a single instance, which is a striking tribute to the wisdom and care with which those courts perform their duties."
  Fifteen months ago the present Lord Chief Justice said that the case for altering the system in the City had not been made out, that the judges had complete confidence in the aldermen as justices of the peace, and he hoped that second thoughts would prevail.
  These are important testimonials of which we in the House, with our limited direct knowledge of these matters, should at least take account. If the present system is wholly satisfactory—as it is, according to the judges—what is the point of making this change? It cannot be on the grounds of sense. It must be for some other reason, a reason which cannot commend itself to the House when considering a Bill dealing with the administration of justice. The test should be efficiency. If the City passes that test, it should be left as it is. In 1966–67 the Lord Mayor sat 76 times and the aldermen 30 times. They dealt with 19,000 cases in 1967, compared with about 5,000 in 1950. Only six of the 19,000 cases were reversed on appeal. This is a remarkable record.
  Applying the test of efficiency and of good administration of justice, the right Hon. and learned Gentleman should leave the matter where it is. The impression that there is some other reason, either prejudice or ill-judgment, which is affecting this matter. The Attorney-General said that it was an anomaly. What about the anomalous position of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, I understand, has some say in the appointment of magistrates? The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), who has held various offices, would not pretend to know much about the appointment of

  247
  justices. If that anomaly is left, an anomaly which on the face of it is much more remarkable, why not leave the situation in the City unchanged?
  We on this side will always support sensible and practical changes, changes designed to bring the law up to date and to make it better in its administration, but we shall impose the test of efficiency and of general improvement. We supported the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he wanted a Bill quickly to increase the number of justices. I wish that it was law now, because, in view of the reports I receive as to delays, I should like there to be more judges immediately so that delays, particularly in the provinces, could be reduced.
  I appreciate that in this the Attorney-General is the agent for the Lord Chancellor. There was a time when it was suggested that there should be a Vice-Chancellor in charge of answering on matters of law in the House of Commons. That did not prevail. The right rests fairly and squarely upon the Attorney-General and his colleagues. I can only ask him, as a practical, sensible, man, who knows about the administration of justice, to reconsider this matter. It is an appropriate matter to be dealt with at a later stage.
  We approve of much of the Bill, but I hope that the Government will be practical, apply here the criterion of efficiency, and think again. As the Bill contains certain reasonable proposals, of which I have spoken, I shall not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against it. However, I serve warning that, unless the Government think again and see sense at a later stage, we shall certainly deal with this matter then.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Howarth: I suppose that I should declare an interest, in that I still serve as a lay magistrate in one of the petty sessional divisions of Middlesex.
  As the first lay magistrate to speak in this debate, I want to express, on behalf of the thousands of my colleagues, appreciation to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) for their kind references to lay magis-
  248
  trates. In my experience, no body of people works harder for so little return. Magistrates certainly receive very few thanks. On occasion, it does no harm to thank them for what they do on the country's behalf.
  I do not wish to go into the Bill in detail. My right hon. and learned Friend dealt with it in such clarity that I do not think that any hon. Member, unless disagreeing with certain aspects of it, need repeat what has been said. I want to make a few points in giving my general support to what is contained in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) questioned whether motorists are criminals. Whether they are criminals or not, they appear in the court lists, which are becoming heavier every day.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: That is my whole point. The work of the courts is becoming much more difficult as each day passes. Some motoring offences are of a very serious character and deserve the utmost opprobrium, but for the most part those who are brought before the courts for motoring offences have never seen the inside of a court before and are not really offenders against society. This is my reason for thinking that in the not too distant future serious thought should be given to the question whether the local police court is the right and proper place to deal with motorists.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech in the guise of an intervention.
  Mr. Howarth: I am sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend. I know that he will make an effective speech later, if he succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair.
  I was coming on to point out the volume of work magistrates have to cope with as a result of the lists increasing in length day by day, irrespective of whether the offenders are motorists or those charged with criminal offences. This is one of the great problems facing us. There is an historic document pinned on the notice board in the magistrates' room at one of the courts in which I sit. It may not be historic as to date, but it shows that on a day in 1932 there were 14 cases to be dealt with. Two courts sat to deal with them. On any

  249
  day of the week now at either of the two courts at which I sit, the magisrates would be very fortunate indeed if the list was less than 120. It is more likely to be 160. They would probably be sitting five courts each day.
  The problem facing magistrates is that of being able to give up sufficient time from their other duties to carry out their magisterial duties effectively. This is why I welcome the provision relating to the financial loss allowance. Unfortunately, this will not solve all the problems because, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) thinks about the selection of magistrates, there still is a barrier, irrespective of political considerations. Young men with their eye on promotion do not want to upset their bosses by asking for time off to carry out magisterial duties. They therefore do not want to be considered for appointment to the bench.
  We can get magistrates, but we are still not getting sufficient of the younger generation. When I suggest to my colleagues on the bench that we should have magistrates aged about 25 or 27, some of them agree but others look at me in some surprise, because this has not been known to any great extent. But that is what we should be aiming for now, to balance the ages within a petty sessional division. I hope that more employers will recognise that whether their man comes from the shop floor, the factory or the shop counter he can still make a contribution by carrying out such duties, and, in view of the financial loss allowance, will allow him to do so without prejudicing his future.
  More justices will be needed as the age limit is gradually reduced. I do not know what the figure would be if all those over the age of 70 were taken off the bench now, but we should certainly need a great number even to keep up to the present strength, and we shall need even more in the future. Therefore, I hope that not only those who nominate for the bench but those who have a responsibility for allowing employees to offer themselves will bear in mind that it is a job which is well worth doing and can be done only by lay magistrates in petty sessional divisions.
  I cross swords with my right hon. and learned Friend on his reference to the
  250
  election of chairmen and deputy chairmen of petty sessional divisions. Section 13(2) of the 1949 Act states:
  "In any petty sessions area there shall be a chairman and one or more deputy chairmen of the justices chosen from amongst themselves by the magistrates for the area by secret ballot."
  With Clause 3 we are inserting a new subsection which says that the right of magistrates to vote at the elections shall be restricted
  "with a view to securing that the election is made by magistrates experienced as such in the area."
  My right hon. and learned Friend says that that means that once magistrates have passed a probationary period they will be entitled to vote for the chairman or deputy chairmen of the bench. It may well be that even if they have passed that probationary period they will not be experienced in the way we mean experience on the bench. I hope that there will be a clearer definition of the period before they are entitled to vote in any such election.
  I should now like to say a word about the secret ballot which was provided for in the 1949 Act and which is carried over into this legislation. I consider that the present system of election of chairman and deputy chairmen of a bench is completely nonsensical. We all know what secret ballots are, and my right hon. and learned Friend and I know in another connection how people are elected by secret ballot. I have no objection to that. My objection is that when one is presented with a list of every member of the bench at a magistrates' annual meeting, and asked to vote for any one of those named, it is not a secret ballot as it should be operated.
  In theory, every person attending the meeting could vote for himself or herself, because who does not believe that he or she would be the best chairman of the petty sessional division? In practice, this does not happen, because people know very well who are the most exeprienced members of the bench and who are most likely to be the best chairman or deputy chairmen.
  Why cannot we adopt procedures which exist in other organisations and allow members to be nominated before a meeting, with the support of a certain number of justices? That seems to me a

  251
  more reasonable way to deal with the matter than to present a list containing everybody's name. Perhaps the result would be the same, but there could be cases where people are elected as chairman or deputy chairman, because they are experienced and brilliant men and women, but they do not have the time to give to the job.
  They are not asked beforehand if they will accept nomination, and I can imagine nothing more embarrassing than for someone eminently suitable to be chairman to be elected and then say that he is very sorry, but it is impossible for him to stand for business or other reasons. That would be a ridiculous situation which could be avoided if a new rule were adopted for the appointment of chairmen and deputy chairmen. I have corresponded on this matter with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who absolutely disagrees with me, and no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will also disagree when he replies.
  I agree with the Bill. I do not intend to discuss the City of London, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for I do not have full knowledge of that question. I think that the Bill is a further major addition to the 1949 Act, which was itself a major step forward. I welcome it and will do all I can to see that it gets a quick passage through the House.
  5.6 p.m.
  Sir John Foster: There is certain force in what the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Harry Howarth) said about the nomination of the chairman and deputy chairmen of petty sessions, but only in his point about somebody who is nominated but is too busy to fulfil the function. That problem could be met by magistrates announcing beforehand that they did not want to be included on the list. It would be undesirable for people to be nominated and seconded, because that would need a certain amount of open lobbying, and a person elected chairman in a close division might know the people who opposed him.
  Does the Attorney-General think that Schedule 1 has gone too far? He will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the Bill to work in the following way. Section 1 says that no person shall be a justice of the peace unless he is
  252
  appointed by a commission of the peace for the area, or, under subsection (2), is created a justice of the peace under the enactments mentioned in Schedule 1 as the holder of a certain office. The last offices shown in Schedule 1 are the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and the Commissioner of the Police Force of the City of London. The third column in the Schedule gives the area in which these justices may operate. I think it inconsistent with the new principle introduced by the Bill—with which I agree, except with regard to the City of London—that the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioners of Police should act as justices of the peace in a London commission area. It is rather unwise that the police, who might be prosecuting, and would certainly be witnesses, should have the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner or both sitting as justices. The enactments which provide for the appointments are very early nineteenth-century Acts—the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, the Metropolitan Police Act, 1856, and the City of London Police Act, 1839. In the light of that criticism, perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us what are the reasons for maintaining these offices as entitling the holders to be justices of the peace.
  I agree with the principle that holding an office should no longer be an entitlement to act as a justice of the peace. I will not repeat what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), except to say that the aldermen and Lord Mayor of the City of London are in a position quite different from that of the ordinary councillor. They have a continuity and a training and an association with the courts of petty sessions which are quite different. The system has worked well, and I see no reason why the City of London should not be in an exceptional position.
  I agree with the Attorney-General's reasons for having increased loss allowances. However, as the system has worked well—and both sides of the House have paid tribute to the justices at petty sessions—should not even this slight financial commitment be postponed in view of the general economic situation? However little, the saving is worth

  253
  making and the change ought to be put off for a year or two. It would not harm the system, for the principle would be accepted, but it would be consistent with the general economic climate for this small saving to be made.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. George Willis: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will remember that the proceedings on the last Bill which dealt with the administration of justice were occupied mainly by Scottish Members.
  The Attorney-General: In Committee entirely by Scottish Members.
  Mr. Willis: I was about to assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we have no intention of occupying the whole of the time of the House on this Bill. However, one or two issues ought to be raised.
  My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that with certain small exceptions the Bill did not apply to Scotland, because J.P.s in Scotland play a much smaller part in the administration of justice because of the part played in burgh courts by bailies. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) had something to say about ex officio justices in the City of London and about training for these duties. In the Scottish Press in the past two weeks there has been a considerable discussion about the qualifications of people to carry out the duties of bailies properly, particularly duties connected with sentencing. This is not a new subject and has been discussed by those concerned for some time. What is being done? Something should be done to make the position better. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who has some practical experience, agrees with me.
  I do not understand why Clause 6 provides that Clause 4(5) is not to apply to Scotland. There is probably a very good reason, and I hope that we shall be told what it is. What would be the cost of applying Clause 4(5) to Scotland? According to the Financial Memorandum, the cost is to start at about £120,000 for the first full year, reaching a figure of £360,000 for the whole country. How much is to be spent in Scotland?
  254
  I commend the Government on the acceptance of a lower retiring age, 70 instead of 75. However, I am bound to ask a question which I have asked in the House for many years: if this is good enough for those concerned with the administration of justice, surely it is good enough for judges and sheriffs. So far as I know, there is no retiring age for judges. I remember, along with my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Scotland, keeping the House here for many hours on this subject, although without success. I remember on the occasion of the Sheriffs Pension Bill having something of a battle in Committee and getting a retirement age for sheriffs, although it was more than 70. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will draw his right hon. Friend's attention to this and say that if it is good enough for J.P.s, it should be good enough for sheriffs and judges. I can see no reason why it should not be applied to sheriffs and judges, other than the fact that we have always been afraid of offering criticisms of such persons.
  I have no other comments other than to welcome the provisions of the Bill as far as they apply to Scotland.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: I would not ordinarily speak on a Bill of this sort—although I have been a justice of the peace—but I am extremely worried about the effect of the Bill on my constituents, both on the justices and on the judged. As we have heard, aldermen of the City of London are ex officio justices and sit alone. The Bill proposes to abolish this system, and many people would, without reflecting, say that it should be abolished. They would say that ex officio justices cannot be the best justices, and that justices who sit alone cannot be as fair as justices sitting in threes or fives.
  If it is a bad system, it must have a bad record; but, as we have heard, it turns out to have a very good record. This is not just a matter of muttering comfortably, "It seems to work very well"; it is a matter of figures. City justices deal with 19,000 cases a year and in the last 22 years only five decisions have been reversed on appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court of the

  255
  High Court, and in this latest year only six appeals from City justices were allowed by quarter sessions.
  This marvellous record has been widely recognised. The remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in 1948 have been mentioned. He also said:
  "The City Courts have for many years been singularly free from criticism.…I do not recall a single instance of an appeal"—from the City Justices to his own court—"which is a striking tribute to the wisdom and care with which those courts perform their duties."
  The present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, said recently:
  "The Aldermen are now to be sacrificed on the altar of consistency."
  He said that a case had not been made out for what he called "this drastic step", and he told the City justices:
  "You must be amongst the most experienced justices in the country.… I only hope that second thoughts may prevail.…Her Majesty's Judges have always had, and still have, complete confidence in you as Justices of the Peace."
  That must show the argument that the system does not work to be untenable. In the passage that I have read out the Lord Chief Justice referred to the "altar of consistency." Consistency is rather a good thing, but the altar on which the Aldermen are to be sacrificed, according to the Lord Chancellor, is the altar of uniformity, which is not at all the same thing as consistency. Uniformity for its own sake is a detestable argument—the argument that "no one else does that" is a dreadful argument, unworthy even of the small schoolboys, who use it most often. Uniformity is the enemy of civilised life and it leads straight to the ant-heap. We in this House are the very last people to argue uniformity. Practically every human advance has been achieved by strictly non-uniform people, who do precisely what "no one else does".
  The uniformity argument is closely allied to the argument about the danger of precedents. This is another dreadful schoolboys' argument, "what would happen if everyone did that?" If the City of London is to be left alone, people say, what about all the other ex officio justices of the peace? This argument is a non-starter. There is no danger at all of creating a precedent. The business of the
  256
  courts in the City is quite unlike that of other courts. We here may be able to thrust uniformity on the justices, but we cannot make the cases uniform. As we have heard, in the City, cases about children and matrimonial matters take up very little time, and commercial cases take up a lot of time.
  In my view disposing of this argument about the danger of precedents leads to the final disposal of the argument about uniformity. I reject the idea of uniformity in principle, as I have said, but the only possible justification of a uniform system throughout the country would be if the circumstances were uniform throughout the country. But they are not. We have heard of the need for "a cross-section of the public" as Justices. That will be excellent in Courts which have to tackle a cross-section of cases, but is it really to be supposed, dogma apart, that Mr. Average will be very useful or happy with a Customs case lasting 26 days, as cases do last in the City; or will Mrs. Average, or his or her employers or the taxpayers, who will have to pay five justices' wages for 26 days, be very happy, particularly since the taxpayer is now getting the whole thing free in the City of London?
  What is wanted is not uniformity but consistency—a consistent system where the courts consistently suit the business that they have to deal with. In addition, confidence is needed, as the Attorney-General said. He spoke of the need for the public to have confidence in the judges. In the City those who are judged are more likely to have confidence in Aldermen than in what is described as a cross-section of the public.
  There remains another reason that has been advanced against the present system, I understand by the Lord Chancellor. It is that other justices were resentful about ex-officio justices who have no obligation to undergo training. Of course in fact City justices do all undergo training, more thorough indeed than other justices: but this is also a disgraceful argument. I am extremely doubtful whether as many people feel envy and resentment as is often said. I do not believe that the electorate generally is consumed by these un-Christian passions—and if they are, the Government should certainly not pander to them. I would remind the House that

  257
  in the Middle Ages envy was represented in sculpture and stained glass as a figure eating a human heart. I hardly think that that is a very attractive posture for a Labour Government. Surely the job of governments is to encourage what is best in people, not to pander to the worst in them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, the arguments based on uniformity are not valid; the arguments based on the danger of precedent are not valid; the arguments based en envy and resentment are unpleasant and invalid: and the arguments based on inefficiency are invalid too. Indeed, as I have shown, the system works extremely well.
  This is an age of disintegration. No doubt it sometimes feels to all of us as if we have dismantled practically everything. This is surely no time to dismantle something which, however much some may dislike it in theory or principle, is something which we know does work.
  I have directed my arguments not to history, not to dignity and status, nor to political stuff about the Government's wish to tilt at the City, all of which I might have done. I have tried to limit my arguments to reason, and to the need for good, cheap justice in the City of London, which is provided by the present system, and which will not be provided by the proposed system. I earnestly hope that on all these excellent grounds the House will agree with me.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: In the main this is an excellent Bill, and I am particularly gratified to see the provisions in Clause 4 with regard to travelling subsistence and financial loss allowances. There are, however, points of criticism that I desire to make. First of all, with regard to Clause 2 which deals with the age limit. It may be a question of personal prejudice, because I suppose that many of us are approaching very near the age mentioned there. The point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) when he referred to the difficulty in obtaining persons fitted to discharge the duties of justices of the peace is important.
  The more elderly people, if I may use that rather innocuous term, are those who
  258
  have more time. It is quite true that many people attaining the age of 70 are quite unfitted, by reason of some infirmity, or by reason of the gradual deterioration in their intelligence, to discharge duties of this kind.
  On the other hand, the right hon. and learned Attorney-General must recognise that there are many people over the age of 70 who can quite well discharge these duties, who have the ability, and moreover the time to do this. It may be that they have retired. It is particularly important to notice the exclusion in Clause 2(1,a,i) of persons who hold or have held the office of chairman or deputy chairman of a court or quarter sessions, or who have been recorders of a borough, and those who have held or hold high judicial office. Why are they excluded? Why are they exempted from the possibility of deterioration? I know that they are very important people and that we have great respect for them, but there are many instances of people well over the age of 70—Lord Goddard is one of them —having continued their service for many years with tremendous knowledge and ability.
  I should think that there are many people well over that age who could discharge the duties of justice of the peace. The Lord Chancellor might well achieve the object in the Bill by providing diplomatically for the transfer to the supplemental list of people whom he thought were unfitted. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that and achieving exactly the same object. That is my criticism on Clause 2.
  I wish to say something more strongly in support of the case put forward by the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) and the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom. I agree that the mayors of boroughs who are elected for one year cannot be expected to have the training necessary to enable them to carry out their duties. It is proper that the Bill should provide that such people should no longer be appointed as justices of the peace. But what is the argument concerning the City of London? I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that it cannot be based on prejudice. We are the last party in the world to talk about prejudice in that direction. Is the argument uniformity? Or is it that the City

  259
  of London is an anomaly? It is agreed that it is an anomaly, but we do not get rid of systems which work simply because they are anomalies.
  Surely the proper way in which to examine this matter is to ask whether the system works. I am sure that the Attorney-General, with all his experience at the Bar, would agree that the system in the City of London works as well as, if not better than, the system in other parts of the country. I speak from personal experience. I know of very few appeals from aldermen sitting in the City of London which have been successful. There is great force in the point that many of the cases in the City of London are financial cases. They take a long time to try, and it is very suitable to have an alderman with business experience who can try them. In these days, the financial aspect is very important. Why should we discharge these unpaid gentlemen from carrying out their duties and in their place appoint other justices of the peace —two to sit in the place of one? It is true that two sit in other places, but in the City of London the system works.
  I know that many hon. Members on this side, in particular, criticise the City of London and many of its institutions. I do so myself. But when it comes to administering justice we should, particularly in these days when finance matters, ask ourselves whether we should be justified in substituting another system for the present system. I suggest to the Attorney-General that we should re-examine this matter and see whether the change is justified.
  Those are my two criticisms of the Bill. Apart from them, I support the Bill, and think that it is excellent.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that the Labour Party was the last party to talk of prejudice. He should not be so modest about the prejudices of the Labour Party. It seems to me that the provisions in this otherwise excellent Bill for removing from the City of London what is regarded as the privilege of having aldermen and the mayor as justices can only be due to prejudice.
  The Attorney-General made out no separate case, and nor did he attempt to
  260
  do so, for dealing with the City of London. He lumped it under the umbrella of those who carry out the judicial function by reason of another office. On the test of practicability, does the City of London system work well? I have no personal experience of the magistrates court in the City of London, but all the reports that I have are to the effect that it works very well. Does the system cost the country a great deal of money? The answer is "No". In fact, it does not cost anything. The City of London pays for its own administration. If the Government's reform goes through and there are long cases to be tried, the Government will have to find the money. It may be a small amount, but small amounts add up.
  The third important point is this. If the Bill is passed, it is highly unlikely that many of the aldermen and mayors will be appointed to the commission of the peace and will serve as such. This is no answer. Why should we upset a system which works very well for the sake of uniformity? Although I have no personal interest in the City of London, it seems to me fantastic to make a change of this kind, without justification for it being given, simply to have a uniform system throughout the country.
  The City of London, if it is nothing else, is a unique city in the world. It has evolved in a certain way. It has been the financial and commercial centre of the world for many years. I see no reason why its present system for the administration of justice should not continue. It seems to be very good and to give general satisfaction.
  The Bill should generally be welcomed, although I should like to be reassured by the Attorney-General—and this arises from remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster)—about the financial provisions of the Bill. The Attorney-General referred to the fact that we were in an economically difficult situation and that the financial provisions would not be brought into effect until we reached a more propitious moment in the history of the country.
  I should now like to refer to something which disturbs me, namely, the proposed retiring age of 70. There is a good deal to be said for laying down a retiring age. I do not think that the hon.

  261
  and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, if he reflected on the matter, would pursue with enthusiasm his suggestion that the Lord Chancellor should compulsorily retire some justices and leave others on the bench. It would be invidious if the Lord Chancellor had to give reasons why one justice retired at 70 and another continued in office. The fact that a man of 70 was regarded by friends and colleagues as no longer capable of serving on the bench might be the last thing that he wanted to know. In my younger days, I often thought that it was a pity that the Lord Chancellor did not have power to retire High Court judges. As a young Counsel, I thought that some judges kept their faculties better than others.
  However, it is necessary to draw a line somewhere. What disturbs me is why the age should be 70 for justices of the peace, 72 in other respects and 75 in certain other respects. I should declare an interest as I am a chairman of quarter sessions, although, despite my appearance, I am not quite knocking at the door of the age of 70. It is difficult to justify a retirement age of 70 for justices of the peace and a higher age for chairmen of quarter sessions or High Court judges. If there is evidence in the Lord Chancellor's possession, as I understood the Attorney-General to suggest, that faculties tend to deteriorate at this age, or that it would be better for some magistrates to retire at 70, I should have thought that it ought to be of general application and apply across the board.
  Mr. Weitzman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman apply that to High Court judges as well?
  Mr. Hooson: Whether it should be 70, 72 or 75 is a matter for argument, but the same age should apply when one considers the age at which one should cease to exercise a judicial function.
  The Schedules of the Bill seem to provide a fertile ground for the legal historians of the future, with the Amendments and repeals resulting from them.
  I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman drop a hint that the old office of Custos Rotulorum might not cease to exist. It is one of the most ancient offices in the land which costs very little and performs a useful and
  262
  practical function in that holders of the office help in the preservation of records. I am glad that the Government have had second thoughts about it in view of the representations which have been made.
  Otherwise, this is an admirable Bill which carries out a necessary tidying up operation. One is glad to see that the Government have found time to bring it in. So often this kind of tidying up operation is pushed to the back of the queue and never gets done. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing it in now.
  5.42 p.m.
  Sir Barnett Janner: I want to thank the Attorney-General for his kind remarks about me, in view of the fact that I am going to make some little criticism about the manner in which the concession has been granted that I have been asking for for four or five years in Private Members' Bills and for which I was about to ask in another Private Member's Bill in a few weeks' time.
  Generally, the Bill is a very good one. People do not realise what lay magistrates do. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the number of cases in which they are involved and pointed out that 90 per cent, of cases in the magistrates' courts are dealt with by lay magistrates. No one yet has pointed out that the whole of the country's juvenile work is done by lay magistrates, with the exception of an occasional visit by a stipendiary. It is an enormous job and something which is not to be found in any other country. A tremendous expense is saved in our juvenile courts, domestic courts and magistrates' courts generally in consequence of our having some 16,000 men and women who are prepared to give of their time and abilities to perform a useful service for the community, and it is a very useful service.
  If it is regarded in that light, we ought to have sufficient sense to know that any hardship incurred by the people performing those duties should be avoided. It is true that one of the Clauses makes it possible to bring in a cross section of the community who are valuable in this type of work. We have had the same problem in Parliament and elsewhere. I do not wish to cast any reflection on

  263
  those who are prepared to give of their leisure time to serve in any capacity, but one cannot confine this kind of work to members of the leisured classes who can afford to give of their time without feeling any difficulty in their ordinary lives.
  That is what the Bill is trying to cure. However, if one is applying a cure, the economy of the country ought not to prevent difficulties and hardships which have existed for a long time from being remedied, bad as things are. Compared with sums to which we have listened in debates over the years, with millions of £s being brushed aside as being matters of ordinary concern, it should not be forgotten that we are talking in terms here of a few thousand £s. I hesitate to employ an expression which may sound rather cheap, but that sort of figure is chicken feed compared with expenditures which are made elsewhere.
  Two years ago, in 1965, a lay magistrate wrote, saying:
  "I would like to state that less than one month ago three examining magistrates sat on what was stated to be the longest hearing in the history of the Court. The case concerned two motor dealers who were charged with stealing a number of motor cars and then converting them to their own use. There were 75 charges in all, and 62 witnesses were heard. The hearing lasted seven days."
  By the standards prevailing today, where it is possible to take evidence without calling witnesses, I know that it would take less.
  "Two of the magistrates, including myself, live about one and a half miles from the court, and the other magistrate lives nearer. It was impossible to get home for a meal and on each occasion it was necessary to purchase a lunch in a restaurant. Even the cup of tea which we had during an afternoon break had to be paid for. To a magistrate who, like myself, has only one income, the retirement pension, this does create considerable hardship. On normal days when the court is sitting I am unable to arrange to have my meal at home as one does not know how long one will be required to sit until the cases proceed."
  Can my right hon. and learned Friend wait any longer for the economic situation to improve so that he can help a case like that? It is a ridiculous position.
  I can remember talking about the crow flying three miles and suggesting that it was more a case of the crow walking
  264
  down Piccadilly at a busy time and getting on a bus. The time involved in getting back to one's home is something which a magistrates cannot avoid. If he is hearing a case, he cannot tell the parties to come back later because he is going home to have a meal and lives some distance from the court.
  This is not a case where something is being asked for which has not been reasonably requested for years. I appreciate that there is a new provision that other forms of subsistence should be allowed. That is very reasonable and proper. I am not at all sure that it ought not to be brought into existence straight away, because, if we need magistrates, we shall have to find them from somewhere. How on earth shall we get the kind of magistrate we want if people cannot afford to sit on the Bench?
  I am therefore making an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend. I know that he is sympathetic and understands the position. If he sits down with his colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and considers this matter, I think he will agree that £20,000 or £30,000 a year will not ruin the country if justice is done, but we may lose the services of these good people. I am talking about the first lot, not the subsistence allowance, which in my view will not cover a tremendous amount anyway. He ought to consider that a stipendiary magistrate is paid £4,500 or £4,750 a year.
  It is true that two magistrates have to sit, but 16,000 magistrates being replaced by 8,000 stipendiaries at £4,500 a year each would run into many millions. I calculate that the country is saved about £20 million a year. It may be less than that amount if properly calculated by a person who understood arithmetic, but I managed to get it to about £20 million as the minimum sum. So we are saving about £20 million, taking into account the fact that these people do not sit as long as stipendiaries, but stipendiaries do not sit so long according to our hours of sitting here. They have reasonable hours. They do useful work, of course, but the fact of the matter is that this money is saved.
  I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend not to adopt a cheeseparing attitude on a matter of this sort. He has

  265
  conceded that it is essential, in the interests of the country, that we have the best type of person, from whatever ranks they may come. For goodness sake, do not talk about waiting until the economic situation is put right. It may be put right in a week or a year. I do not know. There again, I would not claim to be an authority. But, if it is only a year, we cannot afford to lose those people who are being of great service to us and new people who will be of service to us.
  I make that appeal in the hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, or whoever is to reply, will rise and say, "Well, after all, we cannot be mean about this matter. We must do the right thing in providing what we consider to be the right kind of person to do the job."
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: At the outset of his speech, the Attorney-General, after certain preliminary matters and reminding us of what happened in the last changes in 1949, said that over nearly 20 years which have passed since then "the need has become apparent for changes". Those were the words I wrote down as being exactly what he said.
  He would probably agree that this was the necessary foundation for all that followed. In other words, one does not change for the sake of change, but, if the need has become apparent for any particular change, no one in the House would for a moment stand out against it. I therefore take that as being the test which he set himself, and I am sure that the House would accept it as a very practical one.
  One has then to apply it to these Measures. I concede at once, as did other hon. Members, that in relation to many of the provisions of the Bill that test is fully satisfied. Plainly the need has become apparent for paying some form of subsistence allowance so that there shall not be citizens, willing, suitable and fit to do this responsible duty, who cannot afford to do it. The need has become apparent. Likewise, one can put forward the same view in relation to others of the changes.
  I listened with the greatest care to the whole of the Attorney-General's speech for anything in it which gave any sup-
  266
  port to the proposition that a need had become apparent for either reducing the age of retirement or abolishing the existing system in the City of London. I suggest that if he looks again at his own speech, it is barren of any evidence to support either of those propositions.
  The case relating to die City of London has been so fully and excellently deployed that I would not dream of saying more than that I agree with it. I confine myself to asking that whoever is to reply to this debate will address his mind to the question: what is the evidence which supports the proposition that a need has become apparent to abolish the existing system in the City of London? That is the relevant question, and it is plain that many hon. Members believe that the answer must be that there is no evidence to support that proposition and therefore one ought to make an exception.
  I turn now to the other change, for which again I suggest there is no evidence, namely, the further reduction in the age of retirement. Everyone so far has agreed without reservation that magistrates do a magnificent job of work. One cannot exaggerate this too much. They are doing a job which it would be impossible to get done in any other way, save over a very long period of time, and they do it extremely well. Everybody agrees that because they are doing such a splendid job and because it is such an important job it is necessary that the best people available should be invited to do it. Everybody agrees that it is wholly desirable that the range of people doing this job should be extended to cover as wide a sphere as possible so that one gets a variety of interest and experience brought to bear on this important task.
  It is for that reason that the subsistence allowance provisions are introduced. Yet illogically, as I suggest, whilst on the one hand we are trying to extend the range to cover as wide a range of possibilities as we can, we are limiting it in one purely arbitrary respect, namely, age. I stress that that is a purely arbitrary limitation. There is no magic in the age of 70 or 75. It has no particular reference to efficiency, ability, faculties or anything else. It is a purely arbitrary limitation which we are placing against

  267
  our own avowed interest of making available to this important task everybody who is suitable for it. I suggest that in almost every respect we are going in the wrong direction so far as age is concerned.
  It is said that 55 is the maximum age for appointment. This rather limits the field, but it is possible to get a number of people with a variety of experience at that age, though it may be that to begin with they can serve for only one day a fortnight. When they reach the age of 65 and retire, they have 10 years' experience, both in the courts and outside, and presumably are all the better for it. They also have more time on their hands and are likely to be willing to assume more burdens, but, by this provision, without any sort of reference to their ability, at the age of 70 they will be retired and the community will be deprived of the benefit of their services for five years.
  What is the evidence to support the proposition that the need has become apparent for that change? Is it that a large number of successful appeals are being brought against the decisions of magistrates over 70? Is it that a lot of complaints are being received against magistrates over 70? I do not believe that it is either of those things. Is it simply the difficulty that is found on occasions in getting rid of those few magistrates who, though no longer really capable of doing the job, will not retire gracefully? If this is the reason, it is a bad one. It may be easier to deal with the matter in this way rather than in any other, but this is a bad reason for making this purely arbitrary decision in a sphere which, in every other way, we are trying to expand.
  I hope that the Attorney-General and his colleagues will look again at both those aspects of the Bill, and will change their minds. I do not think that we are asking very much. It is fashionable amongst the Attorney-General's colleagues to change one's mind, and the changes for which we are asking are very small by comparison with some others. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this again, and to apply his own test to it. Unless that test is fully satisfied, he should change his view and alter both these provisions.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It is with some trepidation that I rise to take part in this debate, first, because I am not a lawyer, secondly, because I am not a justice of the peace, and never have been and, thirdly, because, fortunately, so far I have had no direct consumer interest in the workings of the magistrates' courts. My qualifications for speaking are, first, that I am married to a magistrate, and, secondly, that over a period of time I have observed the working of the magistrates' court system in my locality, and my conclusion is that on the whole it works very well.
  I welcomed the recent innovation of magistrates having to undergo a course of training of one kind or another. This involves attending a number of lectures, many of which are held during the day. Will the loss of time allowance apply to magistrates while they are attending courses of instruction, as well as while they are sitting in the performance of their duties? If it is not to apply in the former case, there may still be a considerable deterrent to people becoming magistrates if they have to attend a number of lectures and thereby lose a considerable amount of money.
  I am worried about one weakness in the system. A number of magistrates do not have as wide a knowledge and understanding of all the various sections of the community as I would like them to have. I think that magistrates tend to be drawn from too limited a section of the population. I did a little homework over the weekend in connection with my local bench. I analysed the professions and occupations of its members. I found that 20 were professional people—people from universities, doctors, teachers, who, incidentally, are all heads, architects, and so on—18 were businessmen, ranging from a small shopkeeper to the managing director of quite a large firm, 5 were what I classified as office workers, 3 were full-time trade union officials, 16 were housewives, some of whom may have part-time occupations, or even full-time ones, and—and this is the sad thing—only 2 who could be classified as manual workers. The Bill goes some way—but only some way —to getting more manual workers on to

  269
  the bench, and getting a wider range of people appointed as justices.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) referred to payments for loss of time, but one must consider the general time factor involved in sitting on the bench. My city demands that its magistrates sit for one day a week. If someone seeks an appointment as a magistrate, he is required to give one day a week to the job. The Attorney-General referred to the Civil Service and nationalised industries giving their employees 18 days' leave a year to enable them to perform their public duties.
  A colleague of mine in Southampton was recommended as a magistrate. He works for the Ordnance Survey Department, and is allowed 18 days a year to perform his public duties. If he were to add those 18 days to his annual leave allowance, he still would not have enough time to meet the obligation placed on him of having to sit one day a week, which, allowing for holidays, is about 46 days a year. I do not know whether this applies in other parts of the country. It does not, of course, usually work out like that. It often happens that a magistrate works for half a day, but the condition is for one day a week, and this debars many people, from a variety of occupations, from applying to become magistrates. They are frightened off by his one day a week requirement. The answer is, of course, greatly to increase the number of magistrates. If we were to demand one day a fortnight, instead of one day a week, it would open up the appointment of magistrates to a much wider variety of people, and we could, therefore, have more magistrates.
  I think that there is a need to appoint younger magistrates. As far as I know, my wife, who is 37, is the youngest magistrate on her bench, or if not the youngest, the youngest but one. As far as I can ascertain, only two or three magistrates on my bench, which is 67 strong, are under 40.
  On the juvenile bench, out of 11 magistrates, only 3 are under 50. In these days it is important to have a much greater number of young magistrates because of the greater variety of juvenile offenders who now appear before the courts. There is a need for
  270
  people who have an understanding of the problems of youth to sit on these benches, and I plead for the appointment of more magistrates in the 30 to 35 age group.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom made the interesting observation that it might be difficult to get young women magistrates, because they had young children to look after. Clause 4 refers to:
  "financial loss allowance where for that purpose there is incurred by him any other expenditure to which he would not otherwise be subject…".
  Does that provision, as the similar provision in regard to local government does, cover the case of, for example, a young woman magistrate with two children under school age who has to employ someone to look after her children while she is performing her duties on the bench? I hope that it does, because it would be an important step forward.
  The Attorney-General: I give that assurance at once, as I can regarding the proposal that these allowances should apply in respect of attendance at courses of instruction, when they are introduced.
  Mr. Mitchell: Very good. Now, a few words about the system for appointing magistrates. There is far too much secrecy and mumbo-jumbo in the method of appointment of magistrates. I remember with some amusement the occasion when my wife received a letter after someone had recommended her for appointment to the bench. The letter said nothing about the bench. It was signed by a firm of solicitors, who were clerks to the justices, and it said something to the effect that, if she came along for interview at a certain time, she might learn something to her advantage. On the strength of it, she nearly went out and bought a new coat, thinking that dear old Aunt Ada in Australia or somewhere had left her a fortune. She was quite surprised when she learned the truth.
  I do not know whether that sort of thing still happens, but it aroused my interest and I began to go into the whole question of appointments. I tried to find out who sat on the Lord Chancellor's local advisory panel. This really was an exercise. By accident, I found out the name of one person who was on the panel. I went along and asked for the names of the

  271
  others. Oh, dear—this was too much; he did not want to admit that he sat on the panel himself, let alone give the names of the others. It took me three weeks of solid detective work—I was not a Member of Parliament then, so I had the time—to find out the names of the members of the Lord Chancellor's local advisory panel. This is all rather nonsensical. I see no reason why, in modern conditions, the names of the members of the Lord Chancellor's advisory panel should not be published.
  It is not generally realised that any individual can recommend another individual to become a magistrate. No matter who one is, one can write and suggest that one's next-door neighbour would be a suitable person. What happens after the nomination goes in no one quite knows. It is all wrapped up in a good deal of mystery. I understand the need for care and, perhaps, the need for private investigations to be undertaken, but I cannot help feeling that the whole thing is wrapped in too much mystery, a state of affairs which, in fact, is a deterrent against more people becoming magistrates.
  I echo what has been said from this side earlier and endorse the plea to the Attorney-General not to wait for the country's economic situation to improve before bringing the monetary part of the Bill into operation. I cannot believe that £350,000, the figure which has been mentioned, will break the country at this time. This is a long overdue reform. I welcome the Bill in general. Please, may they have the money quickly?
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly for both its spirit and its content. It deals with the most important branch of our judicial system for the ordinary citizen. Few citizens ever set foot in the High Court or the county court. There is a much greater chance that the citizen will find himself in the magistrates' court either as a witness or, unfortunately nowadays, as a defendant.
  The magistrates' courts have changed little in their composition or their buildings in the past 100 years. We should
  272
  always remember that 98 per cent, of all indictable offences are tried in the magistrates' courts, and the vast majority of cases which are tried there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) pointed out, motoring cases. So the defendant who appears in the magistrates' court today is not the type of defendant who may have appeared there in Dickens' time, the thug. Very often, he is a motorist, an intelligent motorist, a man who does not normally find himself on the wrong side of the law and who is much more able to appraise the tribunal trying him than, perhaps, the defendant of the past could.
  One reason why things have changed little is that in this country—I speak of England and Wales, excusing Scotland of this charge—we have always tried to get our justice on the cheap. We may pay expensively for law but we have always tried to get justice on the cheap. As a result, we have our system of unpaid lay magistrates. So far, the system has worked very well. Whether it will continue to work well, however, is a matter of supposition, in view of the increasing complexity of the law and the growing volume of cases coming before magistrates.
  I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention the proposals submitted to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor by the Law Society, which suggested that there might ultimately be a hybrid system, as it were, combining the present stipendiary magistrate and the lay magistrate, a system under which one would have a qualified lawyer as chairman of the bench but kept in check by two lay magistrates. However, that may well be 10 or 20 years off. The Bill is urgently needed to reform the magistrates' courts as they are now.
  I welcome the proposal to abolish the office of ex officio justice. Nowadays, as a result of the efforts of my noble Friend, magistrates undergo training, and thereafter they gain experience. In such circumstances, why should a transitory population of justices sit with them? The ratio appears to be one in eight. These ex officio justices sit with their qualified colleagues on the bench, but they have been appointed not because of any capabilities as magistrates but merely because,

  273
  over a period of years, they have been successful in winning local elections and have become mayors or chairmen of local councils.
  What do these justices do when they go on the bench? Two courses are open 10 them. Either they sit mute and rubberstamp the decisions of their colleagues, in which case their presence on the bench is a waste of their time and their colleagues' time, or, worse still, they intervene in cases, often to the alarm of the clerk and the dismay of the public.
  Ex officio magistrates can be a menace in the criminal courts, but the position is even worse in the exercise of the very wide jurisdiction which magistrates' courts have in matrimonial matters. In a matrimonial court, the magistrates may well be deciding a question far more important than a fine or even a sentence of imprisonment. They decide the future lives of the parties to the dispute. More important than that, they may be deciding the future of the innocent children of the marriage. On the financial side alone, when a magistrate in a matrimonial court makes an affiliation order for, say, £2 a week, he is, in effect, giving judgment for £1,600 over the 16 years involved.
  It is ludicrous to have sitting on such a case a man who is not necessarily a man of tact, a man who has not necessarily got understanding, who has no judicial knowledge, who has no magistrate's experience in handling such cases, and who, as I have said, is sitting in the seat of judgment merely because he happens to be a chairman of a council or a mayor.
  The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) put a most interesting case to the House. All hon. Members listen with great interest to an hon. Gentleman who deals with matters known to him within his own constituency. The hon. Gentleman presented his case very fairly. He did not put it politically, but he explained very reasonably that the courts of the City of London have special responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman is not in his place at the moment, but I should like to ask him whether it is true that, in the City of London courts, most of the time is spent, as in any other court, in dealing with motoring and similar offences, and only rarely are those experienced alder-
  274
  men called upon to deal with a complicated case of fraud. By and large, the City of London magistrates' court deals with exactly the same kind of cases as do other magistrates' courts, except for matrimonial cases and the like. Therefore, even on that score, I welcome the provision, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will resist any pressure to withdraw the Measure's application to the City of London.
  I also warmly welcome the payment of expenses to magistrates, which is all that the Bill suggests, so that they shall not suffer hardship for performing a public duty. As my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has said before and as my hon. Friends have said in this debate, we need to broaden the basis from which people are drawn to be magistrates. This is an urgent necessity if magistrates are to have credibility with the general public.
  One of the prime reasons why some people cannot accept an appointment as magistrates is simply finance. They cannot afford to lose time from their work in order to perform this public duty. If they are on retirement pension they may find even meals and travelling difficult. It is appalling for us in this House of Commons to suggest that, regardless of their means, people who do a public duty should do it at their own expense. I, too, press my right hon. and learned Friend not to delay this provision because of the economic situation, but now to give to magistrates what is due to them.
  I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test in his desire to have published the names of members of the advisory committees who advise the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the appointment of magistrates. Why should they not be published? Why should this mystique—and a mystique very often misunderstood by the public—surround the appointment of justices? I am certain that those carrying out this responsible function would not in any way be influenced by anyone who might attempt to canvass them. If ever there was an appointment where canvassing directly or indirectly should disqualify, it is this. I should like that provision to be in the Bill, because it does not then vary according to the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot, but becomes Statute law.

  275
  Further, when a magistrate is appointed, I should like the reasons for his appointment to be published. The public should know why the advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster considered that person to be suitable as a magistrate. I can see no harm in that information being published. It would save much heartburning, and would tend to get us away, on both sides, from the system of political appointments. As it is, when certain people are appointed it is self-evident that the appointments result from their being local councillors, or being active in a political party, a trade union, or a chamber of commerce. If we can get away from that position and, instead, appoint housewives, people from the factories, and other suitable persons, and publicise the reasons for their appointment, it would help a good deal to broaden the basis of choice.
  Consideration might also be given to the position of mayors who are lawyers. I have had the experience, being interested in politics and being also a solicitor, of finding myself about to be made the mayor of my own borough. I had to seek from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in my case, a dispensation not to be put on the bench. Had I been appointed, not only I but all my partners would have been forbidden to practise anywhere within the County of Lancaster. That would seriously have prejudiced my partners, if not myself in particular. Will the provision which allows a mayor to sign various documents as though he were on the supplementary list require a lawyer mayor to seek a dispensation from the proper authority? It should not be necessary for him to have to do that.
  The Bill helps members of my profession who are interested in politics, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends who are not lawyers will not denigrate it on that account.
  The Attorney-General: In order to save my dealing with a multiplicity of points when closing the debate, if I am allowed to do so, I may say that there will be no need for difficulty to arise about the function of signing documents, which is a duty that those on the supplementary list can still perform.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: I must apologise for having been absent
  276
  for a very large part of the debate—I had not intended to intervene—and I hope that it will not be considered discourteous of me to say that I believe that making the retirement age 70 instead of 75 is rather arbitrary. I know a number of magistrates who at 75 are completely capable of doing an excellent job. There are others who, at 60, may not, for other reasons, be so well qualified as die older person. One infirmity that is very detrimental to a magistrate's performing his office succesfully is deafness. I would rather appear before a 75-year-old magistrate who was sound of eye and ear than before one of 55 who was not so good on those counts.
  In many walks of life, men and women of over 70 are making an important contribution—in this honourable House, on the bench, practising as lawyers, and the like—and to draw the line arbitrarily at that age is a mistake. Would the learned Attorney-General consider the possibility of some kind of affirmation or readoption of a magistrate at the age of 72 or 73? Or he might be elected by his fellows. By drawing the line at 70, especially at this time, we would lose people who had the wish, the time, and certainly the energy to give the kind of public service that a magistrate can give.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: I am particularly pleased that the Bill has not been represented by any hon. Member as a great move forward. It has points that people will be able to applaud, but that is the most that can be said for it. In the main, it can be described as nebulous.
  I went into a factory in my constituency the other day, and commended a young apprentice on his tremendous craftsmanship. Whether he was afraid of the salutary aspect of politics today, I do not know, but he said, "Yes, Mr. Mahon—it is a pity that Members of Parliament do not serve an apprenticeship." I told him, "But they do—and very often it is a very long apprenticeship. They become members of a political party, councillors, aldermen, mayors and magistrates." This is a good and long apprenticeship.
  What amazes me about the Bill is that those who have been mayors for a short or long period have been given short

  277
  shrift. It does not make sense to me that a mayor should be considered not a right and proper person to be a magistrate, although he had become the chief magistrate of the town. It has always been a dual, time-honoured distinction that the mayor should become the chief magistrate of the town. Why should we seek in this Bill to dispose of that honour, which has been applied to people who are often magistrates when they aspire to the mayoral chair, or if they have not enjoyed the office thus far, become magistrates very soon after because of the added experience which they have acquired? From that point of view, I think, this is a difficult position.
  The age limit of 75 is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, why continue the position for another five years? If it is wrong to have people on the bench at, say. 71 or 72 years of age, why not say so? Why continue this aspect of the situation until 1973? The acid test, as my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier in the day, must always, of necessity, be efficiency and integrity.
  Has the mayor, who invariably is a man of experience, with a great knowledge of his fellow men and women, fewer qualifications for the position of magistrate than, say, the local scoutmaster or headmaster, the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker, or the normal person who has given very good service in different capacities?
  The magisterial system has grown up, as local government has grown up, out of the needs of society. The present system is not deserving at this juncture of such close scrutiny. This is by no moans an urgent priority. Regrettably, in my opinion, the services coming under the microscope today are the services which have been and are serving our country very well. Local government and our methods of administering justice have been the envy of the world and part and parcel of the great traditions of our land.
  The payment to magistrates, of course, is a fair and equitable thing to do. Magistrates have given and are giving their services freely and admirably without being remunerated. Were this not to be done in this day and age, splendid people would have to be excluded from the magistrates' bench because they could not afford to take time off from work;
  278
  this would be a flagrant injustice. For too long in this country we have had justice on the cheap. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes)——
  Mr. Harry Howarth: Wellingborough.
  Mr. Mahon: I am sorry if I appeared to be looking in the wrong direction, but I am right. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West referred to matrimonial cases, which undoubtedly demand a great knowledge of human affairs. It is the person who really cares who should adjudicate in these matters. It is the person with immense patience and a tremendous sense of dedication who has invariably had a long experience as a representative on a local authority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West knows in his own professional capacity that the people who come into court with marriage difficulties are, sadly, the people who are enduring great inequalities—people who are living in one room, people who are living with a mother-in-law, or are herded together with many other people. These are the things which put many marriages on the rocks, as I know from my own experience.
  I am speaking with my tongue in my cheek, because I began as a councillor, then became an alderman, then a mayor and then a magistrate, and I was many other things in between which may or may not have qualified me for the magisterial bench. I am certainly not alone in this. Looking back over the careers of hundreds of thousands of my own colleagues, I know that they have been in local government and remained good magistrates to the end of their days at 80, 83 or 84 and the country owes these men a great debt of gratitude——
  Mr. Oakes: This is the very point which I was making about a chairman or, as my hon. Friend said, a mayor, who suddenly finds himself not only on the bench but sitting in a matrimonial court. Has not my hon. Friend usually found that when such people who have not been magistrates before sit on the first occasion in a matrimonial court, they leave with a profound sense of shock and surprise that such things go on in the world? This very often is what they say. Would it not be far better for

  279
  experienced magistrates to sit to hear these cases?
  Mr. Mahon: I have known this and, on the other hand, I have known solicitors and members of the legal profession who have often wished to deal peremptorily with these sad cases. It is then that the forbearance of the experienced magistrate is brought to bear, and he says, "We will not have this. We want to mend this marriage if we can". I will not give myself any bouquets, but I have had the experience in court when everything has been cut and dried even to the extent of the separation allowance having been decided and when the magistrate has been expected to act as a cipher or a rubber stamp and the good man will say, "We do not want any of this; let us hear the case ". As a result, many a young couple who entered the court giving each other unkind glances have left it together, hand in hand.
  Although the Bill covers many things, it omits many others and it is these omissions which give rise to many of the fears which have been voiced by hon. Members.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: I welcome the Government's decision to abolish ex-officio justices of the peace. There have been murmurings against lay justices in courts, but I do not agree with those murmurings, because I have appeared in a number of these cases— I must declare an interest in this since I am a barrister—and I sometimes find that if an accused gets before the "beak" he has had it, whereas, if he goes before lay magistrates, he does have some chance of getting off. I welcome the abolition of the ex-officio justices because I cannot see justification for these people, aldermen for example, becoming justices simply for that reason.
  I remember appearing as a witness before one of the aldermen of the City of London. I gave my evidence to the effect that there had been a car crash. However, the person concerned had refused to give his name and address and he said that there had been no car crash. The alderman said, "I find no evidence to the effect that there has been a car crash", and the counsel for whom I was
  280
  appearing replied, desperately, "But there is at least the evidence of Mr. Tuck". I agree that this sort of thing should be abolished.
  I wonder if my right hon. and learned Friend would consider slipping into the Bill, perhaps in another place, a provision in regard to justices' clerks. On many occasions I have appeared in cases which involved fact only. After the justices had retired, the clerk was called in. I knew that the justices could not be asking his advice on law, so they had to be asking about fact. As is well known, justices may not ask advice on fact. I suggest that barristers on both sides should be allowed to go into the justices' room if the clerk goes in. Naturally, they would not say a word, but at least they could hear that justice is done and they could see that the clerk's advice is not sought on fact.
  I will not comment on the question of divorce because if I have an opportunity to speak at a later stage I will advocate a system of family courts for all matrimonial matters and matters affecting children.
  On the question of the age limit, I differ from the view of my right hon. and learned Friend and that of the Government as a whole. We are not all cast in the same mould. As far as I can see, there is no reason for putting on a blanket rule to embrace everybody. Some people are past it at the age of 40 and should be eased out of their jobs. I could mention a few judges who reached that stage. Others can render useful service to society until they are 90. I remind hon. Members that the greatest judgments of the late Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, as Supreme Court Justice to the United States, were made when he was between 70 and 90. Many of those judgments, which were dissenting judgments, subsequently became law. I therefore ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider this point.
  6.43 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) for giving the Bill as a whole his blessing and to the House for the welcome which the Bill has received, broadly speaking, in the debate. Many of the matters raised

  281
  were matters of detail, which we will have to examine in Committee. I will refer to some of them before dealing with some of the main issues relating to the age limit and the provisions regarding the City of London.
  It was suggested that there is too much secrecy and mumbo jumbo, as one of my hon. Friends put it, in the machinery of advisory committees and the appointment of justices. This matter has been considered by various Royal Commissions and in 1948 the Royal Commission recommended:
  "Members of advisory committees are drawn from all sections of the local authority. Their identity is not disclosed in order that they may be shielded from undesirable and unwanted influences in performing their duties".
  Thus, the danger is that if their names were disclosed, there would be a lamentable attempt at lobbying them and an attempt to bring pressure upon them to appoint this or that magistrate. It is to avoid the risk of that sort of attempted influence that this secrecy is maintained.
  I should, however, add that the name and address of the secretary of each advisory committee is published and is obtainable on application from the clerk to the council, town clerk of a borough or any clerk to the justices in the area concerned. I hope that, on reflection, and having had some experience themselves of attempted lobbying, my hon. Friends may think that the discreet arrangements whereby the identity of chairmen and members of advisory committees is kept secret is advantageous in this difficult task of selecting the best men for the magisterial bench.
  Several of my hon. Friends urged the need for more young magistrates, and I entirely agree, as I am sure does my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I also agree with the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Harry Howarth) to employers to help young employees to come forward to undertake the responsibilities of magistracy. The financial provisions in the Bill will be helpful when we are in a position, as a country, to implement them; but I shall come to that later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and others criticised the
  282
  election of chairmen by secret ballot and suggested the nomination process instead. This matter was also considered by the 1948 Royal Commission, which expressed the view that there should be no nomination procedure as justices might feel embarrassed in voting for someone else who had not been nominated. And, of course, in regard to a justice who is really too busy to undertake a chairmanship, there is no reason why he should not announce in advance that he does not wish to be chairman. I have no doubt that, in practice, that is often done when that situation arises.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) asked me about the inclusion in Schedule 1 of the commissioners of police. I confess that I was a trifle surprised at the provision being there. The position appears to be that it would not be possible to deprive the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police of their ex officio positions as justices of the peace by a short provision in the Bill. The root of the difficulty is that the Metropolitan Police Acts are drafted on the basis and assumption that the commissioner is a justice of the peace. Unlike other chief officers of police, the Commissioner is not, in law, a constable, and there is apparently a danger that a provision which did no more than deprive him of the status of justice of die peace might strike at the present legal basis of his office and put in doubt some of his powers as chief officer of police. However, the officers concerned are, in practice, debarred by Section 1 of the 1829 Act from sitting and adjudicating as justices and their position does not, therefore, call to be dealt with in the Bill in so far as the Bill's purpose is to prevent ex officio justices from sitting on the bench.
  I recognise, however, that the present situation is anachronistic and should be remedied at the first convenient opportunity. I am informed that the Home Office is seized of the matter and that it will be dealt with in due course when the Metropolitan Police Acts are next revised. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to the subject. The position of the City of London Commissioner is also somewhat obscure in this regard. I give a

  283
  similar undertaking to have active consideration given to that and to consider further whether he needs to be included in Schedule 1.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) and other hon. Members on either side of the House made an urgent plea that the financial provisions in the Bill should be implemented at once. Unfortunately the economic situation in this country at the moment calls for the maximum economies. In this situation every little helps. Under Clause 7(4) it is for the Home Secretary and, in Scotland, the Secretary of State to decide when to bring Clause 4 into operation. We have no doubt that sympathtic consideration will be given to what my hon. Friends have said and the implementation of these financial provisions, which I agree need implementation, will be treated as a matter of priority.
  I go to the two major matters of controversy which have been canvassed in the debate. The first is the proposal to reduce the retiring age of magistrates to 70. I recognise that there is a certain inconsistency between that proposal and the intention to continue to enable High Court judges, chairmen of quarter sessions, and recorders to serve beyond that age—the doctrine, if that is the right way of putting it, that professional lawyers who have spent a lifetime in the work of the courts can well continue beyond the age that the layman could properly be expected to continue to deal with the problems of the courts. I am bound to say that I see the merit of consistency in this field and that, to express a personal view, perhaps an age limit of 70 all round may not be a bad suggestion for the future.
  I recognise that this is a difficult problem. As was said so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), we are not all cast in the same mould. Some appear senile at 40 while others are enjoying a ripe and rich use at 80. One has to make the best of the averages in these matters. There appears to be evidence that over the age of 70 there are indications of deterioration in the capacity of magistrates to cope with the increasingly difficult nature of the work of magisterial courts.
  284
  The suggestion that the Lord Chancellor should exercise discretion and pick and choose those over 70 whom experience is showing to be incompetent would be a most odious and unattractive responsibility to place upon him. I do not think anyone in this House would care to involve himself in the problems, the complaints and protests that that method of dealing with the problem would give rise to.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Could not my right hon. and learned Friend work it the other way—that the Lord Chancellor should pick and choose anyone who showed himself to be brilliant beyond the age of 70 and extend his time for a further number of years?
  The Attorney-General: Any selection process of that kind would be invidious. I do not think it is really on. We have to decide on an age to make the thing workable. The age of 75 was fixed in 1949 because the Royal Commission of 1948 suggested that age. Before 1949 there was no age limit at all. The information I have is that since 1949 experience suggests that 70 would be a better limit, bearing in mind in particular the much heavier nature of the work of the magistrates' court which now has to be faced.
  I come finally to the discussion we have had about the abolition of ex-officio justices. With one or two exceptions— and of course I except for the purposes of the discussion what has been said about the City of London—the proposals have been generally welcomed in the House that ex-officio justices should go. I now come to the field where, however, there has been strong disagreement. I readily concede in regard to the City of London that the standards of the administration of justice in the City magistrates' courts are high. I have already paid tribute to the work of generations of Lord Mayors and aldermen in those courts. Nevertheless, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor finds no convincing reason why the system in the City should differ so fundamentally from the rest of England and Wales, as it does.
  The principles he seeks to apply to the lay magistracy are that they should not be drawn from any limited section of the population, and perforce that is

  285
  the situation prevailing among the aldermen of the City of London. The principle he thinks—and I agree with him—that should apply is that as far as practicable the magistracy should include both men and women of all walks of life. I mention women because the House will realise that no woman can become a justice of the peace in the City of London because women cannot become aldermen. The City justices have no domestic jurisdiction and no longer have jurisdiction in regard to juveniles for that reason.
  The basic principle that the bench should include men and women of all walks of life is in this day and age a very important one. So also is the principle that justices of the peace should be chosen with the express object of finding in each section of the local popula-ion—again so far as that is practicable —those persons who are best fitted to administer justice. In no circumstances should appointment to the bench be somewhat adventitious. It should be the subject of a special and deliberate process.
  The other principle which I submit is relevant and generally acceptable is that, save in certain exceptional instances, cases coming before magistrates' courts ought not to be tried by a single justice. There are High Court judges in the country sitting on magisterial benches quite happily with lay justices. The view of the Lord Chancellor is that the best number for a magistrates' court is three justices. Two make it difficult if there is a disagreement; there has to be a re-trial. That, experience has generally shown, is the best. Broadly speaking in the context of the constitution of the court representing the whole spectrum of the population, it is the most acceptable bench for England and Wales at this time.
  Mr. Weitzman: I gather that the provisions of Clause 4 will not come into force at once because of the economic position?
  The Attorney-General: Yes.
  Mr. Weitzman: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that Clause 1(6), dealing with the exclusion of the City of London, which means a greater financial provision, should come in immediately the Act has passed?
  The Attorney-General1: My information is that there will be no additional expense, no additional financial involvement as a result of what is proposed. The cost of the administration of justice in the City will continue, as at present, to be shared between the City Corporation, the Greater London Council, and the Exchequer. It is my information that there will be no increase in cost by reason of the proposed changes. If I am incorrect about that, I will certainly look at the financial aspect when we reach the detailed consideration of the Bill.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: If this is being introduced by the Lord Chancellor on a matter of principle, will the Attorney-General tell us why as a matter of principle the Lord Chancellor permits a situation to remain under which the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) can appoint magistrates? Surely this illustrates that anomalies exist and that they are all right if they work?
  The Attorney-General: Some anomalies undoubtedly exist. There cannot be total unanimity in our administration of justice, which is the product of long historical processes and practices. The rôle of the Duchy of Lancaster under its Chancellor has existed, and my right hon. Friend does his work on the basis of good advice that he receives.
  Here we are in the realm of important principles that go to the very root of the administration of justice and the standards that we think should be applied. Although it is conceded that the standards of the administration of justice in the City are high, there is no reason why equally high standards should not be maintained when there are added to the City benches other suitably qualified justices, representing, however, a somewhat wider cross-section of the population, including women, and providing a bench more in keeping with the expectations of British society and of the public in the latter half of the twentieth century.
  Those are the matters of principle which have influenced this decision, and I repudiate entirely any suggestion that what is proposed is in any sense inspired by malice or ill-will against the City. The contrary is the case. I am grateful for the very moderate way in which the hon. Member for Cities of London and

  287
  Westminster (Mr. John Smith) put objections to this provision which I can well understand.
  Mr. John Smith: The Attorney-General has said several times that justices should be representative of the population. What does he mean by "the population" of the City? In the ordinary sense of the word, this would mean a bench composed entirely of firemen, caretakers and barristers-at-law from the Temple. Surely the aldermen are representative of the working population of the City?
  The Attorney-General: Clearly the working population, as well as the residents of the City, is the population which I have in mind. As I understand it, the City area itself is housing, and will house, more and more residents. I am willing to be corrected on this, but I understand that there is likely to be a considerable increase in the residential population of the City in the near future. It is the broad spectrum of both workers in the City and residents in the City that I have in mind. This is the justification for the application to the City also of the principle which applies to the rest of England and Wales and which has produced such remarkably high standards throughout the country.
  Tribute has been paid in the debate to the standards of administration of justice in England and Wales. Those standards are high at all levels in the administration of justice. Though I can understand that the aldermen of the City and those who have seen them at work will be unhappy about this, I ask them to accept that this proposal is inspired by the highest of principles in regard to the administration of justice and we are confident that no damage will be suffered by the City by reason of the change. I therefore hope that in the end the City will be able to accept these proposals with a cheerful heart.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on the question of the amount of the time local advisory committees should be expected to demand from potential magistrates?
  The Attorney-General: I should like notice of that question. It is expected that magistrates shall sit for 20 days, I believe.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: That is less than the relevant figure for the City.
  The Attorney-General: In the City the average sitting is 26 days for aldermen. The answer which I have now received from below the Gallery is that it is expected that newly appointed magistrates will sit for 26 days a year. If I am not mistaken, that is about the average number of sitting days of aldermen of the City of London. I pay tribute to that degree of service.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to justices of the peace, it is expedient to authorise any such increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of moneys provided by Parliament as may be attributable—

(a) to making allowances payable under sections 8 and 36 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (at rates to be prescribed under those sections) to justices of the peace and to members of probation and after-care committees or case committees where in order to perform their duties they incur expenditure on things other than travelling and subsistence or suffer a loss of earnings or national insurance benefit; or

(b) to removing from those sections the restriction on payment of an allowance to a person for duties performed not more than three miles from his usual place of residence; or

(c) to facilitating the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances under section 8 to paid chairmen or deputy chairmen of quarter sessions.—[The Attorney-General.]

7.8 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Oakes: The Money Resolution deals with the very provision which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that no money is to be spent on at present. The House is therefore in the curious position of being asked to agree to a Money Resolution, although no money is to be spent on this matter until the economic situation improves. I do not think that my right hon. and learned

289
Friend dealt fully with this aspect. I ask him to say more now, because, according to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, the sum involved will be £120,000 in the first full year. That is not a great deal of money to spend in relieving from hardship people who are doing a public service. At the end of three years the sum involved will be only £360,000. Can my right hon. and learned Friend expedite the putting into force of the provisions relating to paying the expenses of justices?
7.10 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what I said at the close of the debate on the Second Reading, namely, that when it is possible to do it consistently with maintaining the present active economy drive it will be done. I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary know the need for it. I will see that the strong views expressed in the House on the matter are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are responsible. But I ask the House at any rate to give us the powers to do this when the time is appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.11 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals):I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Every visitor to this country tells us— as if we did not already know—that we do not get enough sunshine. Perhaps that was why there was a pretty negative response to the proposal that what the Bill calls British Standard Time should be called permanent Summer Time. It is not just that we do not have enough sunshine. Our geographic position ensures that we do not get enough daylight during our long winter months. The further north and east we live, the more this is so. In midwinter, London has only seven hours 51 minutes between sunrise and sunset. In Inverness, there are only six hours 36 minutes. Daylight is so precious that we must make the best use we can of it.
The Bill does not legislate to give us more daylight—one might suppose from the arguments of Sir Alan Herbert in The Times that we were seeking to reduce the hours of daylight. But it does recognise that ways of life have changed since 1884, when Greenwich mean time was established. We are now, like it or not, primarily a town-dwelling society, increasingly dependent upon overseas commerce. There have for many years been indications that the old time system, framed for a different type of community, was becoming less suited to our needs and that the time was approaching for a change such as the Bill introduces.
It is, in fact, the culmination of a long process, starting with adjustments made originally purely for the summer. Hon. Members will be aware that it was Mr. William Willet who first conceived the idea of advancing the clocks by one hour. He was the real pioneer in daylight saving. It was as a result of his persistence that in 1908 a Bill, called the Daylight Saving Bill, was laid before the House and found its way to a Select Committee which reported favourably on the Measure. However, despite the untiring efforts of Mr. Willet and his supporters—there were repeated attempts to

291
introduce such Measures—the proposal did not receive sufficient support. Legislation was eventually passed only in 1916, as a war time measure primarily to save fuel. The system was designated Summer Time, and so it has remained.
Since then, although the period has varied, there has not been a break in the operation of Summer Time for almost 52 years, and few of us in the House— certainly not I—will admit to being able to recall the time—over half a century ago— when our clocks kept Greenwich mean time throughout the year. During the last war Greenwich mean time did not operate at all. Summer Time was extended throughout the year and in addition, for a time, there was a period of double summer time.
In 1947, during the serious fuel crisis, an Act was passed which provided for the period of summer time laid down in the Summer Time Acts of 1922–1925 to be varied for any year by Order in Council. In recent years, this power has been regularly used, and it is in use now, so that the clocks will be put forward —permanently if the Bill is passed—on 18th February. We are now enjoying—or perhaps I should use the neutral word, "experiencing"—the very last month of Greenwich mean time.
In recent years there has been growing public support for a longer period of Summer Time. It was the inquiry undertaken in the winter of 1959–60 which originally sparked off the Bill. About 180 organisations, representing a wide variety of interests all over the country, were consulted. The replies indicated two outstanding preferences: first, that there should be Summer Time all the year round, and second that the period of Summer Time should begin earlier and end later.
Numerically, there was a slight preference for the first, but those against this choice included some important special interests, the chief of which I shall name, so as to illustrate the profound shift of opinion that has since occurred. In addition to agriculture, the majority of the trade unions were—at that time— opposed to change; so, too, were the majority of the educational interests and the electricity generating industry, which feared for the effect on the morning peak load.
292
It was thus decided, partly as an experiment and partly to test public reaction, to stop short at an extension of Summer Time, to operate from the end of March to the end of October, seven months. The public having tested this, increased pressure arose during recent years for yet a further extension and indeed for Summer Time all the year round. Further consultations were, therefore, undertaken in the winter of 1966–1967 to bring up to date the views obtained in the earlier inquiry. These consultations covered both the social and economic aspects of a change.
Views were obtained from about 80 organisations, including those representing both sides of industry and agriculture, teachers, local authorities, sporting interests, the police, the Consumer Council and various women's organisations. It is as a result of these consultations that this Measure is being introduced. It was clear that there had been a substantial shift of opinion, with a mounting desire for a change, particularly for social reasons.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Were the consultations in England paralleled by consultations with similar bodies in Scotland?
Mr. Ennals: Yes, indeed. I shall deal deal thoroughly with the consultations in Scotland. There were probably more organisations consulted in Scotland, as I shall mention.
Broadly representative groups of organisations were consulted. I emphasise that not only because of the hon. Gentleman's question but because the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), when we were debating the Summer Time Order last July, suggested that the sole reason for the Government's decision was the commercial advantage it would bring by enabling people in Britain to work to the same time schedule as those on the Continent. This is, I believe, a common view, but it is quite misconceived. It was one factor only—though an important one—in favour of the change. There is no doubt that the change should benefit our commercial transactions with the Continent, and bring solid benefits by way of increased exports to the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. countries. There could hardly be a more important time to undertake this Measure when the battle for exports is at the centre of our country's economic struggle.

293
We estimate that the gain in business contact hours during the winter would be as much as 20 per cent. The Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce were among those consulted on this aspect, and comments were also offered by the National Export Council and the London Commodity Exchange. The general consensus of opinion was strongly in favour of the change we are now making.
Permanent co-ordination of time between the United Kingdom and Europe will also provide greater convenience in travel and in business arrangements generally. It will be an advantage to the airlines, not only in simplifying the task of preparing time-tables but in harmonising their schedules with the continental operators. It will help the railways in much the same way, and it should be of considerable benefit to the ports, particularly those such as Dover—my constituency—and others dealing with the Continent. I shall have more to say later on the question of road accidents, which is primarily a human and social problem. But it is manifest that transport undertakings in general will benefit from the change, and so—if only marginally—will the tourist industry.
But I have no wish to overpitch the economic arguments. We have found that, considering the whole economic aspect, the advantages and disadvantages are pretty evenly matched. It is a matter of delicate judgment. We cannot dispute that there will be some difficulties, though they are sometimes exaggerated. The outdoor industries—agriculture and construction—will certainly be affected. We believe that there is a tendency to underestimate what can be done through changes in working hours. Farm work itself is changing and mechanisation and modernisation provide more scope now for work in conditions of cold and darkness than was the case even a few years ago. It is perhaps partly for this reason that the opposition of the National Farmers' Union is discernibly less strong than it was in 1960, and it is of significance that the National Union of Agricultural Workers now approves of what we propose.
The effect on the fuel industry, we are advised, will be neutral, except that as regards electricity generation there will be a shift of much of the peak load from
294
the late afternoon to the morning. In fact, the morning peak may well become larger than the afternoon peak is at present. But this should not now give rise to any significant problems. It certainly did in 1960, but it will not do so now since by next winter there should be ample generating capacity to cover any small excess.
Captain Walter Elliot: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by his reference to the late afternoon peak? What time is he contemplating, six o'clock or four o'clock?
Mr. Ennals: The peak starts at the time when it gets dark and it is clear that if one brings the timing much earlier, there will be a bigger peak in the morning than in the evening, because when people get home from work and children come home from school, they are more likely to come home in the hours when it is light. This is more so as one moves towards February and March and also in October and November.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am not sure that I understand that part of the hon. Gentleman's observation. Before the equinox the more the hour is put forward the earlier darkness falls. After the equinox the opposite must be true in a sense because of course one gradually gets to a period when on any view there will be light. How can what the hon. Gentleman has just said be true about the period before the equinox?
Mr. Ennals: Certainly during the middle of winter—and people are most concerned about the change during the middle of winter—it is quite clear that we shall be getting up when it is darker and therefore using more electricity in the morning, and there will be less electricity used in the end of the afternoon and in the early evening. That is confirmed by the electricity industry which has been studying this matter.
Captain W. Elliot Captain W. Elliot rose——
Mr. Ennals: I must proceed. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Speaker's eye and be able to develop his argument.
There was concern about this situation in 1960, but we are now quite satisfied

295
that there will be ample generating capacity to deal with any small excess. Nor will industries' costs and the average price to the consumer be significantly affected.
Had we relied solely on economic considerations, it would have been less easy to reach the conclusion we have reached. The Government would probably still have concluded that the change was desirable, but the decision would have been fine. This is not solely, however, nor perhaps primarily, an economic issue. There can be few issues which more directly affect every individual in the country, working or retired, in his or her domestic or social habits.
We were surprised in the course of our social review to discover how far the balance of opinion has swung in favour of change. There were no doubt many differing factors contributing to this, but I propose particularly to mention two, about which, it appears, there is still a good deal of misunderstanding, which I would like to remove.
It seems to be fairly commonly believed that the change will increase the danger of road accidents. In fact, taking morning and evening together, it should lead to more travel in daylight and to less in darkness than under the present system, even on the least favourable assumption that the traffic will not adjust itself in any way. There are, of course, other considerations—more ice and fog in the mornings, greater travel weariness in the evenings—but the best expert assessment we have is that the reduction of accidents in the evening will be somewhat greater than any increase in those in the morning.
The Road Research Laboratory's assessment was that, had British Standard Time been in force in 1964, there would have been about 580 extra fatal and serious accidents on weekday working mornings and about 870 fewer such accidents in the evenings. This, together with fewer weekend accidents gives an estimate of 390 fewer fatal and serious accidents. It is the view of R.O.S.P.A., the British Medical Association and the police that the new time will reduce road accidents, and this is a serious consideration.
When we talk about road accidents, we naturally think of our children. The
296
House will, therefore, be interested to know that all the principal teachers' organisations in England and Wales support the change, as do most of the education authorities. They consider it preferable for our children to go to school rather than come home in the dark, when they tend to loiter and when they may be exposed to a variety of dangers.
Mr. Thomas Steele: My hon. Friend has spoken of education authorities in England and Wales; has he any report to give about Scotland?
Mr. Ennals: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall deal especially with Scotland where, it is recognised, there are serious problems.
Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Waver-tree): Will the hon. Gentleman point out that local education authorities have the power to shorten luncheon breaks so that children can go home earlier?
Mr. Ennals: This is a matter which has been discussed particularly with education authorities in the North of England and it is under review in Scotland. The changing of the timing of school, whether by shortening the luncheon break or by a slightly later starting, is something to be decided by the local authority. Our discussions with chief education officers in the North have shown that this is something very much in their minds.
Hon. Members will not dispute that the change will have advantages for all outdoor sport, entertainment and leisure time activities, although it is true that in the depths of winter these advantages may be apparent only at weekends. Even so, on the shortest day in Glasgow the sun will not set until a quarter to five instead of, as at present, a quarter to four. This should enable father to take the family for a run in the oar or for a walk after lunch without having to rush back quickly because of the fading light. Daylight up to a quarter to five in Glasgow, and till nearly five o'clock in the South, should be a boon to the housewife and to the old-age pensioner in their afternoon activities; and earlier in the winter, and as the days draw out in February and March, the same benefits

297
will be enjoyed by many office and factory workers who are deprived of them now.
Opponents of this change are all too prone to concentrate exclusively on the winter solstice and close their eyes to all benefits both then and more particularly in the earlier and later winter months. This, no doubt, is debatable ground which hon. Members will discuss. What I can say, however, is that in England aid Wales the change had clear majority support among every single section of opinion whom we consulted on its social implications—the Trade Union Congress, the local authority associations, the Consumer Council, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the sporting interests, and many others.
In Scotland, where winter daylight is shorter and dawn comes later, opinion was understandably more divided, but we ware surprised at the degree of support there, too. While the local authorities, educational authorities and teachers' organisalions were in general, although by no means unanimously, against the change, the Scottish Trade Union Congress and the Scottish Office of the Confederation of British Industry, were as categorically in favour of it as their English counterparts. So, too, were certain of the women's organisations, such as the Scottish W.R.V.S. and the Townswomen's Guild. What I said earlier about school children must apply particularly in Scotland, but I repeat that any difficulties can almost certainly be reduced by an alteration of school hours.
Mr. James Ramsden: Is the distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw between Scotland and the rest of the country really valid? It depends on the latitude. Things in the North of England are every bit as difficult as things in the South of England. When he talks about opinion in England and Wales, the hon. Gentleman ought really to analyse matters in the North and in the South. It seems to be very material to the argument.
Mr. Ennals: That is absolutely true, and it is also true that the division is not so much a geographical one as occupational. It has been found that business, office and industrial workers in England, Scotland and Wales are in favour of the change but there are greater
298
doubts among the country folk, the farm folk and those involved in building operations in England or Scotland. Naturally there is a greater sense of concern about this change where the hours of daylight are less.
No one will doubt that we have not just been consulting the wishes of London and the South-East about this. We have consulted those people in Scotland and the North-West. As I indicated earlier, proportionately more bodies were consulted in Scotland than England and Wales. I am told that is not an uncommon practice. I have no wish whatever to discount the geographical considerations, which are most important. Occupational considerations are more important.
A matter which seems to have aroused much interest and some feeling is the name for the new time system. Hon. Members will recollect that when the Government's intention to introduce legislation to bring about this change was announced the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) asked whether further consideration could be given to the name. This was done and over a hundred suggestions were received from hon. Members, the general public, the Press and various organisations They were all carefully considered and there was also consultation with those concerned with astronomy, meteorology, shipping and navigation In the end the choice of British Standard Time has been made There has been some objection to this choice in the Press and in another place when the Bill was first considered This has, it seems, come mainly from the specialists concerned with astronomy, and navigation, on the ground that the name will cause confusion through the specialist and technical meaning which the term "standard time" has acquired.
We have given all due weight to these opinions but it must be remembered that we are not legislating here for specialists but for the general public, the man in the street. There is an evident, general wish, firstly for the word "British" to be in the title. Secondly, the word "Standard", I think the House will agree, indicates clearly and concisely the object of the measure, which is to prescribe the time for general purposes.
There can be no justification for suggesting that in making this choice we are

299
in any way detracting from the unique world-wide status of Greenwich Mean Time. On the contrary, the special position and uses of Greenwich Mean Time have been preserved in the Bill, as it deals with astronomy, meteorology, navigation and kindred subjects.
It is not, I am sure, necessary with so short and concise a measure to give the House any explanation or resumé of its provisions. I should perhaps mention that Clauses 2 and 3 apply the measure to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, in accordance with their wishes. Since the subject is within their own jurisdiction, they are at the same time given power to replace it by enactments of their own. Our understanding is that none of the territories wishes to do anything different from Great Britain, but certain of them do wish to enact their own legislation.
We are naturally preoccupied at present with the economic condition of the country, but we must not allow ourselves on this account to be distracted from lesser but nevertheless important reforms, such as this. Of course there will be difficulties for some people in this change. No one would try to pretend that this is not so. Parliament can very rarely legislate to please everyone, and the Government believe that for the country as a whole this is a beneficial Measure and that it will find support from the majority of our population. I ask the House to follow the action of those in another place, thereby placing this Measure upon the Statute Book.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I had better announce to the House that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and his hon. Friends. That will not in any way cramp the debate.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: If the speech to which we have just listened, glowing and confident as it was throughout, had been the prospectus for a trading company, the hon. Gentleman's Department would have been very much concerned about it. I do not think that one could have discerned from that speech, delivered as I am sure it was in the utmost good faith, that there is deep and widespread doubt, and outright op-
300
position to the proposition contained in this Bill.
The first question that one asks oneself when faced with a Bill like this is: why has it been brought forward at all? When I put in my notes that the first reason really was what I called the extrapolationist view of progress—that is that all change is progress and that if one has Summer Time for half the year, then to have it the whole year is more progress—I thought that I was being a little bit lawyer-like. Any doubts that I had about that have been entirely dissipated by the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The speech made by his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Stonham in another place included a quotation from Dr. Philpots in 1907 who advocated this. He said:
"…it has taken us some sixty years to adopt his idea."
This is accepting, of course, by a simple glide of thought, that this must be progress because someone suggested it and now it was being adopted. Another distinguished supporter of the Bill has described this as:
"…an inevitable development of what has taken place over the last sixty years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd Nov., 1967; Vol. 286, c. 1192.]
Today the hon. Gentleman said that the old time system established in 1884— that is enough to damn it—has become less suited to our needs and he described the Bill as the culmination of a long process, and said the time had come for a change.
He finished by calling it a reform. There are all the famous code words which replace thought in a matter like this. The next reason given for this, in spite of all the disclaimers from the hon. Gentleman, is the belief, encouraged by the terms employed and generally held in the corners of some people's minds, that this sort of Bill will produce some extra daylight.
Lord Stonham in another place, quoting this Dr. Philpots, who appears to be the cornerstone of this operation, quoted him as saying that better than Mr. Willett's summer time.
"…would be for all Western Europe to adopt what is known as 'middle Europe time'. This would result in giving that part of the world one hour's more daylight during a substantial part of the year…"

301
The right hon. Lady the Minister of State, in the debate upon the Summer Time Order, in July, said:
"This extra hour of daylight in the five weeks from February to the end of March…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 2692.]
Therefore, however much people disclaim it, there lurks in the minds of many of them the belief that some extra hours of daylight will result from this operation.
The third reason is what I call the death wish, which is that anything British is due for the ditch, that anything specifically British must be anomalous, insular and, indeed, retrograde, so that Greenwich Mean Time is inevitably due for supersession in the same way as duodecimal systems of measurement. This was epitomised in a quite remarkable utterance by Sir Richard Powell of the Institute of Directors, who said:
"We have been out of step for years. It is about time we abandoned this insular attitude and conformed with the rest of Europe."
The fourth reason is the "into Europe" movement—the Common Marketeers. It is true that Lord Stonham, when introducing the Bill, denied this and said:
"My Lords, it is not true that the Government's decision to adopt permanent Summer Time has been dictated by what might be termed Common Market considerations.… this is only one factor in the equation, to which due weight has been given, but no more ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd Nov., 1967; Vol. 286, c. 1182–40.]
I will not comment on that, at any rate at present, but I have no doubt that this has been the principal lobby in favour of the Bill.
Then there is the question of business advantage, about which we have heard a good deal, and, in a sense, I am glad that we have. During the Minister's speech, I collected one delightful phrase, which was that there would be a 20 per cent, advantage in business contact hours brought about by the Bill. That is a delightful expression which I should like to unbutton. I wonder what it means. Am I right in thinking that it means nothing other than advantage in telephoning? [Interruption.] I am obliged for that reassurance. It sounds so much more impressive when it is called "business
302
contact hours". No doubt it has come from America via a business consultant.
The final reason—and this is what the hon. Gentleman leant on more than anything else—concerns the allegation of public support, the great shift of ideas. One shift which there has been is that in 1960 the Government consulted 180 organisations. Last year, they consulted 80, a drop of 100. I wonder whether those were the unfriendly ones. In any case, is it a useful operation to ask organisations questions like this? All sorts of things happen. Such questions are dealt with in the most haphazard way. The answers which I saw given in the Press were just on the lines of the five items which I have just mentioned. Words like "overdue" were used. There were such phrases as, "It is time we got into step with Europe, if we are going into Europe"—and, by the way, we are apparently. "Extra daylight would be useful". "There will be business advantage in telephoning". I have recounted those because they exhaust the motives which have prompted the introduction of the Bill.
The burden of refuting these grounds does not lie on those who oppose the Bill, because we are defending the established system—established in this country and by international agreement. But I will deal with them quite shortly as though the burden lay upon us.
The first—and it is hardly necessary to say it—is that not an extra second of daylight can be produced by any such measure as this. Secondly, in considering progress and the question of being modern, the true analysis is that if we live on a globe and our life is regulated by the apparent movement of the sun across the sky round that globe, we have a problem of computing time which we can resolve in two ways: first, by having a single world time and by doing different things in different parts of the world at the same time; and, secondly, by having time belts so that eight o'clock, for example, has the same general and social meaning everywhere, but clocks change as one goes round the world.
The first is logically possible, but it has always been generally rejected. In a leading article in The Times on 2nd October, 1884—perhaps I can have the attention of the Minister; I suppose that "no" is the answer to that rhetorical question—

303
when amid the welter of chaos in this matter the nations of the world decided to examine it fundamentally and reach a decision this was said:
"…no international standard could be adopted without complete disruption of the ideas which are now universally associated with this or that much o'clock.…It is manifest that each country must still use its own meridian, or some selective meridian within is limits, for the regulation of domestic time".
This view wholly prevailed during the International Prime Meridian Conference which ran through the rest of that month in Washington. No one saw any sense in the clocks striking together all round the world.
On the next question—that of deciding the optimum size of time belt—there was general consensus that time belts one hour or 15 degrees of longitude wide were the best solution, and so, by agreement among virtually all the civilised nations, a system of 24 time belts, 15 degrees wide, based on the Greenwich meridian was recommended. It was adopted by the world and has been used ever since.
I emphasise that the system then adopted was not merely that the time used should be based on Greenwich Time in the sense that it should differ from it by a whole number of hours, but also that the time used should be the time of the appropriate zone. It is from that system that we are, by the Bill, asked formally and permanently to depart. I cannot see that that is progress. It was progress to replace chaos by an ordered and generally agreed system. Is it not retrograde to slip back into anarchy and chaos? If three or four in the regiment fall out of step, is the regiment out of step with them, and should we conform with the renegades; or should not they return to the general and useful system?
Mr. Ennals: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if there has been deviation we have been deviating for 51 years? Has this led to chaos and confusion throughout the last half century?
Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman has evaded the obvious point. I did not like the partial deviation, but at least it was a seasonal variation from the accepted standard time of the zone. What is
304
proposed now is something quite different: the total abandonment of zone time and the adoption of zone minus one Central European Time as the proper permanent time of these islands. It is, therefore, a clear departure from the Convention of 1884.
Then, what about the European Community? That is the motive which underlies all this. We are not in it, and we do not seem to be on our way into it. If we were, would it have any relevance? The answer is, "None".
When 15 degree belts of one hour each were agreed, they were agreed by reference to the greatest variation in local apparent noon which could be tolerated without a divorce in social habits from the familiar hours of the clock. That was the test and the criterion internationally agreed, accepted and applied. It was obvious that 15 degree belts would mean that a large country would work by more than one time and that several small countries might use the same time.
When I asked the Home Secretary some time ago why Europe should find difficulty where the United States found none, he replied that it was absurd to compare Europe with a country 3,000 miles wide. I wonder why. Europe is 3,300 miles wide, stretching over 57 degrees of longitude and into five time belts. By a strange coincidence, the United States also extends over 57 degrees of longitude and has four main time belts. Americans seem to manage very well and to do a lot of business with each other, and I think that they would laugh to scorn the proposition that they should all use the same clock time.
The proposal is that Britain should use time appropriate to a meridian which runs east of Berlin and is intended to be convenient for the inhabitants of Warsaw and Belgrade. It is misleading to say that it is the same time as France, because France is already in breach of the system. But France can at least say that she extends to 8½ degrees east and is partly in the Central European Time zone, whereas the United Kingdom lies almost entirely west of the meridian of Greenwich and a very small part of it is actually in the next zone time west. Since that is our geographical position, since we are the fulcrum of the whole system and since there are only a few rogue elephants, with

305
the rest of the world conforming to it, it is particularly disgraceful for us to abandon our zone time in this way.
How is this extraordinary step justified? We are told that we shall get an extra hour of daylight in the evening, and extra contacts of 20 per cent, with Europe. Let us look at the context of the 20 per cent., first. What does it mean? The executive comes into his office at 10 o'clock, sometimes. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that telephone wires to Paris, Berlin and Milan are humming with important business calls at 9 o'clock, I ask him to accept that he is mistaken. What will happen if we introduce Central European Time in the winter? Does he think that business executives will come in in the dark? What will happen is that offices in the City will not open at 9 o'clock but at 9.30, splitting the difference. They will slide half an hour. The executive will arrive not an hour later, as now, but one and a quarter hours later, catching just one train later than at present. In other words, if it is a gain at all, it will be a gain of 15 minutes.
What is the strength of the argument? Supposing that the kind of people who make international telephone calls come in at 10 o'clock. There is one hour's difference. Let us say that they work from 10 to 5. That gives them seven hours. Is this really a matter of very serious importance when one reflects that a good many people want to telephone the United States of America, where the difference is five hours? If the difference is increased to six hours, then, to adopt the hon. Gentleman's splendid phrase, which I shall never forget, of "business contact hours", does he realise that there will be virtually none between Britain and the United States or, at best, one? When one balances that out, I am not sure that I see very much advantage.
Now I come to the hour at night and the hour in the morning. This is the most fatuous argument ever addressed to the House. Does the hon. Gentleman know that there is frost and sometimes fog and often both together in our winter mornings? Does he know that the hour around sunrise is the worst for both of them? Of course, he does. Why, then, is he proposing that sunrise should be made later? Does he know, for example, that if this Bill comes in, sunrise may be as late as 10 o'clock in Scotland, and not just in Caithness and
306
Sutherland but in the central Lanarkshire belt running right across the country? As one comes south, it is still very late. Even in the latitude of London it will be at about 9 o'clock.
The hon. Gentleman said that school children will be able to come home in daylight. I do not know what teachers' organisations he has consulted. Perhaps I have a little more immediate experience than the hon. Gentleman. Does he not know that all children under 11 come home at 3.30, in daylight, in the winter months? If the teachers' organisations told him something different from that, they told him nonsense. At present, they come home in daylight and they go to school in daylight.
If the Bill is passed, they will go to school in the dark, and they will come home in daylight, as they do now. There is bound to be an increased danger. The darkness in which they will go to school is the darkness of the morning rush hour. Whether they come home now in the dark or in daylight, it is not in the rush hour, even at 4 o'clock, and, though it might be getting dark in the north of England, it is not the rush hour. They will be going to school in the dark, perhaps in frost and fog, and in the morning rush hour. If that does not lead to more children being killed and injured, I shall be delighted, but astonished.
Let us remember that we had a taste of this during the war, for five years. Particularly during the two cold winters of 1940 and 1944, it was a most disagreeable experience and, even before the war ended, in October, 1945, we abandoned it, and went back to Greenwich time for the winter.
The nature of this operation is very simple. The Government have decided that we ought to get up an hour earlier. They do not want to change the time system, in spite of the fine phrases with which the hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill. They will not change to a world time, or anything like that. They will keep to the time system at present established but, by introducing Central European Time, they hope that everyone will get up an hour earlier and do the things that they do now one hour earlier. My short answer is that it is a lot of nonsense and will not work, because people are regulated in their lives by the sun. In summer, it does not matter, because

307
there is a lot of elbow room on both sides and time can be pushed round a little. In winter, it will not happen.
Strangely enough, the hon. Gentleman said that when people looked at the difficulties he thought that there was a tendency to under-estimate what can be done by changing hours of work. If this problem is resolved by people changing hours of work, he might as well have saved himself the trouble of introducing the Bill, because he will finish up where he started.
If the Bill goes through—as I am sure it will—everything will just move along. It will take about five years, but it will move along and we can come back to the House and say, "Let us go back to zone time. Everybody will do the same things at the same time, but we will go back to Greenwich Mean Time as before." It is probably the only way in the end in which we could ever get rid of Mr. Willis, which is what I have always wanted to do, and that will be a slight solace. However, the trouble is that in the first few years, if it lasts so long, there will be great hardship and danger brought about by this foolish Bill.
I hope, after one bad winter, that it will go into limbo and be forgotten. If it is not, after a number of people have been killed and injured, we shall drift back to doing things an hour later and the whole thing will be a nullity and can be cancelled.
This is just the sort of Bill that I expect to be brought in by that lot of conscious and purposive planners opposite. It is just about their level and it will finish up, as all their other plans have finished up, as publishers' remainder like the National Plan.
I have no hope that we shall defeat the Government, but I hope that the House will register a protest which will show that at least some hon. Members on this side have sufficient independence of mind to know sugar from sand when they see it.
8.2 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have one or two comments to make on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire,
308
South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I found his speech rather like the curate's egg—good in parts and bad in parts. I agree that there is certainly deep and widespread doubt about this new Measure, but I reject completely that the Bill is being introduced because of a preoccupation with getting into the Common Market. Under the present circumstances that was hardly a justified remark to make about the introduction of the Bill.
I am not opposing the Bill in principle, but I want to draw attention to the fact that it can have very serious effects on the building and construction industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, Minister of State, when introducing the Bill in the other place, said very much the same as my hon. Friend has said this evening. The noble Lord said:
"If we consider the whole of the economic field—including effects on productivity and the consumption of fuel and power no less than communications and transport—the general conclusion that emerges is that the advantages and disadvantages of the change will be pretty evenly balanced. We would not dispute, for instance, that it will cause some difficulties to the outdoor industries of agriculture and construction, though less than has often been supposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd November, 1967; Vol. 286, c. 1184.]
Mr. Ennals: Would my hon. Friend accept that when the noble Lord was saying that it was evenly balanced, he was speaking only of the economic considerations and not the social considerations which, as he said, were by no means evenly balanced?
Mr. Heffer: I have quoted the economic part of his speech as a matter of fact. I agree that in that particular passage he was talking about the economic advantages and disadvantages. The point was that the noble Lord was speaking, as my hon. Friend was this evening, on behalf of the Government.
The difficulties, which were brushed aside, have been much too lightly passed over. It is all very well saying that there will be some difficulties in the building and construction industry without analysing what those difficulties are likely to be. I looked at the speech of the noble Lord in the other place and subsequent speeches supporting the Bill and, I must say, speeches opposing it, but very few of them referred to the construction industry.

309
There was no real analysis of what was likely to happen in that sphere.
In the first place, during the winter months the building worker begins his work at eight o'clock—I have worked in the building industry—but, as a matter of fact, he cannot begin at eight o'clock in the morning because it is not possible. It is about quarter past eight before he can actually begin work, because it is then just becoming light. If the Bill is brought into operation it will become quarter past nine before the building operative can begin his work. I know the answer will be that light must be provided, that we must ensure that there is s sufficient artificial light provided on building contracts to make certain that the building operative can begin work at eight o'clock.
We are not talking about factories; we are talking about building operations outside. I agree that artificial light can be provided, particularly on the larger contracts, but even on the larger contracts we have to look at the real situation. It would be very difficult to provide sufficient light so that every part of a building could be lit up to give the worker safety in relation to his operations.
If anyone has ever stumbled around at seven storeys high in the middle of winter on a scaffold, he knows that there is not much pleasure in it and there is certainly a great deal of danger involved.
I have worked in the building industry under artificial light when we have at times been engaged on contracts half way through the night trying to get work done by a certain time. The point is that although one might be able to light up a ladder and parts of a scaffold, there is the danger of falling bricks and tools on a building site which can become much more dangerous at night. During the day an operative can see them coming and take the necessary action to get out of the way fairly sharply. This cannot happen at night or during periods of darkness. Therefore, the safety factor is much more serious in the dark than it can possibly be during the light hours.
Mr. John M. Temple: The hon. Member has been talking about the safety factor. Would not he care to add that the coldest hour is fie hour before drawn and this proposal
310
will add to the frost dangers that the building workers will face?
Mr. Heffer: This is perfectly true.
I want to draw attention to something else concerning artificial light. I accept that we can make certain that a large contractor has sufficient artificial light on his jobs. But what about the small builder? This was a point made by my hon. Friend. He said that industrial costs will not be significantly affected. I am sure that is true in most industries, but it is not true in the building industry, because the provision of artificial lighting and other things concerning safety and so on will put up the cost. The small builder would, therefore, find it very difficult on small contracts to provide sufficient light.
What about house repair work? The chap at the end of the street who puts the tiles back on people's houses after a storm, does a little bit of plumbing for them, and so on, will find it very difficult to provide the sort of lighting that will be required.
The difficulty that is likely to arise in the building industry is that some of the workers will be able to work from 8 o'clock, provided that there is sufficient artificial lighting, while others will not be able to start work then. It will mean building operatives starting work at different times, with all the difficulties about national agreements that this is likely to cause.
There is another factor which we must consider. If a number of building operatives go to work at 9 o'clock, it will mean that they will finish work an hour later than they do now. They will have to go to work at the same time as office workers, which will make the roads even more congested at that hour of the day than they are now, and they will return home under similar conditions.
What about the building operative who will get home an hour later than he does now? Many building workers travel long distances to their place of employment. I remember having to travel for about an hour and a quarter each way, morning and evening, which meant that I spent between two and a half and three hours travelling every day. If a worker finishes work at 6 o'clock, and if he has a long journey, he may get home at about 7.30

311
This is the wrong end of the day for him for leisure purposes. He does not want to spend an extra hour in bed in the morning. He wants to have an extra hour at home in the evening with his family. One must consider, too, the delivery of materials for the building industry. Great efforts are being made to get materials delivered first thing in the morning so that work can begin immediately. If work is not to begin until 9 o'clock, this factor, too, will help to increase congestion on the roads.
Although the majority of opinion is in favour of a change, and I agree that it will be beneficial from a commercial point of view, I think that there are other factors which must be considered. I thought that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, who has just left the Chamber, was an indictment of the executives in industry. If they are concerned about getting orders from Europe, they should get up a little earlier and make their telephone calls a little earlier. They do not have to go to work at 10.30 They can get up at 7 o'clock, the hour at which most workers set off to work.
Mr. Hogg: I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend was saying that at all. He said that they would telephone at 11 o'clock, and get the orders just the same.
Mr. Heffer: It would be better if they made their telephone calls earlier than that, because we might then have a better export record than we have now. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is a serious one.
This is a good Bill in the sense that it will be beneficial economically, but there are real difficulties which have to be faced. I have been in touch with representatives of the N.F.B.T.O. and the employers. Discussions are going on about this matter. I suggest that the Bill should be operated for a trial period. Let us see precisely what happens. Let us see whether the difficulties which will arise in building and agriculture can be overcome. If they can be, all well and good.
Sir Spencer Summers: Has the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that this system was tried during the war,
312
and that despite the experience then it was decided to abandon it?
Mr. Heffer: I do not think that wartime experience is necessarily the same as that which we would have now. Let us have the Bill for a trial period. Let us see whether the genuine difficulties, not the artificial ones which have been put forward today, can be overcome. If they can be, the case for the Bill will have been proved, and we can go on from there. If they cannot be, the Bill can be dropped, and we can revert to the present system.
My hon. Friend said that he thought road accidents would be reduced. It is very easy to quote figures to prove anything. My hon. Friend may be 100 per cent, right, I do not know, but I do know that if building operatives begin work in the dark great difficulties will arise. As the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) said, the hour before sunrise is the worst hour of the day, and there will be an increase in the number of accidents in the building industry. The present level of accidents is scandalous enough. There are far more than there ought to be, and this is one of the real problems in the industry. Road accidents may decrease, although I doubt it, but I am convinced that accidents in the building industry will increase unless there are many more safeguards than there are at the moment.
I ask my hon. Friend to take note of the serious points that I have raised. I have not raised them frivolously. I have raised them because I am an ex-building operative, and in this sense I must declare an interest in the matter. I am concerned about the lives of building operatives, and the conditions under which they work. I am sure that they will be seriously affected once the Bill comes into operation.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Michael Noble: A number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I shall therefore try to keep my speech short and, I hope, to the point.
I listened with great interest and attention to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said about the problems of the building industry. I would like in the first part of my speech to follow what he said by explaining

313
some of the difficulties which will arise in other industries where people have to work out of doors, and of which I have personal experience.
The Minister made it clear, and repeated it both on his own account and, as it were, quoting his noble Friend in another place, that economically the pluses and minuses of this operation were closely balanced. If this is so, I find it difficult to understand why the C.B.I, and ether people are wildly in favour of it, because if they are equally balanced one might have thought that their view was equally balanced, too.
But whether that is so or not, the Minister said that it was not so much a difference between one part of the country and another as between one kind of worker and another. He explained that the people who were most in favour of this change were office workers. God bless them. I do not mind in the least if they find this convenient, because they have the easiest life in the world. I am prepared to admit that they sometimes travel in crowded trains, but, generally, they move from warm homes to warm offices which are provided with electric lighting and all modern conveniences and it does not matter very much to them whether they start at 5 o'clock in the morning or 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Their working conditions are level, modern and easy.
But the people who matter in an affair of this sort are those whose conditions are totally different because working and travelling circumstances of that kind cannot be provided for them. The hon. Member for Walton spoke of building operatives. I shall say something about farm workers and people who work in forests, quarries, fishing and so on. They form a not inconsiderable proportion of our working community, and, what is more, they are a class of person whom it is becoming harder and harder to keep in the countryside because working conditions in offices are so much easier and more attractive.
If this Government stay in power much longer, before many years have passed 90 per cent, of the population will be in the Civil Service, but no one thinks that that would be an altogether desirable end. If Britain is to be a viable economic unit, we must make conditions
314
reasonably attractive for those who have to work outside. Many shipyards nowadays have far more modern conditions than they had at one time, but a great deal of work still has to be done on a ship outside, and I am sure that much the same picture is to be found in shipbuilding as the hon. Gentleman described in the building industry.
Perhaps, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, in a year or two everyone will shift an hour and we shall be back where we started. If so, there is no earthly point in enacting this Bill. But, during the period while that is happening, those who cannot start work at the right time because of the dark hours—workers in forestry, quarrying, agriculture, building and outside work in shipyards—will inevitably finish an hour after everyone else, the office workers, civil servants, and so on have got home. Moreover, as the hon. Gentleman said, many such people have to travel considerable distances to work. As a consequence, they will be an hour late for a good many leisure recreations, television, the cinema or whatever it may be, because such recreations or entertainments are organised to suit the great majority of people. As the Minister said, the great majority are office workers, and they want the change.
In my view, the Government are being stupid and unfair to a very large and important section of the community who already have a harder life than do the office workers who favour the change.
The Minister assured the House that the Government had consultations with as many people as possible, and, towards the end of his speech, he told us that, when the consultations took place in Scotland, a great many more were against the change. He was, naturally, talking of organisations of many kinds. I can tell him that the great bulk of people in Scotland do not even know that it is proposed to make the change, but, when they are told, they do not want it. I have not come across a single person yet who is in favour of it. Perhaps I move in circles rather different from those familiar to the Minister and I talk rather more easily to people in the countryside than he does. But I cannot find anyone who wants the change once he is told

315
what the Government intend to do; and in any case, as I have said, the vast majority have no idea that the Government have it in mind.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the National Farmers' Union of Scotland a decided policy on it?
Mr. Noble: I would think that extremely doubtful, but, if it has, I suspect that it is almost solidly against, particularly in those parts of Scotland rather different from the areas to which the Minister referred, where livestock is the main product, not arable farming. In arable farming, one can have lights on tractors and one can avoid some of the difficulties if one wishes.
To return to my main theme, in Scotland as a whole we have a much more serious problem than in England south of the Wash. I include a good deal of the north of England when I speak of our problem in having less daylight. Furthermore, we have to travel a great deal further for almost everything than in necessary in England because the distances are far greater. Last week, a Minister told us that the various provisions of the Government's new transport policy were entirely satisfactory for the bulk of the country. Today, we have a Minister saying that total darkness in Scotland till ten o'clock, and in some places till 11 o'clock, is entirely satisfactory to the rest of the country. I assure him that it is not entirely satisfactory to those of us who live in Scotland. It will not be entirely satisfactory, whether this change is tried for one year, as the hon. Member for Walton suggested, for six months, for three months, or for any time the Minister likes.
I am certain that this proposal will be unpopular. It will work against the best interests of Scotland. In a matter of this sort, if the English south of the Wash want it, let them have their own time, and let us keep ours.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. Brian Parkyn: I have been most interested in hearing some of the arguments used in the debate, particularly those used by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). With at least two of the hon. and learned Gentleman's
316
arguments I agree. First, we must not believe that everything that is English is, therefore, wrong and we must automatically conform with other countries. I agree with that very strongly. I am a duodecimalist. I agree also that, after a time, we may well wish to move right away from the idea of having time zones and decide to adopt one time throughout the world.
I say that for this reason. Whenever one travels east or west long distances by air, and one has to do a good deal of it, as I have during the past 20 years, one soon becomes accustomed to not changing one's watch. One finds oneself very muddled if one constantly changes one's watch forward or back two or three hours. One does not know where one is or when breakfast time or lunch time was. One tends to leave the watch alone so that one is living according to one's own time, whatever the local time may be. I suspect that, as more people travel in that way, we shall come round more to the idea of having one time throughout the world, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.
I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, when he argues that, in due course, if we have the proposed new standard time, in common with Western Europe, people will adjust themselves in various occupations until, in the end, things go back to where they were. Some industries and occupations will adjust themselves, but this has been true in other countries —countries where one finds that people live lives not conditioned to the sun time in the same way as our lives are conditioned. There are variations, and they provide some of the diversity one finds.
I sympathise with the views so strongly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I appreciate his great experience of the building industry, but it does not seem to me to be a particularly serious draw back if, with this new legislation, the building industry decided to change its hours. It does not seem to alter the argument if the building industry changes its hours or if the schools change their hours to obviate the problem presented by dark mornings——
Mr. Ronald Bell: The suggestion is that schools should change their hours

317
so that the children can go to school in the daylight, but how does the working mother carry out that operation? If she has to go to work an hour earlier in the darkness, she cannot take her child to school an hour later in daylight.
Mr. Parkyn: That is a very fair point, end I do not know the answer to it. There may well be some adjustment all the way through.
The overwhelming reason for making this change is the vast volume of traffic and of people between this country and Western Europe. There is a vast traffic every day, with people going backwards and forwards all the time. The traffic is not only in people but in telephones. Anybody involved in this traffic, either as a person seeing people, or with telephones, will be greatly affected and benefited by this move. Even if everyone else were to adjust themselves back to where we are at present, the Measure would be well worth while just for that kind of people and for those greatly concerned with industry. That is why it is supported by a good deal of those in industry. It will benefit them a great deal.
My one concern with the Bill is the name, and here I associate myself with all the able, learned and eminent people who have raised the same point. I can only assume that the name "British Standard Time" was cooked up in order to conform with B.S.T.—British Summer Time—in order to preserve the same initials.
I cannot understand why my hon. Friend should say that, somehow, the word "British" should come into the tide. It is confusing and it will lead to confusion. The nation of Newton, Hadley, Hadley, Hooke, and John Harrison, the nation which almost invented longitude and time measurement, must be very careful not just to be traditionalist but to ensure that the name we use is not specifically tied to England. As the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) pointed out, this Measure quite clearly places us out of our agreed time zone. The reference should be to European Time, West European Time, or something like that. The word "British" should not be in the title.
318
I want to refer to the Republic of Ireland, because those who have stood on the West Clare coast in the summer time and have watched the sun setting at about midnight must understand how dark it will be in the morning if the Republic of Ireland adopts a similar Measure. I feel, again, that because of the vast amount of traffic between the Republic and this country it would be unwise for the Government to consider going ahead with the Measure—and, I think, unfair in these days of internationalism—without considering the matter with the Government of the Republic. I would hope that the Government of the Republic would also adopt this change, but I should like an assurance that our Government have first sought the views of the Government of the Republic of Ireland on a Measure of this kind.
8.34 p.m.
Sir Spencer Summers: One cannot make a bad Bill better by giving it a better name, nor do I think it a redeeming feature that the Measure is to come into operation on my birthday. We are told that there is very little argument one way or the other on the economic side but that there is overwhelming advantage on the social side. I do not believe either statement. We have heard some very cogent arguments about how the Bill will affect the building industry, and if the facts are as revealed, and I am certain that what has been said is based on sound judgment and experience, the change must have a bad effect on the output of the building industry. It will affect accidents and supervision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) told us about those who work outside. I do not believe that all concerned with farming, be it arable or livestock, will start an hour later and end the day an hour later to overcome the Government's mismanagement. People will not want a different day's schedule, just because they happen to work out of doors, to that of the rest of the community who might live in the next cottage or house, but work in a town.
As a result, there will be anything up to an hour in the morning when those concerned with agriculture cannot do as much as they have been doing. I sought out some information to show what, on average, would be the time of sunrise in

319
London in each of the four winter months, November, December, January and February. It works out as follows: November, 8.20; December, 9 o'clock; January, 8.55; February, 8.15. Those affected—not by the lighting up time, which, except for a very few minutes, is the same in Scotland as in England, and heaven knows why—know that those times will be anything up to 45 minutes or more later in Scotland than they are in London.
Indeed, if the Government had wanted to introduce a Bill which would encourage Scottish Nationalism, they could not have devised one which was more likely to do so and to lead to their insisting that arrangements for Scots should be made by Scots, not leaving such matters to Westminster——
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.
Sir S. Summers: We are told, among other things, that the Road Research Laboratory is confident that as many people would not have been killed in 1964 if this timetable proposed in the Bill had been in force. I think this is absolute nonsense. I say that with some feeling, having spent many hours over the last few months investigating the Road Research Laboratory. When I find, for instance, that by improved traffic arrangements, so many million pounds could be saved for the nation and inquire why, I discover that the calculation is based on the proposition that a man's time is worth 18 shillings an hour. This saving of so many hours by speeding up so many vehicles an hour to something rather faster is translated into several millions of pounds on the assumption that every hour saved is calculated at 18 shillings.
The question is, what are people going to do with the time saved? Many will not be able to put it to any good use. Thus, I have no faith in the assertion that fewer lives will be lost because of some mythical calculation based on an unknown formula of the Road Research Laboratory.
In dealing with this matter on a supposedly scientific basis, I am reminded of an incident from the days of steel control during the war. A departmental manager concerned with a particular pro-
320
duct presented the steel controller with the figures upon which a rise in price should be based. The controller said, "I am very busy: what do they show?" He replied, "They show that they deserve £1 a ton increase in price." The controller said, "I have no time to see the figures. Give them 10 shillings." When it all came out in the wash, it was clear that 10 shillings was too much.
Thus, it is possible to be far too scientific in arriving at solutions which require a great deal more common sense than is sometimes applied to them. Now we are told that this change is going to make it easier for travel agents and others to compile schedules, because they will no longer have to allow for the fact that the time in this country differs from that in Europe. If the Government cannot find better arguments than that in support of the Bill, they should withdraw it. The truth of the matter is that the Government do not understand the countryside and its problems.
Reference has been made to the fact that schoolchildren will be going to school in the dark. I am certain that many mothers will be extremely concerned at the risk to their children. I admit that I have had little or no correspondence on the subject, no doubt because the vast majority of people have no idea of what is planned and what will be the consequences of the Bill. However, when they find out, hon. Members who have not taken part in the debate and who have not pointed out the risks and difficulties inherent in the Bill will be blamed for not giving adequate warning at the appropriate time.
At present we have 21 weeks of natural time and 31 weeks of artificial time.
Mr. Willis: It is all artificial.
Sir S. Summers: If the right hon. Gentleman likes to think of working by the sun artificial, he is welcome to do so. At present we have 21 weeks in accordance with Greenwich Mean Time and 31 weeks of artificial time. It may be that the dividing line between these two arrangements could, with advantage, be changed, so that there were fewer weeks in the winter. I should have thought that four months were ample in which to go by the sun and eight months to go by an artificial hour's difference. This would mean instead of changing the clock in

321
March change it at the end of February, and then there would be only November, December, January and February when Greenwich Mean Time applied.
I am sure that when experience of the Bill comes to be felt next winter there will be far more opposition to the Measure than now exists. When the Minister tells us that the inquiries made in 1960 from various organisations produced relatively little enthusiasm, while six years later there was a great deal more enthusiasm, I strongly suspect that what accounted for that difference was the fact that many people who remembered the experience of this during the war no longer took part in the latter discussions or thought that they were worth-while.
I believe this proposal to be a profound mistake. The right answer would be to reduce the period during which Greenwich Mean Time operates and, if given an opportunity, I shall vote against the Bill.
8 43 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am in rather a dilemma about the Bill because of the different arguments that have been adduced from either side of the House. I hope that we will get a clear statement from a Scottish Minister to show exactly how the Measure is likely to affect Scotland.
I am reminded in this discussion of what happened to a Russian friend of mine, Mr. Samuel Marshak, the translator of the poems of Robert Burns into the Russian language. Hon. Members who know the Russian language will be aware that there is no definite article in Russian. My friend, when a student in London, once found himself in Hyde Park without a watch and wanting to know the time. He stopped a nice gentleman coming towards him and asked, "What is time?" The gentleman replied, "Young man, you have asked me a profound philosophical question", and passed by. I rather suspect that some of us have thought that there is an element of philosophical disquisition in all this.
The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), to whom we always listen with interest on these occasions, said that there had not been a great deal of lobbying or interest in the Bill and he mentioned that the Scottish N.F.U. had, as
322
far as he was aware, taken no interest in the Measure.
Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member should not say that. My right hon. Friend certainly did not say that. What he said was that, without being certain, he thought the National Farmers' Union was strongly against it.
Mr. Hughes: I put the definite question to the right hon. Gentleman. I always listen to him on questions of farming because he is a farmer in Argyllshire, across the Firth of Clyde from the constituency which I represent. I put the definite question, has the National Farmers' Union a policy on this? He said he did not know whether it had or had not. If the National Farmers' Union of Scotland has not an opinion or does not take a definite line on this, I am rather surprised because it has very definite opinions, ideas and policies about everything under the sun.
I cannot remember getting any request from the National Farmers' Union in Scotland to take a particular line on this question, but I represent other sections of workers and I wonder how this change may affect them. How is it likely to affect the miners? I keep very closely in touch with the National Union of Mineworkers of Scotland. They are very assiduous in attending to everything connected with the work of miners. I have not heard an argument about miners similar to the one about the building industry on which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spent so much time. I wish to know from the Minister the policy of the National Union of Mineworkers and of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on this matter.
Mr. George Willis: And of the National Union of Farmers.
Mr. Hughes: And of the N.F.U. If the proposal is to have a great effect on our life, I should like to be informed. So many of the miners may be so accustomed to working in darkness that probably some of them think it will not affect them in any way.
I am an open-minded person. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) asked why this question could not be discussed in Scotland. Why

323
should it not be discussed in Scottish Grand Committee? Then we could have the views of these organisations. I am an agnostic in this matter. I should be convinced by any person who could state authoritatively and definitely the point of view of Scottish organisations on this issue.
8.47 p.m.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: First as to the name; if we are to have a change to Central European time we should call a spade a spade and call it Central European time. We are adding to the nomenclature. It is complicated enough for laymen. I see no point in using a misleading term. It is just as misleading as calling Scotland England, which has even happened in this debate once already.
The present arrangements are better than the proposals. The proposals mean that for five months, from October to March, it will be dark in the morning instead of at night. I do not think we need sound out many people. It is a perfectly simple proposition. Dawn is later in Scotland. It will not break in some parts of Scotland until 10 a.m. I do not want to repeat all the points about children going to school; they have been made already. I agree with those who have made those points.
I want to make some additional points. First, I predict, basing my prediction on common sense and on observation, that it is against nature to get up in the dark. It is hard enough to get up, anyway. There will be a drop in attendance at work. Many people in business have predicted this to me. Time will tell.
Secondly, it is dangerous to tamper with daylight, because it affects people's character and their cheerfulness. Things are reasonably well arranged as they are. The Bill will make no improvement. Change is not necessarily improvement.
On the question of road accidents, on many winter evenings there is ice, which thaws in daylight hours. In many parts of Scotland where it is very cold for much of the winter, there will be many more road accidents. I base that prediction on a common-sense premise. Did the Road Research Laboratory give overall statistics for the United Kingdom, or did it separate its predictions relating to Scotland? Did the police give overall statis-
324
tics? Policemen to whom I have spoken have not favoured this change. Are the medical statistics overall statistics, or have they been separated for Scotland so that we in Scotland can judge the separate points of view?
I have received 52 letters against the Bill from individuals in Scotland. They have been mostly from the north, from the Highland line upwards. Many letter have been from schoolteachers and from parents. No one to whom I have spoken in my constituency or in Glasgow favours this proposition. Teachers, parents and children in Scotland will not benefit from the Bill. Farmers, of whom there are a few in my constituency, tell me that cows just will not understand Central European time. Agriculture is the largest employer of labour in Scotland. It is vitally important, because it can produce Scotland's basic foodstuffs.
We have already had a full explanation of the effect on the building trade. There is a national housing emergency in Scotland. We now have a disaster. Building is vitally important. Nothing should be done to prejudice it at this time. When other gales come in February and March, as they usually do, I fear that many people may lose their lives in crumbling tenements.
I have read that the C.B.I. favours this change because it is in favour of conformity. I see no future in conformity for its own sake. Italy does not conform. She has altered her time to two hours ahead. Finland does not conform, because she has Eastern European time.
I have read that the view of the trade unions is based partly on two points—first, that there would be extra daylight for returning from work in the evening. They take no account of the situation in Scotland, where many people will inevitably return in the dark, anyway. They take no account of shifts. I do not believe that this is a sensible proposition applied to Scotland. The trade unions' second reason concerned sports facilities. In Scotland in winter football matches tend to be held on Saturday afternoons. If they are held mid-week, the grounds are floodlit.
The Bill may fit the needs of some parts of England. That is not so much my concern. I believe that the majority of people in Scotland are against it, or

325
would be against it if they knew about it. We are in a different geographical position. We are further north and west. Our dawn comes later. Greenwich is already too far east for us, and now we are proceeding to go further east than ever. We already have an economic twilight, please do not put us into a physical one for five months of the year as well.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. William Small: I have reflected upon some of the contributions to the Bill and I have made my own estimates of the requirements of modern times. I do not think that something should be sanctified simply because it has been in existence for a long time. Naturally this Measure will require a great deal of adjustment. As an industrial worker for many years I know that men have got up in the dark and have worked in the steel works all their lives. This has happened for the last 500 years.
The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) instanced shipbuilders. We now have the introduction of the three-shift system within the shipbuilding industry, and this has shown that people are able to adjust to changes in their working lives. I can see the point about the concern over children and the inconvenience that may be caused through there being longer hours of darkness in school assembly or in the evening. I have seen this myself recently in the area where I lived and felt concerned about the extension.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill deals with:
"… the construction of any document referring to a point of time in connection with any of those purposes".
It is intriguing to look at certain legal points in such documents. Let me give an illustration of what can happen. There is a house for sale, at £600 to start with, in order to attract a large audience. One makes one's bid at one minute past 11— which time is this? Is it British Mean Time or British Standard Time? I notice hon. Members opposite frowning. I know of at least three sales that have taken place when, because one bidder was in time, the auctioneer had to accept the bid although he was expecting three times the price offered in that first bid. I am simply illustrating some of the intriguing
326
facets. The documents speaks of international usage. I should be interested to have an interpretation of such matters. How will this affect me when I go on my annual trip to Sothebys and bid for a Goya? I support the Bill generally, accepting that there have to be adjustments in the community.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: One thing that we have missed in this debate was an announcement by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) during her speech as to what will be her party's policy on this Bill. I am sorry that she has left the Chamber now. We will possibly not know for some time what the policy will be. At the same time I was extremely interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) and his comments on Goyas and what Goya could do with light. It seems that the Government in bringing this Measure forward have been literally casting around in the dark, looking for light. The Government seem to think that merely altering the time of the clock will in some way conjure up an extra hour. If there is any doubt, let me tell them that that is simply not so.
They have told us that many people when questioned said that they were in favour of the introduction of this legislation, but what the Government have not told us is what prompted them to bring it forward in the first place. To give him his due, the Under-Secretary made out a case, but he made it out on all the wrong grounds. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, the next stage will be a shift in working hours so that next year the Government will be introducing a Bill to make Double Summer Time the order of the day. I do not know where this will end.
Summer time, as George Gershwin said, is the time when livin' is easy. The mere fact that we are to get this change of time will not making the livin' any easier for the farmer or farm worker, and it is already a fact that the majority of farmers, certainly in the North of Scotland, start their work in darkness for four if not five months of the year. Such is the climate and such is the farming economy up there that in the course of time they have become adapted to starting work in the dark.

327
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said, the animals which they look after already form a large part of the economy and it will be well nigh impossible for farmers to operate in an economic and proper manner of animal husbandry if the Bill goes forward. It is impossible to alter the farming economy any further. The Under-Secretary spoke of mechanisation and modernisation making the change easier for farming, but I do not agree, if for no other reason than that the Bill will put up agricultural costs, and they are already very high.
He mentioned Glasgow and all his emphasis was on the result of the Bill on the central belt of Scotland. Much of Scotland's population lives a great deal further north. The hon. Gentleman spoke of children going to school in the dark, but in my constituency they already do, for they have to leave for school at 7.30. The Bill will make things even worse. Even now in February and March the children go to school in twilight and when the Bill goes through, for at least six months of the year they will have to go to school in complete darkness. The hon. Gentleman said that the teachers were consulted. All the teachers with whom I have discussed the subject have been absolutely opposed to the Bill. I agree that the ideal answer would be time zones for North and South, but in a small island like this we obviously cannot go in for things of that sort.
The hon. Gentleman said that the islands of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man would be given power to make their own enactments if they so desired. I was under the impression that this House of Commons had no power whatever to legislate for Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man. It is a grave effrontery to them to be told that they can make enactments if they like but must otherwise abide by the enactments of this House. I am sure that that is wrong, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that when he replies.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. George Willis: I have listened to the debate to try to make up my mind on the merits or demerits of the Bill. Having heard a great deal of the criticism of it, I have not
328
been persuaded. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) has just spoken of the difficulties it will create in farming. I cannot follow that argument. You do exactly the same things at exactly the same period of the day. All that is different is the time on your watch. This already happens in agriculture during summer time, and where I come from in Norfolk it was common for people not to change their clocks.
Mr. John Farr: May I put it in the simplest possible way to assist the right hon. Gentleman? The point is that in the early winter mornings you go out to look for a herd of cattle or a flock of sheep and you cannot see them in the dark. Your men go wandering all around the fields, or the hills in Scotland, with flashlights, and still cannot find them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will use the traditional form of address.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is not telling me anything about agriculture or about Scotland. He is apparently very ignorant of Scotland. As his hon. Friend said, such work is already done in the dark in the north of Scotland, where darkness extends in the middle of winter from about ten in the morning to three in the afternoon—[Laughter.]—or rather, the other way around, from three in the afternoon until ten in the morning. The hon. Member for Banff knows that quite well. Even in Edinburgh darkness extends from 4 p.m. until 9 a.m. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman says does not really apply. Farmers are already faced with these difficulties. Where the farmer's difficulties arise is not so much in connection with running his farm but in trying, when he must, to fit his life in with that of people in the community who are acting at different hours.
Having spent a considerable time in Norfolk, I appreciate the difficulties. I well remember when Summer Time was first introduced, the problems when one went to the market town. Probably one had not bothered to change one's clock and one found that the time was different in the town. But Summer Time makes no difference to the operation of farming nor does it make a great deal of

329
difference to many of industry's operations. In Scotland, men already start work in the dark, leaving home at seven and half-past seven in the morning. In Edinburgh it is dark until 8.30 or 9 a.m. in the winter, so that the change does not make a great deal of difference there either. People will have an hour longer of darkness at that end of the day, but as we pass from winter to summer they have the benefit of the lighter hours earlier in the year. That is the point which nobody has made. As we pass from one to the other, so we get the benefit of the longer period of light earlier. The school children will be coming home in daylight much earlier I than they would have been coming home if the Bill had not been introduced.
There has been a considerable amount of opposition for opposition's sake. I can understand this, because we are interfering with long-established personal habits. We get used to getting up at a certain time, whether it is light or not light. We do not like changing our habits. We do not like to be told that we shall have a longer period of darkness in the morning and perhaps a little longer period of light at night. This is an established tradition and we do not like departing from it.
What I should like to know is the opinion of all the representative bodies in Scotland.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Against.
Mr. Willis: I have not had a single letter in my constituency about the Bill. I have not received one representation from any organisation about the Bill. I do not think that many people in Scotland know that we are discussing it tonight. But I should like to know from the Government more definitely—I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said something about this—the opinions of the representative organisations in Scotland. Are they in favour of it? Are they clamouring for it? [Interruption.] I do not think that I shall win or lose a single vote at the next election because of the Bill. Are those organisations which are not opposed to the Bill clamouring for it? Is anybody demanding it?
Mr. Clark Hutchison: No.
Mr. Willis: I am asking the Government, not the hon. Gentleman. I have great respect for him, but when I ask about the representations which have been made I address my question to the Government and not to him. I have heard no demand for any alteration. Neither have I heard a very strong case against the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I remain an agnostic in this matter. I am still waiting to be persuaded one way or the other. None of the arguments adduced seems to be very convincing. I should like to hear something much more convincing to enable me to make up my mind about the Bill.
9.13 p.m.
Sir Ronald Russell: I shall be brief as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
There is one rather surprising thing about the Bill. Until the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke, nobody, apart from the Under-Secretary of State, was in favour of the Bill. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of it.
Mr. Willis: I said that my mind was still to be made up. But the hon. Gentleman should not forget my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small): he was in favour of it.
Sir R. Russell: The opinion of the House does not seem to reflect the opinion which the Under-Secretary of State said was held in the country.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State some questions about the list of organisations which he said were consulted by the Home Office before the Bill was produced. I have the list before me—at least, the list given to me by the former Home Secretary in answer to a Question on 30th June. There are about 75 of them. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked about Scottish organisations. I should like to ask about the building trade organisations as building was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). There are four of them in the list. They are the Federation of Associations of Civil Engineering Contractors, the National Federation of

331
Building Trade Employers, the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, and the Winter Building Advisory Committee. I wonder what that Committee thought of it, in particular, but I should like to know what all those organisations thought.
In his answer, the Home Secretary said:
"The results showed a clear preponderance in favour of the change."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 145.]
Could we be told what "a clear preponderance" means? There are 75 organisations listed, and presumably the Government know those who were for, those who were against and, possibly, those who would not express any opinion or who were divided.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked what was the real motive behind the Bill and who wanted it. I echo that question. I cannot help feeling that there is a sort of Common Market motive behind it, that we want to align ourselves with Europe because we hope to go in, although the hope is slender at the moment.
Mention has been made of telephone traffic, but the proportion of telephone traffic with Europe of all such traffic in the country is exactly 0·11 per cent. I obtained that figure from an answer given by the Postmaster-General on 30th June, when he said that 87 per cent, of the telephone calls made in the country were local, 12·59 per cent, were inland trunk calls, 0·11 per cent, were Continental, and 0·01 per cent, were calls overseas outside Europe. If we are legislating for European telephone calls, they represent a very small proportion of the total number of calls made.
Less than 30 per cent, of our overseas trade is with Europe, and I doubt whether all of that is done by telephone. After all, we have been trading with Europe for years, long before there were such things as continental telephone calls at the price now possible as a result of subscriber trunk dialling. In any event, a business man who has to make a call to France before 9 o'clock in the morning, if he has not left home by that time, can always make the call from his home. Most executives likely to make such telephone calls will have telephones
332
in their homes. I am sure there is a way of getting round the problem without submitting the whole country to inconvenience. I am unconvinced by the arguments in favour of the Bill, and I hope that the House will reject it.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartle-pools): The Bill is tremendously important. It will affect the lives of many millions of people. It will affect the habits of a great range of workers and the conduct of our business in the ports, the airline systems, our internal transport systems, and so on. It is possible that it will raise a fairly interesting and, at this stage, perhaps vexing question about the effects upon the generating industry.
The people must accept that it means a very serious change for many of them in their habits and working lives. Nevertheless, we have gained sufficient experience over the years, including the war years and those immediately following, to know the remarkable degree of adaptability of people and that certain benefits flowed from the establishment of Summer Time.
Having said that, it is not important for our people whether the proposed time is known as British Standard Time or Western European Time. The name is irrelevant. Once the proposal becomes an Act of Parliament, what I have said will apply, and it is then that people will do the thinking.
During the course of this debate hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked questions about who has been consulted, to what kind of conclusions they have come, and what is the base upon which the Government have decided to bring the Bill before the House.
In the winter of 1966 some 80 organisations—22 of them in Scotland—were asked to consider this matter. I understand that it has been assesed—and on such a matter I am open to correction—that the range of opinion on this subject then weighed more favourably towards the proposition of this standard time than had persisted in 1960. It was rather interesting to observe that the National Union of Agricultural Workers approved the proposition and that the opposition of the National Farmers' Union was noticeably less than it had been hitherto. It was also interest-

333
ing to note that the Scottish Trades Union Congress was in favour of the proposition and that the Trades Union Congress here was also strongly in favour of it, as was the Confederation of British Industries.
In another place it was stated:
"And even in Scotland, where, as is understandable, opinion was a great deal more divided than South of the Border, we were surprised at the considerable degree of support to be found."
Here, I think, comes an important rider:
"The local and education authorities in Scotland were generally opposed, though not all of them were; and, as I have just mentioned, the Scottish Trades Union Congress were as much in favour as their English colleagues."—OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd November, 1967; Vol. 286, c. 1186.]
The question now before the House must be: to what extent can we place weight upon this evidence? I suggest that we should take great care about the weight we presume to place upon this kind of evidence. I recall being present at a meeting when I presume the members were discussing questions in connection with this survey, which was the basic cause, as I understand, of the Government favourably bringing forward this Bill. When I observed the members discussing it, to my great surprise I found two matters which worried me. First, they seemed to have very little concern about the consequences of what they were saying; and, secondly, they did not seem to be understanding what they were talking about.
It is only after a Bill like this gets its Second Reading that the country as a whole becomes more sharply concerned with the implications of it. Therefore, I suggest that the Government must not place too much weight upon this survey. They must take into account the concern of the House, because it is at this point that the first impulse of proper, careful scrutiny is being seen to work which is the preliminary of a more national expression of opinion. If that be the case, one of the things I would have liked in the Bill would have been some indication of a temporary measure. There is a proviso here, that a temporary measure will create complications for other people. Diarists and publicists involved with matters relating to calendar and time might find some difficulty on a one-year time base as a temporary experiment. There could be a suggestion of a three-year base, but, whatever base
334
might have been useful as an experiment to enable us to make a proper assessment of the habits of people following the propositions in this Bill, I think that it might have been wiser to have done that.
Having said that, I must tell the House that it is my intention to support the Second Reading of the Bill.—[Interruption.]—I cannot see the point of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) laughing. He has, quite rightly, courteously listened to an evaluation of the position, and not said very much for or against the Bill. I have tried to analyse its consequences. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution was received as courteously as mine has been so far, but he has let himself down by sniggering like a fool.
Mr. Noble: I am sorry if my laughter offended the hon. Gentleman in any way, but having said that the evidence on which the Government were basing their proposition was fallacious, it seemed a little odd that the hon. Gentleman should support the Bill.
Mr. Leadbitter: The right hon. Gentleman is not offending me. He is offending against the conduct and habits of the House. I support the Bill because experience over the years has shown that Summer Time has its advantages. Because of the contributions which have been made from both sides of the House, I am certain that the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages.
9.27 p.m.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: I thought that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), who in the earlier part of his speech presented a highly intelligible set of arguments, was a little harsh, and even pompous, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) when he showed surprise, and even a little anger, at the mockery which greeted his conclusion. I do not think that it offends against the practice or dignity of the House if one is slightly amused when a speech which appears to be tending in one direction by an almost irresistible process of logic suddenly ends in the opposite conclusion. It is, I think, natural that we should find that funny.
Mr. Leadbitter: I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman can

335
claim that I spoke against the Bill. On the contrary, I claimed that between 1960 and 1966 opinion had altered in its favour.
Mr. Hogg: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's argument tended irresistibly to the conclusion that it was a bad Bill, until at the end he declared his intention to support it. We all know why. I shall not detain the House for very long. I dissociate myself wholly from the real reasoning underlying the hon. Gentleman's speech. This sort of thing, in a civilised assembly, ought not to be a matter for the party Whips at all.
If we really conducted our affairs in a rational way, the House would make up its mind, and the Government would feel no hurt or shame if the House decided against their judgment. The Government of the country would become neither easier nor more difficult if they were beaten. The real reason underlying the hon. Gentleman's speech is that, consciously or unconsciously, he knows that this is a bad Bill, or thinks that it is a bad one, but realises that the Government Whips are on, and that he will have to vote for it or be excluded from party meetings. I assure my hon. Friends that no one will be excluded from the 1922 Committee, whichever way he votes, and the views which I shall express about the Bill should have no weight with them other than the force of logic, if any, which they possess.
The first point to appreciate is that it is purely arbitrary or conventional, whichever one calls it, what figure one puts against the hour when the sun reaches its highest point. One can, as men have done over centuries, call it noon, or one can call it one o'clock. It makes no difference to anyone, provided that all use the same terminology. What does make a difference, however, as the debate has plainly shown, to the convenience of individuals, classes of people and localities is the time at which one gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night in relation to what the sun is doing. The sun is the fact of life. The terminology of the clock is pure convention.
I believe—this is the one point on which I differ somewhat from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. South (Mr. Ronald
336
Bell)—that the institution of Summer Time has proved a success in saving daylight. Saving daylight, we call it, not extending daylight. But this is so because, for 51 years, we have practised an innocent deception on one another. We call the point at which the sun reaches its highest point in the day one o'clock at one part of the year and 12 noon at another part of the year. The reason it saves daylight is that, so long as we call it something different in the different months, people do not change their actual habits.
The logical fallacy underlying the Government's thinking and that of organisations they have consulted which have supported their proposal is their failure to realise that, if we do the same thing throughout the year, the effect on people's habits created by the innocent deception must in the long run disappear. It will no longer be a deception. It will simply be an alteration of the convention under which we were working.
No one knows precisely what governs people's habits, the habits of the farmer, the office worker, the Member of Parliament, the member of a profession, the building trade operative. The total effect of the habits of the population has not yet been fully evaluated. But what we do know is that, by and large, they are the product of infinitely complex natural forces, forces which, as I say, have never been evaluated by any effective method of computation.
Two results can be predicted, however, if we alter the convention throughout the year. The first is that, during a certain period, the balance of the natural forces as they have operated in the past will be to some extent dislocated, and, after a period, the natural forces will resume their natural sway. It was for this reason that I felt that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was not being his usual self in failing to appreciate the argument which fell from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South. If we do the same thing throughout the year and allow the natural forces to operate, which is what is proposed ultimately, they will in the end resume their force and people will go on operating by the old clock because, throughout the year, they will be operating by a new convention, and the innocent deception, as I have called it, will no longer produce its effect.

337
On the other hand, in the immediate future there will be a good deal of dislocation of the type that was illustrated in one vein by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who talked about the building trade, and in another vein by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll who spoke of outdoor workers, and particularly those in agriculture; and by numerous hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and one hon. Lady, who spoke of the different parts of the country in degrees of latitude. Those people will be dislocated to some extent. Although not one of those groups of people probably represent a majority, they are—and this point has been made, and should be remembered—particularly vulnerable. This is what is not fully appreciated by the Government.
The people who have to get up in the dark and work in the open are more vulnerable than the office workers to inconvenience, and even to personal danger. The school child going to school in the dark is more vulnerable than the adult. Most of us are insulated from the sun. Here we are in this House, and we do not know whether it is dark or light except by looking at the clock. But those of whom we are talking are not insulated from the sun, and cannot be insulated from the sun, and one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is whether for a period—which must be limited, because the effect will wear off— we are justified in exposing the vulnerable classes to inconvenience and, perhaps, to danger in the interests of those who, whatever is done, are relatively invulnerable to the effects of the weather. On the face of it, it follows that a case has not been made out for doing this, partly because of their vulnerability, and partly because, inevitably, once we have abandoned what I have ventured to call the "innocent deception", the effects will wear off.
What is quite certain is that at one time or another the supporters of the Bill have used arguments that will not stand the light of scrutiny. For instance, the argument of conformity with Europe has been blown sky-high by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South. It may be true that there are—what was it?—more hours of business contact time, which means that if one likes one can make a
338
telephone call at 8 o'clock instead of at 11 o'clock and so get one's export order three hours earlier, but has it ever been thought that on the Continent of America the people in Chicago or San Francisco really suffer much business inconvenience or loss by having to telephone to New York at a time which, on the hands of the clock, is markedly different? Are the movements of aircraft in America—the busiest country in the world from the point of view of internal airlines—markedly obstructed by the fact that they operate according to the zone time which, after all, corresponds with the facts of life?
I should have thought that the answer was obvious. Yet we are now being invited to operate at a time calculated somewhere East of Berlin, and asked to pass an enactment for a move which, so far as I can judge, will make the same clock time applicable, in effect, from Berlin to somewhere in the west of Ireland—a distance of nearly 3,000 miles and I do not know how many degrees of longitude, bearing in mind that 15 degrees of longitude represent about one hour of sun time. Of course, although the Under-Secretary made a very competent and good-tempered speech, he did not talk much about the facts of life, which are that the earth rotates on its own axis in such a way that the sun rises at one point of position on the globe at a different moment from that at which it rises at another. This is the first fact that he has not hoisted in.
The second is that, during the summer, there is actually more daylight than during the winter. He has assumed that there is something beneficial in using the same time all the year through, when the whole object of having Summer Time is to recognise the fact of life that, in summer, the day is longer. The third fact which he has not hoisted in is that, in my hon. Friend's constituency in Cumberland, the sun rises at a different hour from that at which it rises in my constituency of St. Marylebone, and that what may be tolerable with London Transport, when one can travel to work underground, is rather more difficult if one has to catch a train or bus, travel for half an hour to one's work and then stumble across the fields in the dark. It is not the same thing. It is much nicer in St. Marylebone than in

339
Penrith. I know both towns. When one gets to Caithness and Sutherland, the facts are different again.
Individual hon. Members have spoken about particular interests and I have given a reason for thinking, as I do, that those particular interests, whatever their numerical strength—which no one has tried to measure—are worth a little more consideration than their numbers would suggest, because they are more vulnerable. But they have also introduced a piece of legislation in which there is a logical fallacy, which is that it is wrong to suppose that what works if one has two different clocks, one for the summer and the other for the winter, will work equally well if one makes one clock, whatever it be, operate for the whole year.
Therefore, whatever the Government Whips may do, we do not intend to punish our Members for voting according to their consciences, but, if my hon. Friends divide the House on the Bill, I at least shall vote against it.
9.43 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I should make it clear immediately that I am not trying to wind up the debate, since I understand that one or two hon. Members still wish to speak, but I should like to say something from the Scottish point of view, since a number of speeches have raised points about Scotland.
It has been generally recognised that the problems which will arise if the Bill is eventually passed are related to the fact that the balance of advantage and disadvantage in Scotland is rather different to that in the more southern regions. I shall leave my hon. Friend to deal with some of the wider issues which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) raised in his interesting speech. Some of his points certainly had considerable validity.
I will begin with industry and agriculture in Scotland. I have been asked by a number of hon. Members what the attitude of the Scottish National Farmers' Union is. I am surprised that I should have been asked, and particularly that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) should not know what that attitude is. I should have thought that if
340
the N.F.U. had the sort of strong feelings about the Bill that have been voiced today, they would have taken good care, as they have done on numerous occasions, to ensure that at least the right hon. Gentleman—not to mention every other Scottish hon. Member—knew the views of the Scottish N.F.U.
The fact that the N.F.U. have not done so demonstrates that perhaps the strength of feeling about the matter which has been voiced is not quite as great as a number of hon. Members have suggested. Having said that, I must in honesty now tell the House that the Scottish N.F.U. is against the proposal. However, I gather that it is representing in that not so much a distinctive Scottish view but a general view which is held by the farming community as a whole, since I understand that the N.F.U. of England and Wales is also, but perhaps with not the same strength of feeling, against the change.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that if one is counting heads and measuring the strength of opinion in different quarters, one can say that, generally speaking, commerce and industry are in favour of the change. This certainly applies in Scotland as well as elsewhere.
For example, the S.T.U.C. on the workers' side has expressed its support. So has the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the Scottish division of the C.B.I. Thus, the balance is certainly in favour of the change. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I take die point made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone that, in weighing up what may seem superficially to be majority and minority interests, one must to some extent give weighting to the more vulnerable sections of the community. This is a balance which must be given and it particularly applies to, for example, the building and agriculture industries. But even in Scotland I believe that the balance of opinion is in favour of the Bill.
When considering the view of local authorities, it is noteworthy that the District Councils Association is in favour of the change, but without very great enthusiasm. The county councils are, on balance, against it, but an interesting fact is that among the county

341
councils in Scotland in favour of it are Aberdeen, Banff, Moray and Orkney. This is interesting in view of what the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) said. In other words, despite his remarks, his own county council is in favour of the change. Perhaps it did not let him know, either.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the attitude of the Ayrshire County Council?
Mr. Millan: I do not know, but I take it that that intervention means that it is against it. Among the cities in favour of the change is Aberdeen. These are interesting facts because they demonstrate——
Mr. Clark Hutchison: What about Edinburgh?
Mr. Millan: Edinburgh is against the change, but I cannot go through every local authority in Scotland. The division in Scotland is not between the North and the South because a number of northern counties are in favour of the change.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: What was the attitude of the Convention of Burghs?
Mr. Millan: I understand that the Convention of Burghs had mixed feelings about the matter.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Oh?
Mr. Millan: On the whole, it did not think that it would be a suitable change for Scotland.
I do not want to labour this point further. The balance of local authority view in Scotland is against the change. I say that frankly. On the other hand, among those in favour are some who, one would expect, would be rather against it so it is not a simple North-South division.
I must also tell the House that the balance of opinion among educational interests is against the change. From the educational point of view—and I have some responsibility in this sphere—it is true that the change will mean that, for a longer period in the year, many children will have to go to school in the morning in the dark. However, it will equally mean that, for a longer period in the year, they will be able to come home in the afternoon in the light. The balance here is a rather fine one. Speaking as a
342
parent, I am not sure that I am convinced that it is better to go to school in the light than to come home from school in the light. If there are disadvantages there are also compensating advantages in the afternoon.
Mr. Noble: When talking about these things, has the hon. Gentleman borne in mind, as I am certain teachers have, that over a great range of Scotland children have to go in school buses to get home? As long journeys are involved, they will be leaving and getting home in the dark for a great period of the winter.
Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Unless the school hours are changed what one loses in the morning one must gain in the afternoon. This is regardless of whether one travels by bus, on foot, by bicycle, or what-have-you. As the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone pointed out, this does not affect the hours of daylight one little bit.
To please my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, I may now say that Ayrshire County Council is in favour of the change.
Again, from the educational point of view, it is perfectly possible—I am not sure how this applies in England and Wales, but it is certainly true in Scotland —for education authorities to vary school hours as they wish. This is not something which is laid down centrally and there is a great deal of variation at the moment. It is perfectly possible for education authorities which feel they would be at a considerable disadvantage if the change were made to make a change in the school hours to compensate, or partly to compensate, for the change in the time.
Road safety is the only other specific point which has been put to me. The chief constables are in favour of the change. They believe that the improvement in the situation in the afternoon from the hours of daylight point of view, will be greater than any disadvantage in the morning so far as we can estimate what the numbers of accidents are likely to be. This is the kind of estimate that cannot be made with complete authority. All we can do is to make certain statistical calculations and take into account in making any forecast how

343
people's habits may change if this legislation goes through. Any calculation of this sort must necessarily be tentative. In all this one has to take some account of the attitude of those concerned with road safety. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned earlier the attitude of road safety organisations and I have given the attitude of the chief constables in Scotland.
I make the final point that although there are obviously special difficulties in Scotland it would be far too simple a view to take that there is some policy which would be right for England and Wales and some other which must be right for Scotland. In fact, the divisions of opinion are less between North and South of the Border than they are between different interests which consider that their businesses, their commerce and their working day will be affected by a measure of this sort. I hope that I have made it clear that while there is a Scottish aspect, there is by no means an overwhelming case on one side or the other for including or excluding Scotland. Despite the rather jocular reference by the right hon. Member for Argyll, this is a change which has to be applied to the United Kingdom as a whole.
9.54 p.m.
Earl of Dalkeith: I shall deal with some of the points made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a little later in my speech. I oppose the Bill. Every blessed thing that this Government have touched has come to grief. I plead with the Government to at least keep their hands off the clock. This is a regrettable Measure. I am staggered, as most of the population will be staggered, that the Government, at a time when the country is at its last gasp, have introduced a Measure like this which will do nothing to help to modernise Britain or to get her out of her difficulties.
The question of the name of the Bill is not one which I want to debate particularly, because I should like to see the Bill torn up. However, knowing that the Bill will be pushed through the House by the Whips, we have no alternative but to accept that it will go through, in which case a sensible name should be chosen. We could hardly do better than to call
344
the new time which we are to have "Labour Time" as a permanent memorial to the follies of this Government.
Very little consideration can have been given to the consequences of the Bill on those who live further north. The Under-Secretary referred to one or two points, but others deserve consideration. One is the question of fuel consumption. Everybody knows that the coldest hours of the 24-hour period are the two hours before dawn. This is the time when people will be rising and using fuel to keep themselves warm. Their rising an hour earlier than before will mean a greater demand for fuel. This will affect Scotland in particular, where prices of fuel are already higher than they are in other parts of the British Isles.
The second point is the psychological effect of having a longer period of darkness in the mornings and the depression which this can easily cause. There is a well-known psychological effect known as darkness sickness. I have received a letter from a constituent referring to a research student in Lapland who made a broadcast in which he spoke of darkness sickness and of the inability to work in northern latitudes. She said that this may apply to the Orkneys and the Shetlands. It is a difficult psychological situation. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not refer to this, because he is responsible for medicine in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for hon. Members to carry on loud conversation in the House when an hon. Member is speaking.
Earl of Dalkeith: I come to the question of schools. I ask the Minister to consider the health possibilities. If children have to rise an hour earlier to go to school at the coldest hour of the day, the health of some children may suffer. The Government are determined to force the Bill through, but have any discussions been held with education authorities to discover whether they are prepared to revise school hours? This may become necessary. What are the reactions of schoolteachers in Scotland to this?
I was very surprised to hear the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department say that the Road Research Laboratory is apparently in favour of this change. With two lots of rush hours

345
taking place in hours of darkness or in twilight hours, instead of only one, the accident rate will be increased. Further, in the winter conditions of fog, snow and ice prevail. The hours just before dawn are the most dangerous. When are the road workers to have an opportunity to clear the roads of ice if everybody is on the roads an hour earlier than they were before?
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has not, apparently, attached much importance to the views of the N.F.U. I am a member of the Scottish N.F.U. and I was never consulted about this. I would certainly support its views——
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the British Standard Time Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ennals.]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Earl of Dalkeith: Life and organisation on farms can become fairly complicated in view of the great many outdoor operations which can be carried out only in daylight—after 9.30 or 10 a.m. in many parts of Scotland. Part of the farm staff may have to get up at the usual time to complete the milking and dispatch of milk to the towns. Some members of the staff will be hanging around doing nothing, waiting until daylight, while others have to get up to conform with the time the Minister and the Government tell us suits the bulk of people in the urban districts. The same things apply to forestry. Those who work in it will be going to work at 9.30 or 10 a.m., and that will throw them out of gear with those who have other ways of life, such as shopkeepers.
The Minister talked of consultations, and gave a magnificent looking list of bodies he consulted. I agree that it is impressive and looks very democratic, but he did not tell us in great detail the result of the consultations. I am worried that in their three years' in office the Government have become so hardened to having heated passionate criticism of all their suggestions whenever they consult anybody that when a suggestion is merely
346
greeted with indifference they tend to assume that that is tacit acceptance.
If more publicity were given to the subject I feel that there would be a great wave of opposition, particularly in Scotland, where I believe there has been very little publicity so far. I hope that the debate will bring home to people what will happen to them.
The Minister admits that there are advantages and disadvantages and that there is a very fine balance in deciding whether the change should be made. No doubt if he represented a constituency in the North he would not have been biased on the question of proceeding with the legislation, as he may be now, representing as he does a constituency which is practically falling off the bottom of England. Although there may be advantages to some people in some parts of the country, they are heavily outweighed by the disadvantages to people in Scotland and the north of England, and I shall therefore oppose the Bill as hard as I can.
10.4 p.m.
Sir John Gilmour: It is a pity that the Second Reading of the Bill is before 18th February, the date of the experiment with the early introduction of Summer Time, because all of us would have been much better informed by our constituents if we were debating the subject a week after that.
Many of my hon. Friends have raised points which I was keen to make. One that I would particularly put to the Under-Secretary of State is that this winter London and the South have suffered two fairly severe storms, and I believe that many thousands of working hours were lost at great cost. I wonder what effect those conditions would have had if sunrise had been an hour later.
If we seek to improve our industrial production, we do not want to ask people to start work three hours before sunrise in mid-winter. Many people assure me that the average time for travelling to work is an hour, so that people would have to leave their homes four hours before the sun rises. This is what we shall be asking them to do in the winter.
Are the Government absolutely confident that this is the best way in which to ensure that factories start exactly on

347
time and that everyone is buzzing and getting on with the job at the time he should be there? I do not believe that that will be the result. I believe that the results will be entirely contrary to what should happen and that on the economic balance, which the Under-Secretary described as being so narrow, the Bill should be rejected, and I hope that it will be.
10.5 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: So much has been said which I would have said that I shall restrict my remarks to what I believe to be new points. The only argument in favour of the Bill is very narrow, and it has not been made by the Government for obvious reasons, and it is that if they go on for their full five years at least we shall have one hour less of them.
I wish to speak particularly about the building industry. If the Bill goes through, it will not be possible in the winter to start building projects unless they are centrally heated. What will probably happen is that customs will alter and builders will start work at 9 o'clock instead of 8 o'clock. The result will be an increase in peak-hour traffic, and if there is anything which the country wants to avoid it is an increase in peak-hour traffic.
It has been said that there has not been much protest about the Bill. Even while the debate has been going on, I have had a telephone call from constituents who have said that they did not realise that they had an option. As usual, the Government have announced this Measure as a fait accompli and people have not realised that by writing to their Members of Parliament and objecting to the Bill they had a sporting chance of getting it altered. This is typical of the dictatorial methods which the Government affect. No positive argument has been made for the Bill which we should reject out of hand.
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I agree with what has been said about the complete lack of positive argument in support of the Bill, not only by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, but by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Throughout the debate the
348
onus of proving that the Bill is wrong has been put on those who will suffer from its provisions. In so many different ways those sections of the community, the outside workers, the schoolchildren and others, are those who will have to adjust themselves and adjust their social habits and ways of work and hours of getting up, and all for no positive reason. It is utterly wrong that these sections of the community, particularly those in the remoter areas, should be put out for no very good reason.
Those who want the Bill to go through have a remedy in their own hands. All they have to do is to get up one hour earlier in the morning. But they are using the Bill as an excuse for not getting up an hour earlier. If they were prepared to do so, there would be no need for the Bill. They are using it as an excuse for fiddling with the hands of the clock.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman now in favour of morning sittings of the House of Commons?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thoroughly enjoyed attending them.
There are two practical considerations. There has been a reference to the possibility of varying school hours. Already, in parts of Scotland, especially in country areas, in winter time schools start at halfpast nine. Is it seriously suggested that education authorities in those areas should put back the starting time of school to 10.30? This is the kind of thing which he is suggesting.
Secondly, in relation to the power industry, we have spoken about how peak hour usage will be transferred from the evening to the morning. Can the Under-Secretary of State give an assurance that there is sufficient generating capacity for this in Scotland and that the electricity boards will be prepared to adjust the times of their off-peak tariffs and take account of the extra requirements in the morning when it will be very much colder?
I support the view that if the Government succeed in winning the vote tonight —and I sincerely hope that they do not— I trust that they will consider operating the Bill for an experimental period of two or three years, and preferably only one year, to see how it works.
10.11 p.m.
Mr. George Younger: As the debate has proceeded, I have become more and more astonished that the Government have introduced the Bill. I expected to hear telling arguments from the Government spokesmen giving reasons why the Bill has been introduced. Both Ministers have spoken very charmingly, but neither has produced anything in the shape of a convincing reason for the Bill.
I should have thought that the rather piecemeal revelations of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland as to who was in favour and who was against the Bill made a less than convincing case. He produced six organisations in favour of the change and four organisations against it. Although these organisations are important to the life of Scotland and to many people, in no way could it be said that they make up a broad spread in terms of the number of people they represent. Therefore, it is not possible to say from the figures on which the Government have been working that the majority of people in Scotland are in favour of or against the Bill.
I am utterly convinced that a clear majority of the ordinary people of Scotland if they have heard about this matter, are gravely disturbed because they see in it a needless interference with the habits which they have formed over a long time. I do not pretend that everyone will be in a state of alarm, horror and despondency, but this is a needless interference in the pattern of life which people have established. The system of changing time registered on the clock to represent the winter months difference from the summer months was introduced to make the daylight hours at their most convenient for people's lives. People's lives have not changed that much as regards the times when they stop or start doing things since this was brought in half a century or so ago.
From where did the great demand for this change come? Who was perpetually representing to the Government that it should be made? Who was repeating monthly or yearly demands that the Government should make this change? I suggest—I am sure that this is true, but I should like to have it confirmed—that virtually no one has been pestering the Government or anyone else for such a
350
change. It has been introduced as an afterthought to the European negotiations and it now appears to be irrelevant.
I wish to say one thing about the theory that business men are gravely inconvenienced by the fact that the lime at which we operate is an hour different from that in Europe. I have never heard a more fatuous argument. I cannot claim to be a person who often telephones to the Continent, but on occasion I have had to do it as a matter of business and I have never had the remotest difficulty in getting through and working out the complicated sums, for which no doubt the hon. Gentleman would need a slide rule, to discover when I am likely to find my customer on the other side of the Channel at his telephone.
To suggest that the one hour difference between here and Europe is vital to our export trade is the most fantastic over-statement that I have heard for a long time. Most of our exports do not even go to Europe, they go to places like the United States and Canada, where the difference in hours is infinitely greater, and to Australia and New Zealand, where it is greater again. It seems that the case to be made has been conspicuous by its absence.
This has become, or ought to become, something of a Parliamentary occasion. We are debating an important subject and virtually all speakers, with one or two exceptions have registered strong protests against this Measure. If the House of Commons means anything at all, and I thought that we were supposed to be on one of those rather luxurious evenings when we were on a free vote, then surely it means that the Minister ought to take careful note of all the points so tellingly made by all the speakers this evening.
If he just brushes them aside as being of no consequence, as being as his right hon. Friend said, just opposition for opposition's sake, he is making a grave mistake because I have never been more serious in my life than when I say that this is an undesirable Measure, possibly a small one, but one that the House of Commons should reject.
10.17 p.m.
Sir Douglas Glover: It is scandalous that the House should be asked to debate this Bill and to find that

351
the Government have a Whip on. There is no party ideology involved in whether we have British Standard Time, Labour time or Greenwich Mean Time. There is no reason why it should be settled on a party basis. This is surely one of those occasions when the matter ought to be settled by the weight of the argument in the House.
There is no doubt that so far there have been no really powerful speeches from the other side of the House, and certainly not from the Government Front Bench—[Interruption.]—I was here this afternoon when the debate started and I came back again this evening. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise the amount of time I spend on the benches in this Chamber. It is scandalous that a Measure of this sort should become a party matter.
I was enormously impressed by the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). There are one or two points which showed the weakness of the Government's case. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) talked about the difference in time between us and Europe. Anyone who has been in commercial life will know that there is an actual advantage in this difference, because people, being creatures of habit, and having problems, say "Get me so and so on the telephone; get me so and so, and so and so." The result is that if everyone over a vast area had the same time there would be such an enormous pressure on telephone calls at the same time that it would be intolerable. If we have difference in time between us and the Continent we are much more likely to get through to our customer.
This is found in America with the difference in time scale between Eastern Time, Western Time and Pacific Time. It has been found that this staggers the weight of telephone calls. What has impressed me about the debate so far is the lack of appreciation on the Government side that in an urban society, as ours largely is, there are an enormous number of people who could not really care very much whether we are on Greenwich Mean Time or the new British Standard Time.
352
The advantages or disadvantages are marginal one way or the other. If a person has to go to work in the morning and work in a warm factory it does not make all that much difference whether he gets there at one hour on the clock or another.
I am surprised that the Government have not taken nearly enough notice of the interests of the minority of the population who will be affected adversely. We have heard enough about the agricultural community, but I have not heard anyone mention the problem of people like postmen and milkmen whose job it is to make their deliveries in the early hours. One hon. Member spoke about building workers. I would point out that it is much harder to do their job of work an hour earlier, when it is colder. If there has been a frost, the situation is more difficult an hour earlier than when working on our basic clock. A point which has not been made forcefully enough is that the efficiency of the nation is less in winter.
Anyone who drives a car late at night knows that we do not get all that number of snowstorms and keen frosts until after midnight. If there is a snowstorm, it takes time for the railways and local authorities to get matters organised. If the clock has been put on an hour, it means that they have that much less time to get the roads clear and the railway points working, because they will be dealing with them at the coldest period of the night rather than an hour later, as it is now.
I am in favour of British Summer Time, because it has a great many advantages, but not in the winter months——
Mr. Peter Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir D. Glover: No, I will not give way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, no doubt he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
To alter the time in the winter months will reduce the efficiency of the nation rather than increase it and will put an extra burden on those who are really affected, whereas it will not bring any corresponding advantage to those working in decent conditions.
10.22 p.m.
Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I will not delay the House for more than a few minutes, because what I want to say can be said briefly. I listened to the arguments of the Under-Secretary of State 'or Scotland with interest. He made the point fairly that there is a division of opinion in Scotland and that die argument is evenly balanced either way. I think that part of the reason for it is that people in Scotland have not been very Widely informed about what is proposed. I do not think that it is realised what the Government have in mind. To my mind, this strengthens the case of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) for making it, if we must have it at all, a temporary proposal to see how it works and the sort of reaction that we get. Incidentally, I think that there will be a powerful reaction against the proposal. My hon. Friend suggested that it might be tried for two or three years. I would prefer to see an experiment for one year.
The Under-Secretary of State pointed out that important bodies purporting to speak for industry in Scotland were in favour of the change. All the industrialists to whom I have spoken in my constituency about the proposal have been against it, without exception.
What I object to and what is my main reason for intervening in this debate is that this should be a matter debated on the other side of the House on the basis of a party Whip. I find it totally intolerable. Different representations are made to each of us, and this is the sort of proposal that should be debated and decided purely on its merits. Surely we shall not be told that the Government's whole programme, such as it is, will be blown aside because hon. Members opposite act in accord with their consciences or the opinions expressed to them by their constituents. I find it nauseating that a Measure of this kind should be forced through on a Government Whip.
I suppose the explanation is that the Government have cleared it with the manufacturers of diaries. So we have positions presented to the House of Commons as a fait accompli because the Government have arranged them with Messrs. Charles Letts and the diary manufacturers. I find this intolerable.
354
I cannot see any good reason why, on an occasion like this, we should not have a free vote and have the matter decided purely on its merits by hon. Members operating individually.
If I had any overwhelming doubts about the matter, even if I believed in it on balance, I would be strongly inclined to vote against it because hon. Members opposite are being frogmarched into the Lobby to support it. This is not the first time that this has happened in this Parliament. We had the same thing with the Decimal Currency Bill. I voted against that because hon. Members opposite were frogmarched into the Lobby in support of a decision that had been taken by the Government which they were not prepared to submit to the free opinions of hon. Members opposite. It is intolerable that an hon. Member opposite should be denied the company of his friends and relations in party committees upstairs because he breaks the ranks here tonight. I think that most of the meetings upstairs, from what we read in the Press, are highly disadvantageous. It might be better if they did not have them. But it is intolerable that hon. Members should be prevented from attending the meetings because they act in support of representations which may have been made to them by their constituents and vote against the Bill tonight. For that reason——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe we are talking about Standard Time. The hon. Member must keep to the subject.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was just coming to the end. I was about to say that for that reason above all, even if I had been impressed by the argument advanced by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I should still vote against the Bill.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: As I listened to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who has often entertained the House late at night, I thought that he had never stated a more profound truth when he said that men are creatures of habit. I had it in mind that the party opposite had the Whips on, and this, I would have thought, is the greatest single argument against the Government's proposals.

355
There are advantages and disadvantages to the change. I think they can be summarised by saying that the advantages, by and large, accrue to the urban dweller and possibly to the indoor worker, but the disadvantages are very great to the rural dweller and the outdoor worker. As I represent a very rural constituency, I am against the Bill. Even though one might argue that the advantages and disadvantages are well balanced, the advantages surely depend on change of habit following upon the passage of the Bill, and habit takes a long time to change in this country for good or ill, as we know.
What is argued here is that we can adapt ourselves. The bricklayer and the plasterer were referred to. The bricklayer starts at 8 o'clock in the morning, but he cannot start his bricklaying until a considerable time has elapsed and the light has improved. The plasterer cannot start in the depth of winter until a good deal later. If they adapted their hours to the new Bill even for a year or two, the country would lose economically.
There is no doubt that there is everything to be said against the Bill in the agricultural sphere, because it means that farmers and farm workers will have to work a great deal in the hours of darkness in the morning.
I agree with a great deal of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I do not often entirely agree, but I did so on this occasion in connection with schoolchildren. This is particularly so in a rural constituency. Some of the children in my constituency already have to be in the road to catch a bus well before 8 o'clock to get to school by 9 o'clock. I suggest that for them to do the equivalent of getting up and going down the road before 7 o'clock to get to school by 8 o'clock, which this will mean, is a tremendous hardship on them. The psychological difference to a child having to get up and go to school when the dawn is breaking will not be compensated for by the advantage of coming home in the daylight. What do children do at night in the winter? They go indoors and indulge in indoor activities. It will
356
make a great difference to them if they have to get up an hour earlier in the middle of the night.
I think that the psychological effect of the Bill has been ill thought out. I think that the Government should reconsider the matter. It shows the domination of the urban dweller, of the indoor worker, over the rural dweller and the outdoor worker. In the present state of our economic affairs, when so much is going wrong, and when everything the Government touch goes wrong, I think that they are extremely foolish, whatever the theoretical advantages of doing so, to tackle this now. They would be well advised to drop it.
10.31 p.m.
Mr. John H. Osborn: I have come into the Chamber to listen to the debate, and not to make a long speech. I hope that this will be the shortest speech of my life in the House. I have listened to the speeches from both sides of the House, particularly during the latter part of the debate. Most hon. Members have spoken against the Government. I came in to vote for the Government, and discovered that I was likely to be one of the few Opposition Members to support them.
I come from a mixed constituency, industrial, urban, and rural, and many months ago I discussed this proposal with a number of people. The more progressive farmers have accepted this as of no great inconvenience in a modern farming environment. Urban and city dwellers are more and more working and living on a shift basis, and those on the early shift, finishing at 1 or 2 o'clock, welcome the opportunity of a longer afternoon one week in three, or whatever the arrangement may be. There are many other examples of a bit of extra daylight being welcomed by both office and factory workers.
I do not intend to redeploy the arguments which have been deployed by the Government, but, as most of the speakers to whom I have listened have been utterly opposed to the Measure, and as I intend to vote for it, I wish to speak to that effect and let it be known that not everyone on this side of the House is opposed to it.
10.32 p.m.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I have risen to speak for a few moments to point out that the extraordinary sentiments expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) are evidence, not of the attitude of the Liberal Party to this Measure, but of the extraordinary freedom of expression which is allowed within our ranks. It is not only the Conservative Party which has a free vote on this issue. I agree that it is remarkable that a free vote is not allowed on the other side of the House, because if it were it would allow us to make a reasonable arithmetical calculation of where the balance of opinion lay.
Earl of Dalkeith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what time the Liberal Party advocates we should keep, and what time its Members keep, which accounts for the hon. Gentleman's arrival at this debate exactly three hours late? No Member of the Liberal Party came here until three hours after the debate started.
Dr. Winstanley: I heard every word of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It was that which stimulated me into coming into the debate, and I felt that I had to express my view.
I have risen to point out that we, too, have a free vote. It ought to be made clear that the view expressed by my hon. aid learned Friend on behalf of his rural constituents is not a general view which is held within my party. Indeed, I do not accept that it is a view which is held generally in rural areas.
The argument about the farmer is illfounded. It may be a disadvantage to put the clocks forward, but I question the statement that the attitude of the N.F.U. is that there are many disadvantages in the proposed legislation. It would get farmers out of the appalling mess of having a biannual complete change in their routine, which, I am given to understand, is extremely upsetting for rural people, for farmers and many of those whom my hon. and learned Friend represents.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) attempted to show that the argument about European communications is entirely invalid. It is not. He referred
358
to the occasional telephone call which he makes to Europe. We are not talking about occasional telephone calls. We are talking about firms which are in constant touch with Europe. This change would at once give them three hours of additional communication time.
Before we vote on the Bill, it should be emphasised that industry, on the whole, is in favour of it. The Trades Union Congress has asked for it. The National Farmers' Union is in favour of it, whatever individual farmers may say. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes; it has expressed that view not once but over and over again. The N.F.U. has said that there are disadvantages, but it is in favour of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I have correspondence which suggests that, while the National Farmers' Union does not like it, it feels that it would be preferable to the present system under which there is a biannual disruption of agricultural routine. I accept that there are many farmers who do not like the proposed change, but that is the official view of the National Fanners' Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Hon. Members may protest. They may not like it, but that is the view of the N.F.U.
Therefore, the balance of opinion is in favour of the Bill. We have listened to a great many speeches suggesting, somewhat sotto voce and quietly but none the less clearly, that something secret and not entirely acceptable has been done. In fact, many hon. Members, myself included, are strongly in favour of the Bill.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. Ennals:By leave of the House, I should like to speak again. I, too, regret that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) did not come a little earlier to present his argument, particularly as, so I understand, he was leading something of a campaign in favour of the Bill by Motions before the House. It would have been helpful if he had given the weight of his argument earlier in the day.
The debate has had a number of advantages in that we have been able to draw upon the experience of hon. Members on both sides from different parts of the country and representing different interests. Several hon. Members claimed to represent interests, perhaps, without

359
much authority for so doing. I was interested to note that one hon. Gentleman seemed to speak on behalf of industry rather than the Confederation of British Industry.
Although some serious arguments against this Measure have been put to the House, they have been grossly exaggerated by some hon. Members. Moreover, it has been suggested that, somehow or other, the Bill has been introduced hastily, without consultation, for some strange and obtuse motive. In fact, the consultation which has led up to the Bill has gone on over many years, during the lifetime not just of this Government but of the previous Government, too. The consultation which was the basis of it in 1960 was before the Labour Government came into power, and the 1966 consultation sought to bring matters up to date and gain an assessment of opinion in the country from responsible bodies.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckingham, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) asked on what basis the consultation had taken place, and what was the purpose of it. The reason why there were 80 organisations consulted rather than the 180 which had originally been circulated was that we confined ourselves to the major interests, including especially those which had been opposed to the change, not those in favour of it, or those organisations whose views we had reason to believe, or we thought, might have changed during the period of five years. Most of those which were not consulted were organisations which previously had been in favour of it. Therefore, any suggestion that, somehow or other, we wanted to cook the books is quite untrue and unworthy.
Questions have been asked about pressure. There has been pressure from industry and from commerce. It has already been said that in England, Wales and Scotland the Confederation of British Industry is powerfully in favour of the Measure, and so, too, is the Trades Union Congress. It is interesting to note that when consulted in 1960 the T.U.C. was rather divided, but it has informed us that unions representing over five million members are now in favour of the change and that only a quarter of a million are opposed to it.
It was almost argued that there was a case for keeping ourselves separate from
360
the Continent of Europe, as though there was something almost immoral about having a time common with Europe. The hon. Member for Cheadle is quite right in saying that there is clear advantage, not only to business interests but to transport interests as well. The Bill has come before Parliament partly as a result of pressure but partly, also, as a result of the considered view of the Government that it would be in the general interest of the country.
There have been criticisms of the Government's case. Some hon. Members have argued that in introducing the Bill I put the case too positively and brushed aside the case against it. Other hon. Members opposite have said that no argument at all has been presented in its favour—such arguments came mainly from hon. Members who had not attended the earlier part of the debate.
The Government have tried to get the balance straight. It would be unreasonable to suggest that there is not considerable difference of opinion. I have weighed this up, and would now like to summarise the matter again. The Economic Review showed an almost equal balance of advantage and disadvantage. In general, the conclusion was that the change would be advantageous to commercial interests—particularly those with continental connections—to transport interests, whether domestic or overseas, to the ports, and marginally to the tourist industry. It would be disadvantageous to agriculture and to the construction industries, about which I should like to say something a little later. The strongest argument in favour came from the inquiry into the social consequences.
I have mentioned the Road Research Laboratory which, contrary to its opinion in I960, had reached the view in 1966 that the change would lead to some quite considerable reduction in accidents. I would also mention the changed attitude amongst the teachers' organisations.
Reference has been made to general public opinion. I do not think that any of us would place too much weight on public opinion polls, but one public opinion poll, conducted on a national scale, showed that 45 per cent. were in favour of the Government's proposal, 25 per cent, wanted to leave things as they

361
were, and 27 per cent. did not express an opinion.
Sir S. Summers: Are we to understand from what the hon. Gentleman says that in 1960 the Road Research Laboratory— whose advice, we understand, is based on scientific evidence—was against the proposition that there would be fewer accidents, but stated six years later that accidents would be reduced? Is it a fact that scientific evidence changed in such a short time?
Mr. Ennals: It is the fact that in 1960 the Road Research Laboratory was doubtful, but the research carried out from then to 1966 is in favour of the Government's proposal.
I recognise the difficulties that affect the North, and particularly Scotland. I reiterate the view expressed earlier that the main division is not just between north and south but between town, industrial and urban dwellers and the people living in the countryside. It would be absurd to pretend, and the Government would not pretend, that there will not be difficulties for those living in the countryside, and I should like, first, to look at the schools aspect. I was asked what consultation there had been with education organisations. Of the 13 teachers and local authority associations consulted, eight were in favour and five wished lo keep things as they were. It was interesting that while the views of the education authorities were divided, and the County Councils Associations, for instance, were against the proposal, all the principal teachers' organisations were in favour. This includes the National Union of Teachers, die National Association of Schoolmasters and the National Association of Head Teachers, who were all in favour of the changes that we are putting forward.
There are, of course, problems of children going to and from school, especially in the depth of winter. In many parts of the country, they will either go to school in the dark or come back in the dark. There are problems when children travel in the dark and there are problems concerning road accidents
There are problems of another nature. There are children who have been subjected to attacks, particularly in die country and on common land. The evi-
362
dence on this is that it is much more likely to happen late in the day than it does early in the day. In any event, children are more at risk from accidents late in the day because they loiter and play on their return home, whereas when going to school they go directly to school. This partly explains the view that from a road safety standpoint as well as for the general safety of children, this Measure will be advantageous.
It is quite wrong to suggest, as some hon. Members have done, that children automatically go straight back home from school at the end of the day. Apart from games which they may play, there are school activities which keep them late.
There are much greater doubts concerning children in the countryside with longer journeys to school—bus journeys, and so on—than there are for children in the cities, and we must recognise this. It was not unfair to have suggested, and it has been supported by a number of local authorities, that during certain periods of the year it is possible to make an adjustment in school times, as affecting both die time of starting in the morning and the period of lunch hour, to minimise the disadvantage of travelling at one or other end of the day in darkness. As to health and accidents, it was made clear that most of the bodies concerned with road safety, including the police, are in favour of the Measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a point concerning the construction industry, and there are problems here. It is only fair to say that those involved in die industry are divided among themselves, although certainly die employers are against the proposal. The building trade unions, on die other hand, and the specialists and the subcontractors have said that they are in favour of the proposal.
I was asked the view of the Winter Building Advisory Committee. The majority of its members considered the advantages to outweigh die disadvantages for die building industry. The principal advantage which they saw in the change lies in the possibility that more hours of daylight could be made available for working in the winter

363
months. They said that on G.M.T. there are periods when there is sufficient daylight to begin work before 7.30 but that this cannot be used because 7.30 is the earliest normal acceptable starting time and that for this reason there would be more hours of daylight that would be worked if the change was carried through.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) said that people would not get up in the dark. I do not know what her contact is with workpeople. Quite apart from shift workers, during winter months already there are very many who get up in the dark. The supposition that people normally rise at 9 a.m. is simply not true and suggests that the hon. Lady is not in touch with the life of the ordinary working man.
Mrs. Ewing: I think that the hon. Gentleman his misquoted me. I made the fair point that there would be less inclination to do something which is already hard—getting up in the morning —if it has to be done in the dark. I warn the House that there will be a great deal of absenteeism as a result.
Mr. Ennals: I do not know about the hon. Lady, but I get up when the alarm clock rings, whether it is light or dark. The majority of her arguments had little validity——
Mr. John Hynd: And their wives.
Mr. Ennals: Yes, this applies to their wives as well.
We must also accept that there is a substantial difference of opinion about agricultural workers and that, although the National Farmers' Union is not in favour of this proposal, and I must make that clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I did say and I adhere to it that its opinion is much less rigorous than it was and I hope that it is true that, if and
when the Bill is carried, it will see many of its advantages. It is also true, however, that the National Association of Agricultural Workers has come out in favour of it.
Therefore, the argument of hon. Gentlemen that this Measure does not command support has no foundation; I believe that it will command a great deal. One of the disadvantages for many hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they simply cannot tolerate the possibility of change. They cannot concede that it can be of advantage. None of us would propose a Bill whose only merit was a change, but we are convinced that this Measure will be in the general interests of the country.
Some have asked, why not an experimental Measure? If we were to try it out for a year, many contentions by hon. Gentlemen opposite would prove to be right. People would not attempt to adjust, as they must, to the change and it would be much more unsettling if they were not certain whether the old or the new arrangement would eventually apply. We are going in the dark here. We do not know what the consequences will be. We can make our studies and research on the best possible information with such details as we have, but it is obvious that only time will tell. If it were discovered in two years that the disadvantages rehearsed by hon. Gentlemen opposite prevailed, then we would have to take note of that.
The Bill is not the be all and end all, but the Government are convinced that, although it is a modest Measure, its advantages greatly outweigh its disadvantages and that it will be in the country's interests. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen will support the Government in the Lobby.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 61.

Division No. 32.]

AYES

10.54 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Brooks, Edwin

Alldritt, Walter

Bishop, E. S.

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

Allen, Scholefield

Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

Armstrong, Ernest

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

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

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Booth, Albert

Cant, R. B.

Bagier, Gordon A. T,

Boyden, James

Carmichael, Neil

Beaney, Alan

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Bence, Cyril

Bradley, Tom

Coleman, Donald

Concannon, J. D,

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Moyle, Roland

Conlan, Bernard

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Murray, Albert

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hunter, Adam

Norwood, Christopher

Dalyell, Tam

Hynd, John

Oakes, Gordon

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

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

O'Malley, Brian

Davies, G. Ernest (Stretford)

Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

Oram, Albert E.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Dell, Edmund

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

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

Dewar, Donald

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Park, Trevor

DobSon, Ray

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Doig, Peter

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Pavitt, Laurence

Dunwoody Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Judd, Frank

Pentland, Norman

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Kenyon, Clifford

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Eadie, Alex

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

Probert, Arthur

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Lawson, George

Reynolds, G. W.

Ellis, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Ennals, David

Lee, John (Reading)

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

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

Lestor, Miss Joan

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Faulds, Andrew

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rose, Paul

Fernyhough, E.

Lomas, Kenneth

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Finch, Harold

Loughlin, Charles

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Luard, Evan

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

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lubbock, Eric

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Foley, Maurice

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Ford, Ben

McBride, Neil

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Forrester, John

McCann, John

Slater, Joseph

Fowler, Gerry

MacColl, James

Small, William

Galpern, Sir Myer

Macdonald, A. H.

Spriggs, Leslie

Garrett, W. E.

McGuire, Michael

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mackie, John

Swain, Thomas

Gregory, Arnold

Mackintosh, John P.

Taverne, Dick

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Maclennan, Robert

Tinn, James

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Tuck, Raphael

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Urwin, T. W.

Hannan, William

MacPherson, Malcolm

Vickers, Dame Joan

Harper, Joseph

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Manuel, Archie

Watkins, David (Consett)

Haseldine, Norman

Mapp, Charles

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Hattersley, Roy

Marks, Kenneth

Weitzman, David

Hazell, Bert

Marquand, David

Wellbeloved, James

Heffer, Eric S.

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Whitlock, William

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Mayhew, Christopher

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Hilton, W. S.

Mendelson, J. J.

Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

Hooley, Frank

Millan, Bruce

Winnick, David

Horner, John

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Houghton, Rt, Hn. Douglas

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Yates, Victor

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

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

Howie, W.

Molloy, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hey, James

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Mr. Harold Walker and

Huckfield, Leslie

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. Eric G. Varley.

NOES

Baker, W. H. K.

Glover, Sir Douglas

Russell, Sir Ronald

Batsford, Brian

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Scott, Nicholas

Boardman, Tom

Gurden, Harold

Scott-Hopkins, James

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Sharpies, Richard

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hooson, Emlyn

Stodart, Anthony

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Jopling, Michael

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

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

Kitson, Timothy

Summers, Sir Spencer

Campbell, Gordon

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Longden, Gilbert

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

Clegg, Walter

MacArthur, Ian

Temple, John M.

Costain, A. P.

Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Ward, Dame Irene

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

Maude, Angus

Weatherill Bernard

Doughty, Charles

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Monro, Hector

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

More, Jasper

Wylie, N. R.

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

NicholIs, Sir Harmar

Younger, Hn. George

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Farr, John

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

Prior, J. M. L.

Mr. Ronald Bell and

Gibson-Watt, David

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison.

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Royle, Anthony

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

LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

H.M. DOCKYARDS (ADMINISTRATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
11.4 p.m.
Mr. Frank Judd: What I say tonight will be particularly concerned with Portsmouth, but it will be relevant to the other dockyards and their supporting communities. There are at least three topical reasons for this debate.
First, there is the significance of the Government's recent defence policy changes for the communities in the location of the dockyards still too dependent on the yards for their economic well-being. I gather that the Town Clerk of Portsmouth has already written to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of Defence for the Royal Navy reminding him of the long-standing commitment of the Ministry of Defence to give maximum warning of any signicant change in manpower needs. The vulnerability of Portsmouth has been brought home to us all this week by the significance of the closure of Hawker Siddeley and the human problems that involves, especially for older workers of the city. Secondly, there is the level of morale in the yard at the moment. My hon. Friend and I have received numerous letters about this. But I select this evening just briefly two examples. First, the opening sentence in a letter from a greatly respected trade unionist in Portsmouth Dockyard reads as follows:
"The trade union leaders in the yards are firmly of the opinion that that general morale of the men is as poor as most can remember going back over the past two or three decades.
The other example which I wish to take is the first sentence in a letter from a much respected representative of a white collar union. The letter opens in much the same vein:
"There is much dissatisfaction amongst the technical and drawing office grades in Portsmouth Dockyard."
368
The third topical reason for this debate, perhaps the most topical of all, is the Government's concern with economic efficiency through the country and the consequential need to set an example in their own direct sphere of influence. There are about 35,000 men employed in the dockyards and there is extensive capital equipment within them. Here, if anywhere, the Government have an opportunity to show the industrial community throughout Britain what efficient management can be.
No intelligent person in Portsmouth wants to see the dockyards continued as a form of public out relief. What we want is a well-considered forecast of future naval requirements and the preparation of well-equipped, modernised dockyard units to meet those requirements. We as a city community hope that all this can be rapidly accompanied by the release of surplus land and facilities for alternative housing, industry and commercial port development, all badly needed in the area of Portsmouth.
In the meantime, all sorts of rumours are to be heard. One such rumour is that there is one dockyard too many in Britain at the moment. A rumour of this kind is obviously demoralising. It should be cleared up at once by an early and categorical statement of exactly what the future holds in store from the Ministry of Defence. There must be the maximum possible notice for any necessary transition to alternative industrial and economic priorities within the context of regional plans such as those of the South-East Regional Planning Board.
Even allowing for modernisation and rationalisation of the yards in order realistically to meet new commitments, there will still be special problems. For example, there is the yards' garage or maintenance function as well as their straightforward job of production. Bottlenecks, with uneven distribution of the work load, are bound to occur, although I am firmly convinced that these could be modified by greater flexibility, with the co-operation of both sides, in the management of manpower. The yards will continue to need some spare capacity to meet emergencies. Clearly it would be most alarming if the yards were working flat out in normal

369
times so that there was no slack to be utilised in time of special circumstances.
Taking this last point together with the considerable resources of engineering skill and equipment in the yards, I cannot bring myself to believe that the present entirely passive attitude to outside civil contract work can survive. A change in this respect will require policy changes on the part of the Government and a new commercial basis to tendering and pricing, rather than the present post-operation actual cost system. At present it is altogether too lackadaisical, with no one person specifically responsible for watching surplus capacity and dynamically going out to attract alternative work. Change in this sphere would help to gear the yards to maximum continuing efficiency. In contrast, at present there is increasing concern at the amount of work going out to private contractors while some yards' facilities are not fully utilised. The argument has been forcefully put to me that the civilian contractors should be free to contribute to the export and import-substitution drive without having to contribute to defence programmes which could be undertaken in the yards.
In approaching the reform of the yards, I believe that five problems are worth special attention. First, we must look at the duplication of control. There is a confusion of naval and civilian management stretching down from the most senior level to modest levels of administration. What, for example, is the precise definition of responsibility between the short-stay—I think that it is two or three years—admiral superintendent and the general manager? Has this always worked well so far? If not, why not?
Is the superstructure of naval paraphernalia too complex and expensive for the industrial force to carry? If so, how can it be justified? Should not we, as in the yards in the United States, opt clearly for management either by service personnel or civilians? If we opt for service management must it not be by specialised, carefully trained personnel, who are not available in sufficient quantities at present?
Secondly, I come to the personnel problems of management-worker relationships. How well suited are the present trade union structure and the
370
Whitley committees to efficient worker-management relationship? How can the latter be revitalised? Is not there a need for a separate wage structure and negotiating procedure for the dockyards alone, as distinct from other sections of the Civil Service?
Why do trade union members feel as they do feel that at present their leaders negotiate under duress? What are the causes of friction, and even, at times, resentment between the blue and white collar unions? When shall we see all the proposals of the Prices and Incomes Board implemented in this respect? What is the right system of differentials in the dockyards, as dockyards? Are not even the latest pay structures inadequate, because they result from tampering with, or adjusting, fundamentally imperfect systems?
I now come to the highly contentious subject of the dockyard incentive bonus scheme. Incentive payment schemes deserve special mention because, while they work quite well in a limited number of cases, there has been far too much evidence of real resentment, unfair times, general inefficiency in their operation and even of a refusal to work them at all. Those of us with some experience of the yards all know that the job price contract system became totally discredited, and for a different reason the dockyard incentive bonus scheme is going the same way, at least in certain sections. Can an incentive scheme, whatever its merits elsewhere in industry, ever work satisfactorily in industrial units where such a high proportion of people will never qualify for it? It is estimated that barely 50 per cent. of the labour force work it now. Should we not, as in the United States dockyards, opt for a system of sensible consolidated wage rates?
The fourth point which I wish to mention is communication. This obviously leaves much to be desired. There is too much traditional stiff formality and at present the men just do not understand the changes which take place, or what is their objective. A good example of this is the indignation at the increasing ratio of pre-work planning to actual production work. We know that in the United States this has reached a ratio of one to one, which is still far from being the case in Britain, but although the position is understood and broadly accepted

371
in the United States, there is already bewilderment and cynicism here. Why? How does the Ministry of Defence intend to overcome it? Is not this problem related to the fifth matter which I wish to mention and which is accountability?
Is not a fundamental fault in the present administration to be found in the vast impersonal Civil Service machine of which the yards are a part? Of course, in no sense am I talking personally of anyone in that structure at the moment, but in this impersonal Civil Service machine that source of accountability can be found only away in Bath and Whitehall. If we are to get maximum efficiency, will there not have to be real devolution of responsibility to individual yards and individual sections within individual yards? Is not the key of success having real power of decision making on the spot and the involvement of all workers and management in an easily identifiable team? Do we not at least have to move towards the American pattern of a profit and loss account for each yard as a yardstick for its efficiency?
If we are to get well-informed answers to all these and other questions in the light of new defence policy, would not my hon. Friend and all his advisers and staff welcome a comprehensive independent inquiry into future demands on the yards and the best detailed method of organisation to meet those demands? I know that inquiries of this sort have been held in the past, but the present situation demands a comprehensive inquiry now.
I know that my hon. Friend is deeply concerned about problems which I have mentioned and I therefore hope that he will feel able to welcome this suggestion. The time may well have come for far-reaching reforms giving the yards a new independent structure and opportunities for industrial growth in completely new and as yet unseen civil spheres. My hon. Friend will share with me the utmost respect for the pride and skill of the dockyard workers and the heroic service of their supporting communities in two relatively recent world wars. We in the House owe it them that we think ahead for their future enabling these rich resources of men and facilities to be as relevant in the future as they have been in the past.
11.18 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Nayy (Mr. Maurice Foley): My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) has spoken with much eloquence and knowledge of this subject which is befitting a dockyard Member of Parliament, of whom a number are present and for whose presence and interest I am grateful. In the time available I ought to try to deal with some of the matters raised and if I do not deal with them all, I shall write to my hon. Friend later. I ought first to put his comments into their essential perspective.
We will never get anywhere in a discussion about the dockyards unless their Service r´le is recognised from the start. The dockyards exist to maintain, repair and refit ships of the Royal Navy so that the Navy can have the ships it wants at the time it wants to meet its operational commitments. The dock yards therefore give an essential service to the Navy.
They cannot be considered in isolation from the Navy. It follows from this that the dockyards cannot, except within comparatively narrow limits, cut, trim or re-arrange their programme to make the most economic use of their resources and manpower. Essentially, the dockyards exist for the naval programme, not the other way round. This is a fundamental point, and until we get it clear anything else must be based on a false premise. Hon. Members will appreciate that this puts the dockyards at a considerable planning disadvantage over commercial firms, which act independently, on the narrow basis of the most efficient use of their resources.
Dealing with other points raised, there was firstly the question of the supervision and the relationship between the Admiral Superintendent and the General Manager. The principle flows from this prior consideration as to why the dockyards exist. The Admiral Superintendent of a dockyard remains a feature even in the new functional dockyard structure and organisation. The reason for this is implicit in the nature of the dockyard.
There is a great deal more to a dockyard than just an industrial organisation. There is the whole complex of stores

373
organisation concerned with every aspect of stores supplies to the Fleet. In addition to the ships under repair the dockyards are used as a base for operational ships, all in need of day-to-day administration. The Admiral Superintendent is the focal point of these activities and not the least of his tasks is to ensure harmonious working between the Fleet and the civilian organisation.
My hon. Friend referred to the dockyard load and the possibilities of looking for outside work. He must recognise that we try to make the best possible use of each dockyard's resources. A dockyard plan covering all the yards is worked out and regularly brought up to date. This plan is on the basis of the best and most up-to-date information available, and apportions out to each dockyard an equitable and realistic distribution of dockyard work.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House recently attended a presentation on the way a dockyard works, and the way in which the load is determined, and the factors which influence the variation of this load. Any planning reproduced is not ad infinitum, it is not immutable and may be altered.
Dr. David Owen: Would my hon. Friend agree, however, that although we accept the necessity for this plan to be changed, in Devonport Dockyard there is very considerable concern about the decision on "Ark Royal"? When are we to hear whether the refit of this ship, on which the economy of the City is dependent, will go ahead or will be cancelled.
Mr. Foley: I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have raised this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate my dilemma, firstly that there is a political decision to be taken in terms of reducing commitments. The question for the Navy, and all the Services, is to determine in the light of new commitments what is required to fulfil obligations.
This is a matter which takes time to work out and cannot be done overnight. Clearly I am exercised about this and concerned over it. I have visited the dockyard at Devonport and spoken to the workers, and given them certain assurances and hope that I will be able
374
to honour them. This is not the moment for me to state categorically what will happen. At the moment the refit continues, and this is as far as I can go.
I was talking about the commercial work being introduced into the dockyards. If one accepts that no matter how good one's planning may be there will be times when there will be peaks and troughs in terms of work load then there will be times when certain skills will be over-used and others will be under-used. In planning one's work load, one has to have regard to the basic physical facilities available in a yard, the various skills in the manpower force and their competencies. These are all taken into consideration in planning the load, but, inevitably, from time to time there will be troughs.
In considering whether or not we can cater for outside civil work, we have to bear in mind all the time our primary role. If we offer to do outside work, it must be subordinate to the work of repairing and refitting our own ships. Delivery dates cannot be guaranteed, and the yards may not have the equipment required or the capital necessary to alter existing equipment to do outside work. I do not hold out much hope that the position can be improved upon very much. All that we can do is look again at our planning procedures to see whether there is anything more that we can do in terms of forecasting.
It must be borne in mind that, from time to time, ships come in for immediate repair and refits. Others that were expected do not come in on time and can be anything up to two months late. All this produces difficulties and frustrates those concerned with work loads.
Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): We are worried about the lack of forecasting. In Devonport Dockyard, there are at least 2,600 men who are anxious to know what is to happen. Can we have an assurance that there will be plenty of notice if it is found necessary to have redundancies?
Mr. Foley: I will come to that point in a moment. I want to pick up one or two other points first.
My hon. Friend has referred to experience in the United States, but I would urge him to be a little cautious, because.

375
if he takes it too far, he will find that there is a system in the United States not merely of profit and loss but of hire and fire in labour relationships. He must be highly selective in the parts of the system which he wants to see introduced into ours.
As for Report No. 18 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, that was clearly introduced last July. A number of matters stem from it, particularly the grouping of industrial workers, the proposals for non-industrialisation, questions of incentive schemes, and so on. On some of them, one can move quickly. Others of them are rather longer term. There is an increasing interest on the part of the unions in their National Whitley Council, which I happen to chair, in their desire to move more quickly in this sphere of activity.
Mention was made of bonus schemes, and this is a matter about which I am very anxious. The Dockyard Incentive Bonus Scheme was introduced at the beginning of 1966. There is still time to amend, revise and improve it, and I hope that that will happen.
Finally, I turn to the effect of the defence cuts upon the dockyards. The Prime Minister announced on 16th January that there would be defence cuts and, in particular, a reduction in the United Kingdom bases. The previous forecast reduction of 80,000 civilians, which included 30,000 in the United Kingdom, will now be achieved significantly earlier than the mid-1970s. Obviously some part of this cut will fall on the dockyards and other naval establishments in this country. We are at present engaged in a study to define exactly what the effects will be. This will take some months to work out, since it is a complicated and serious matter. I cannot at present give any further details, except to say that I recognise fully the importance of coming to a decision as quickly as possible, evaluating it in the light of prevailing economic and social circumstances, and making sure that there is the maximum consultation with unions, both nationally and locally, before schemes are implemented.
I want to join with my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those who work in the dockyards. There are many officers
376
and ratings all round the world who would want to pay tribute, too, to the work done in the dockyards on their ships. It is the skill and expertise of the people in the dockyards which make it possible for the Navy to do its job and fulfil the commitments laid upon it.
11.31 p.m.
Dame Joan Vickers: Although the hon. Gentleman has answered many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), so far as I am concerned, it has been a very unsatisfactory debate.
He kindly asked us to come to a meeting—I could not come in the morning, but I came in the afternoon—and he gave us all these points then. What we are worried about is the future.
On 29th December, I sent the Minister a telegram. As I thought that the Government were in economic difficulties, I sent it reply-paid to ensure getting an answer, but still no decision has been made. He has not confirmed or denied that the "Ark Royal" and now the "Eagle" are to be refitted.
When we had the debate on the 27th November, I remember that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West was worried because of the scrapping of H.M.S. "Victorious", but he was told that that would create a certain amount of work in the actual dismantling of it.
I have a letter from the right hon. Gentleman of 4th December definitely stating—the hon. Gentleman frightened me a bit this evening when he said he hoped to be able to keep his word— that there would be a full order book for five years. We are expecting the Government to keep their word. It may not be possible for them to carry on with the carrier, but what we say is that there are 240 ships in the Royal Navy and we want to see that we have sufficient to keep the present labour force occupied. If the present labour force cannot be fully occupied, he must let us know in plenty of time what the run down is to be and over what period of time so that we can press for industry to come particularly to Portsmouth.
The South-West Regional Council has been suggesting that this must become a development area. If the hon. Gentleman can give us some categorical details

377
soon—we have already waited long enough—we could perhaps get this status granted and we could press ahead. Plymouth does not want spoonfeeding. We want action so that we know where we stand.
I would plead with the hon. Gentleman, who is a sympathetic man—and I know the difficult position he is in— to discuss this with the Minister of Defence and see that we are not kept waiting any longer.
378
The Government are playing with men's lives. It makes a lot of difference to the city. We have had a dockyard in Plymouth for 300 years and the city has good or bad——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Government Departments (Contracts)
  Government Departments (Contracts)
  Public Sector (Imports)
  Public Sector (Imports)
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Income Tax (Social Security Benefits)
  Income Tax (Social Security Benefits)
  Dividends
  Dividends
  Gold Reserves
  Gold Reserves
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Foreign Currency Limit
  Foreign Currency Limit
  Incomes
  Incomes
  Fuel Oil Duty
  Fuel Oil Duty
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Anglo-German Offset Agreement
  Anglo-German Offset Agreement
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Taxation (N.H.S. Consultants)
  Taxation (N.H.S. Consultants)
  International Monetary Fund (Borrowing Requirement)
  International Monetary Fund (Borrowing Requirement)
  Invisible Earnings
  Invisible Earnings
  Sterling Area Currencies (Commodity Markets)
  Sterling Area Currencies (Commodity Markets)
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Salvation Army (Building Fund Appeal)
  Salvation Army (Building Fund Appeal)
  Barristers
  Barristers
  Nationalised Industries (Investment Cuts)
  Nationalised Industries (Investment Cuts)
  Tobacco Duties
  Tobacco Duties
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease Compensation
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease Compensation
  Company Subscriptions and Donations
  Company Subscriptions and Donations
  Customs Duty
  Customs Duty
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Bank Accounts (Untraced Depositors)
  Bank Accounts (Untraced Depositors)
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, North-East
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, North-East
  World Money Supplies (Discussions)
  World Money Supplies (Discussions)
  World Trade
  World Trade
  National Savings Movement
  National Savings Movement
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Government Local Offices (Saturday Opening)
  Government Local Offices (Saturday Opening)
  Public Service Employees (Pay Cut)
  Public Service Employees (Pay Cut)
  Dollar Securities
  Dollar Securities
  P.A.Y.E.
  P.A.Y.E.
  European Economic Community (Expenditure)
  European Economic Community (Expenditure)
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Gold and Convertible Currencies
  Gold and Convertible Currencies
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Anglo-Australian Double Taxation Agreement
  Anglo-Australian Double Taxation Agreement
  Turnover Tax
  Turnover Tax
  Civil Service Pension Rights (Transferability)
  Civil Service Pension Rights (Transferability)
  British Economy
  British Economy
  United Nations (Member States)
  United Nations (Member States)
  Dollar Premium
  Dollar Premium
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  Duty Free Cigarettes and Liquor
  Duty Free Cigarettes and Liquor
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Research Reactors (Dismantlement)
  Research Reactors (Dismantlement)
  Fuel Policy White Paper
  Fuel Policy White Paper
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
ELECTRICITY
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Generating Costs
  Generating Costs
COAL
  National Coal Board (Revenue)
  National Coal Board (Revenue)
  Harrington No. 10 Colliery
  Harrington No. 10 Colliery
  Opencast Mining (North Warwickshire)
  Opencast Mining (North Warwickshire)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Human Brucellosis
  Human Brucellosis
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  N.H.S. Vehicles (Reflective Number Plates)
  N.H.S. Vehicles (Reflective Number Plates)
HOSPITALS
  Beds and Staff (Statistics)
  Beds and Staff (Statistics)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Bloomsbury Site
  Bloomsbury Site
  Public Water Supplies (Lead Contamination)
  Public Water Supplies (Lead Contamination)
  Television and Radio Masts
  Television and Radio Masts
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Building Programme)
  Council Houses (Building Programme)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
  Gurkha Pensioners
  Gurkha Pensioners
  East of Suez
  East of Suez
  Armed Forces and Equipment
  Armed Forces and Equipment
  RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT (REPRESENTATIONS)
  RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT (REPRESENTATIONS)
  ZINOVIEV LETTER
  ZINOVIEV LETTER
AVIATION
  Turnhouse Airport
  Turnhouse Airport
BOARD OF TRADE
  Metal Containers (Exports)
  Metal Containers (Exports)
  National Exhibition Centre
  National Exhibition Centre
  Export Intelligence Department (Advertising)
  Export Intelligence Department (Advertising)
RAILWAYS
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Railway Stations (Sanitary Installations)
  Railway Stations (Sanitary Installations)
ROADS
  Improvement Expenditure (Dorset)
  Improvement Expenditure (Dorset)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Level Crossings
  Level Crossings
  A23 (Traffic Congestion)
  A23 (Traffic Congestion)
  Road Construction Units
  Road Construction Units
PORTS
  National Dock Labour Board (Special Fund)
  National Dock Labour Board (Special Fund)
TRANSPORT
  Road Safety Act, 1967 (Pamphlet)
  Road Safety Act, 1967 (Pamphlet)
  Victoria Line
  Victoria Line
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
  DEFENCE AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (EXPENDITURE)
  DEFENCE AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (EXPENDITURE)
  MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE
  MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE
  PRIME MINISTER (TALKS WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON
  PRIME MINISTER (TALKS WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON
  PRODUCTIVITY (AWARD TO EMPLOYEES)
  PRODUCTIVITY (AWARD TO EMPLOYEES)
  MINISTERS (TELEVISION INTERVIEWS)
  MINISTERS (TELEVISION INTERVIEWS)
  PRESIDENT JOHNSON (MESSAGE)
  PRESIDENT JOHNSON (MESSAGE)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Raw Milk (Sales)
  Raw Milk (Sales)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia Railways (Pension Funds)
  Rhodesia Railways (Pension Funds)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Development Areas (Public Contracts)
  Development Areas (Public Contracts)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Building Projects
  School Building Projects
POST OFFICE
  Post Office Users' Council (Appointments)
  Post Office Users' Council (Appointments)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Act, 1952 (Releases)
  Prison Act, 1952 (Releases)
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Crimes of Violence (Police Powers)
  Crimes of Violence (Police Powers)
TECHNOLOGY
  Departmental Establishments, Scotland (Industrial Research)
  Departmental Establishments, Scotland (Industrial Research)
  Metric System
  Metric System
WALES
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government (Associations)
  Local Government (Associations)
  Housing
  Housing

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Lord Poltimore—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

GIBRALTAR: PUBLICITY FOR BRITISH CASE
2.36 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 whether, in view of the fact that the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs has recently handed to M. Antonio Iturmendi, President of the Cortes, the second Spanish Red Book on Gibraltar, they will lay before Parliament a White Paper refuting the Spanish arguments and reiterating the British case.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): Not at present, my Lords. The British case over Gibraltar has been amply documented in three White Papers—Commands 2632, 3131 and 3325. But the need for a further White Paper will, of course, be kept under review.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the final part of his Answer. Whilst Her Majesty's Government are keeping this question under review, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be in this country's interest to publicise our case to a greater extent, whether it be by
126
refuting the Spanish arguments on the Algeciras prohibited area, on the referendum, on their so-called worldwide support by the Press or on their references to the naval and air base; or, finally—and I think this is important—by showing up some of their arguments, which I believe are tantamount to recolonisation proposals for Gibraltar?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this second Spanish Red Book, to which reference has been made, is almost 1,000 pages long. No English translation has yet been made available, but from the examination of it that we have been able to make it does not seem to contain anything which is not already familiar in the Spanish case. As I have said, Nye will bear in mind the possible need for yet a fourth White Paper on this subject, and we will certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said about keeping our views in front of public opinion.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, in view of the fact that these Spanish Red Books get quite a wide circulation in the world, would not the noble Lord reconsider this matter of producing a further While Paper and also of sponsoring for it at least as wide a circulation in the world as the Red Books get?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will certainly bear that in mind. As I have said, we will keep this possibility under review and take account of what is said in your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government give a further unequivocal assurance that it is not their intention to hand over Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians to Spain, in any circumstances?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, our position on sovereignty is quite clear. We will not go into talks on the basis that sovereignty over Gibraltar is to be transferred to Spain. We are determined that the views of the inhabitants, and where their interests lie, shall not be ignored.

MIDDLE EAST: SETTLEMENT OF ARAB REFUGEES
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the continuing deadlock in the Middle East and the consequent danger to world peace, they will propose to the United Nations that an international loan should now be raised through the World Bank for the purpose of irrigating land at present occupied by Israel, and settling Arab refugees upon it, without prejudice to the terms of any future peace settlement.]
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords. It would not be appropriate, or indeed helpful, for Her Majesty's Government to make any proposals for a Middle Eastern settlement while the special representative of the Secretary General, Mr. Jarring, is himself engaged in discussions in the area.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask him whether he thinks there is really any chance of a peace settlement so long as the Russians continue to arm Egypt and Syria, and also whether he thinks we can be content to see this refugee problem drag on for ever? May I also ask whether the Foreign Office have paid any attention to your Lordships' debate last summer, upon a Motion moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party, in which many noble Lords in all parts of the House who have special knowledge of this subject spoke?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the question of the supply of arms to the Middle East goes slightly outside the confines of the original Question, although I should be pleased to answer a Question on that subject if the noble Earl would care to ask one. So far as the refugee problem is concerned, I do not think it would be possible to make any proposals for settling Arab refugees on land presently occuped by the Israelis without prejudice to the terms of the future peace settlement. It is of course
128
precisely these two questions—the refugee problem and the fate of the territories at present occupied by Israel—that are likely to be major issues in the making of any peace settlement at all.
Of course the Foreign Office have paid the greatest attention to the debate in your Lordships' House, as they always do; but I think we must accept that a solution to the refugee problem, on which so many interesting and moving things were said in your Lordships' House, is bound to be a central part, as I have said, of any Israeli-Arab settlement, and I do not think it would be helpful for me to comment on this while Mr. Jarring is conducting his mission.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, while we appreciate very much my noble friend's point as regards refugees in the Middle East—and this is undoubtedly an outstanding problem which must be dealt with before any peace terms can be accepted—could he say whether, now that we have a representative in Cairo, there is any prospect of getting the Arab States to recognise the State of Israel? Because I think it will be generally accepted that this is the first prerequisite before there can be any possible peace settlement, or any real effort made to re-house these unfortunate people who are refugees in that part of the world.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, now that we have re-established diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic and have an Ambassador there, of course we shall make the fullest possible use of him in representing our views to the Government of Egypt. I think the question of the recognition of Israel by the United, Arab Republic—a difficult and complicated question—again goes slightly outside the framework of the original Question. So far as these refugees are concerned, I must repeat that Her Majesty's Government have a great interest in, and concern for, the fate of these refugees, but I would make the point that it is not only the Governments of the countries concerned which have to be consulted here. Any resettlement scheme for Arab refugees must take account of the wishes of the individuals themselves. This is not simply a Government-to-Government matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I appreciate all the considerations that

129
my noble friend has put forward, may I ask him whether he will give particular attention to the constructive proposal made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee? Is it not the case that if these territories were under the auspices of the United Nations it might not prejudice any peace settlement, and that any agreement regarding the settlement of the refugees would be a tremendous contribution to an ultimate solution of this problem?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course we will take into account the suggestion of the noble Earl and any other constructive suggestion made in your Lordships' House. But on this question of placing any territories in the Middle East under the United Nations administration or of establishing an international zone, I think I must say that it really is not for Her Majesty's Government to make proposals regarding the transfer of the sovereign territory of another State. But certainly we will bear in mind all suggestions made in this House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that about two months ago I asked him whether he would use his good offices to see that before the cold weather came in these new refugees were accommodated other than in tents? Can he tell me whether they are still in tents, or whether he has kept his promise?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I always try to keep promises made either here or anywhere else. We have certainly kept a careful eye on the situation in the Middle East. I ask my noble friend to agree with me that it would not be helpful for me to comment in your Lordships House on resettlement of any kind while a United Nations' special representative is engaged on a mission in the Middle East for just this very purpose.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could my noble friend give me an answer as to whether the refugees are still in tents?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot give that answer. I do not have the information by me. I will get it, and my noble friend will have an answer before to-morrow evening.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I returned from Israel yesterday—that I have had the opportunity of seeing many refugee camps in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank of Jordan? In fact, the refugees are not in tents but in houses. They are barrack-like buildings; certainly not tents.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information. I have no doubt that this information exists in the Foreign Office. I am only sorry that I did not have it by me when my noble friend Lady Summerskill asked her supplementary question.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a further question? Supposing the Israelis themselves begin to do this, would the Government think it appropriate that they should ask the United Nations for any help in doing so?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, answering hypothetical questions is a dangerous business at any time. At tips particular time, with the United Nations' representative in the area, it would be even more unwise.

BANK STAFFS' NEGOTIATING MACHINERY
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 what have been the results of the discussions between the Ministry of Labour, the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations, and the National Union of Bank Employees regarding recognition of the last-named and an adjustment of the negotiating machinery.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour had separate discussions with the parties on January 17, 1968. He suggested that the question of

131
banking hours, including arrangements in respect of Saturdays, on which the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations have been pressing for current negotiations to be brought to a conclusion as a preliminary to tripartite talks about the establishment of national machinery, should be a matter for early negotiation within that machinery as soon as it was established; and that on this understanding the tripartite talks should begin at an early date. These suggestions are being considered by the three organisations.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, whilst I welcome very much the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter, may I ask whether it is not a fact that negotiations have been held up by the demand of the staff associations that acceptance of payment for Saturday work should be dealt with prior to the establishment of national machinery? Will the Government continue to urge that national machinery should be set up and that this should be made a priority when the discussions take place?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, so soon after the Minister's meeting with the parties, I would not wish to make any further comment other than to express the hope that the tripartite meeting will take place in the very near future.

BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it will be seen that an unprecedented number of Peers have put down their names to speak in the debate to-day and to-morrow. This number poses certain obvious problems, not least for those who serve us in and around this House. It is proposed that this evening we should adjourn for half an hour, between 7.30 and 8 p.m., and dinner will be available from 7.30 to 8.30 p.m.
My noble friend Lord Chalfont will be dealing this evening with matters especially related to foreign policy and defence, and because it was considered that it would be helpful to those who will be taking part in the debate to-morrow that his words should be available in Hansard in the morning (and conceivably the Report of the latter part of to-day's
132
debate will not be published until later), he will be intervening between 9 and 9.30 p.m. It will be possible for the Government spokesman opening tomorrow to deal with points raised after my noble friend's intervention. It is hoped that the Division to-morrow will take place at a convenient hour, and the House will meet at 2 p.m. Dinner will be available.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION AND PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
2.49 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in rising to move the Motion, "That this House approves the policies announced by the Prime Minister in his Statement made to the House of Commons on 16th January", I am conscious that my baptism as Leader of your Lordships' House is not taking place in the most auspicious circumstances. But one thing I do promise, and that is that I will not seek to gloss over the hard facts or in any way to conceal or to deceive the House as to the realities of the situation as I see it.
I regard the present debate as, in a sense, a continuation of the debate that took place last week in another place, and I do not, therefore—I am sure your Lordships will be relieved to know—intend to repeat all the things that were said on that occasion. Let me say straight away that I have no illusions about the consequences of recent events. They have been damaging to the country and to the standing of the Government; though perhaps it may come from the Opposition that the damage to the former is rather less than to the latter. We frankly admit that with devaluation we have suffered a defeat. The reductions in public expenditure which we have been forced to make are painful, and some are very painful to different individuals. There are certain ones which are painful to me. But equally, my Lords, we do not want to get them out of perspective, and I will try, without, as I say, glossing over the facts, to put them into the perspective from which I believe we should view the situation. I cannot hope in this speech to cover more than a small part of the issues before us, but I will try to touch broadly on the economic situation and then deal with defence; and my noble

133
friend, Lord Chalfont, will be dealing with defence and foreign affairs more fully later.
The first and major question is: Are the measures which have been taken by the Government those that the country really needs? I believe that they are, but one can accept this only if one recognises two things: first, by looking at these decisions in the context, because taking anything out of context makes it become rather misleading; and secondly, by recognising that part of the background is devaluation. The way to handle defeat is not to sink into despondency; it is not to become a nation of moaners. In recent weeks there has perhaps been excessive or over-criticism. It is a fundamental problem in a democracy. The Opposition Parties have a duty to criticise the Government, and no one would deny them that right. But I think we should all be inclined to agree that there has, perhaps, been excessive despondency and anxiety to find a scapegoat to blame. We blame ourselves and we blame the Government, and some of this blame is right; but let us not think that this, in the long run, is the best way to get the best for Britain.
We also have to look rationally and coolly at where we are now, in the early months of 1968, and not just where we were before the war, or where we hoped we were in 1964, or where we thought we were before devaluation. Those events are past, and indulging in nostalgia, either economically or in Imperial terms, or crying over spilt milk will not take us very far. I could not more wholeheartedly endorse the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plea to us to face the realities of the situation as it is now in 1968. That means us all, including the Government. I would ask those opposite to do the same. It is no longer enough to say that what we have done in the past is wrong. With the benefit of hindsight it may well seem to have been. But that is not the point, I think, so far as this debate to-day is concerned. The point is that the critics of the Government must say what they would do instead, accepting what has already gone before. It is the constructive alternatives that we need to examine. Undoubtedly everybody, including the Opposition, has regrets. I can only say that we all have them.
My Lords, I intend to deal with this subject in three parts. I should like to
134
say something first about the context of the situation facing the Government, the economic situation and the military and foreign policy situation; and secondly about the Government's strategy for dealing with these and the part in the strategy which is played by the measures that were announced last week. I think it is necessary to deal with the economic front in rather more detail because this sets the background for the military and foreign policy position. It should not, of course, determine in detail one's foreign policy; but there is little point in a foreign policy which is not backed by the military resources to carry it out, nor is there much point in military expenditure which puts such a strain on the domestic economy as to place the continued prosperity, and even the viability, of the country at stake. The first duty of any Government is to defend its citizens, but in terms of the whole of a Government's duty it is not an absolute. It is a relative priority, but perhaps the most important of the relative priorities.
My Lords, the basic fact of the economic situation is that in 1964 (I am not here making a Party point) we faced the biggest deficit on our balance of payments since the war. This deficit was made up of three parts: the deficit on visible trade, on our exports and imports; the growing burden of Government expenditure overseas and, thirdly, an outflow of long-term capital. The Government chose to tackle this problem on these three fronts. First, the visible trade deficit was the result of 15 years or more during which money incomes had gone up faster than output; and this continual decline in competitiveness led to the visible deficit growing larger in every phase of post-war expansion and the swings that we had.
This decline had to be tackled—ant these have been the objectives of all post-war Governments—both by increasing productivity, and therefore real incomes, and by restraint on the large growth of money incomes. Productivity was tackled through the tax structure, by corporation tax; by selective employment tax; by the direct investment grants and through the restructure of industry via the Ministry of Technology, the "little Neddies", the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, regional policies and the use of the regional employment premium combined with the differential investment

135
grant. Income policy was tackled first on a voluntary basis and then more drastically during the freeze by legislation.
The second cause of our troubles, Government expenditure overseas, was tackled by reviewing our foreign policy objectives and aiming at a ceiling of £2,000 million for the defence budget. It was, however, inevitable that savings on that front would take considerable time to accrue, and we did not expect to come below this ceiling until about 1970. The third difficulty, the long-term capital account, was tackled by the firm exchange control of investment outside the sterling area and by a voluntary programme of restraining investment within the sterling area.
Our weaknesses therefore were being tackled on all three fronts: on competitiveness, on Government expenditure overseas and on the outflow of capital; and in the early months of 1967 there was every reason (even granting, as we could see then and can see more clearly now, the basic vulnerability of our situation) to suppose that those polices were working. Three-quarters of the balance of payments deficit had been eliminated; productivity had increased more than in any previous inflationary period; money wage rates had stayed constant for six months and the economy was strengthened and ready to move forward. Then new and unforeseen factors intervened. Again I am not using these to defend but to explain, and again it points to our basic vulnerability. They were the Middle East crisis, the unexpected slackening in the growth of world trade, and the dock strike. In these changed circumstances it became clear (it became clear to some earlier than to others) that the policies were insufficient or had not had enough time to work to correct the balance of payments problem; and with the accompanying speculation, it was clear that devaluation was inevitable. This, as I freely admit, was a defeat: it was the defeat of a strategy which had aimed at maintaining the existing position. I would say—and I hope that your Lordships would broadly agree—that a defeat does not necessarily mean a condemnation of the policies that lie behind this strategy. I believe that their importance and their relevance are still valid. In the post-devaluation situation we still need to increase our productivity
136
and our production, to improve our industrial structure, to reduce the regional imbalance and to limit the outflow of money, both of Government expenditure and on private account. Finally, we need, as we have needed for so long, a prices and incomes policy even more. Devaluation helps us to get back into a competitive position and gives industry an opportunity to expand in world markets, but it does not by itself stop the decline in our competitiveness. It is a breathing space and a stimulant, but it is not the cure of the disease itself. Only by holding down the large growth of costs and prices relevant to other countries can we grasp and hold the full advantages of deflation.
To summarise briefly, the economic situation as I see it is this. Given the developments in the world situation, the Government's policies were inadequate to avoid devaluation but these policies are still valid in the new situation. What is now required is that we grasp the opportunities that are offered to us. This means two things. First of all, we must ensure that home demand does not grow so rapidly that export demands are frustrated, and in addition it must be operated so as to remove the demand of inflationary elements in the situation. Secondly, it means an incomes policy. We must continue our restraint of money incomes. The Government measures of last week are directed to both these ends.
Correcting our balance of payments by any means involves selling more exports and buying less imports. It is therefore absolutely inevitable that there is less available than there would have been for us to consume at home. Increases in both public and private consumption must be restrained. Some might say that the whole of these restraints should fall on personal incomes, but I am sure your Lordships would agree that that is not a viable proposition. It would involve very heavy increases in taxation and almost intolerable falls in the take-home pay of some sections of the community. Such a policy could be self-defeating. People would tend to react to tax increases either by de-saving or by making bigger wage claims. If demand were to be restrained still further, taxation would be needed and would only worsen the situation. Then wage claims could force up costs and prices and the competitiveness gained by devaluation would be lost.

137
Equally, some would say that the adjustments should be taken largely in the public sector, but I suggest that this again is unrealistic. It is just not possible to cut some of the programmes violently in the short term. Much of the expenditure reflects decisions taken some years ago, and to stop it now would involve leaving schools, hospitals or roads only half built, which would be economic nonsense. It would throw some of the burden on to the poorer sections of the community. Finally, such a view would be short-sighted. We need economies in the programmes, cutting the areas where least harm would be done, and this has been our aim. More drastic reductions would have meant that the nation would have found itself either with out-of-date transport or ill-educated or poorly housed, and again none of these is a basis for economic growth.
As I have said, the overriding conditions to make devaluation a success are adequate control of home demand combined with an effective incomes policy. The first of these considerations suggested that large cuts in total consumption were necessary; the second that not all such cuts should fall on personal consumption. I suggest, therefore, that any critics of the Government's policy must tell us the alternative ways of cutting roughly the same amount out of public expenditure.
There is one final point I would make briefly on economic strategy. It is clear that restraint on personal consumption is still to come and there has been criticism of the Government for not doing this all at one time. I can see the force of that argument, but our aim is an expansion led by exports. This certainly means restraining home demand, but we must not hit it so hard that business confidence is lost. This is a very delicate matter. We do not know how quickly the effects of devaluation on exports will occur, and no amount of theoretical work or contingency planning will alter this. Therefore there are positive advantages in waiting to see how devaluation is developing. My personal information suggests a tailing off of the Christmas boom in which such enormous increases in trading took place. This is all that I feel I have time to say at this moment in justifying in broad outline the Government's economic policy. I could go into
138
further details, and I wish there were time, but there are so many speakers that I think your Lordships would rather that the debate developed.
But I must say something about a matter of deep concern to us all—that is, the subject of defence. Indeed my right honourable friend the Prime Minister put it first in his review on January 16. I think we all recognise that the July White Paper and the more recent Statement do effect a radical change in our position. We have shifted our ground towards Europe and our home base, thus emphasising that the defence of this country depends primarily upon the defence of Europe. At the same time we have had to review our commitments overseas.
It is hardly necessary to remind your Lordships that this is not a new process. It is only six months ago that we debated in this Chamber the subject of defence, and in my opening words in that debate I pointed out the need to relate Government expenditure on defence to our national wealth and said that the absolute essential requirement was an unshakable economic base for Britain; and this, I made clear, involved moving our focus more and more towards Europe. I drew attention to the major decision that had been made in the July White Paper, that we should withdraw altogether from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia in the mid-1970s. And your Lordships are now aware of the events which have accelerated that process of withdrawal and made it necessary to fix a date for our withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. Wide-ranging changes have been made not only in the deployment but also, resulting from these decisions, in the size and shape of our forces and in the nature and scale of the equipment which they will require.
It is possible to look at this subject of the withdrawal from and reduction in commitments emotionally, selfishly. Realistically, or according to any of the other words that could be applied, but I do not myself believe, whatever may have been said in the debates on the subject, that the differences between the two sides in this year 1968 are as great as might appear. I do not believe that there are many left who would think that we should have retained indefinitely bases East of Suez, for this would run contrary

139
to the whole pattern of our British Imperial history over the last fifty years. Indeed, the steady withdrawal is not inconsistent with the thinking of some of the more visionary of the men who built the British Empire.
The process of withdrawal has continued under successive Governments. I do not know where we would begin it. We might relate it first to the withdrawal under the Irish Peace Treaty, or the granting of independence and subsequent withdrawal from Egypt; the granting of independence and the withdrawal of forces from India and Pakistan in 1949; the major withdrawals from Africa in the 'fifties. The Conservative Government carry much of the credit for the process of decolonisation and withdrawal in Africa, although there were some sensitive moments, particularly on the withdrawal from Suez, where, if I recall aright, at least one distinguished Member of your Lordships' House resigned from the Government. But whatever the reasons, there has been this steady process of withdrawal, sometimes because this was part of the hard facts of policy, but sometimes stimulated, as on this occasion, where the process has been speeded up by economic factors.
It will not be possible for me to give full details now of the changes in the Forces or the way in which the cuts in commitments are being introduced. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, speaking in another place on November 27, made it clear that cuts in our defence budget must be carried out in an orderly way, and that as our capabilities reduced with our commitments there must be the most careful consultation with our Allies at every point. We have on this occasion carried out these consultations. It is clear that our Allies and friends regret—and they have made this quite obvious—our decision. Recently we had a visit from the Prime Minister of Singapore, and again consultations continued right up to the last moment. We have been able to work out, particularly in the Malaysian situation, a scheme of assistance that will enable him, in consultation with his Allies in the area, to provide for those countries some of their own needs on security. In particular, there is agreement, subject to further discussion at professional
140
level, on the provision of an integrated system of air defence covering both Malaysia and Singapore. These discussions will continue also with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand.
It has been made clear that both in the Persian Gulf and in the Far East, apart from the Forces we shall maintain in Hong Kong, which it is not intended to reduce, our military capability will now be based on the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe. At the time of the July White Paper we had in mind that we might maintain a military capability even when we no longer had Forces permanently based in the Far East. At that time we had not decided what form this capability should take and whether it should be based in the area or not. We have now taken a firm decision that we shall not have a special capability after the withdrawal of our Forces from East of Suez. We shall, however, still possess a general capability which will be available, if necessary, for deployment overseas at short notice, so that we can not only fulfil our obligations to our remaining dependent territories but also, if necessary, go to the help of our friends and Allies.
The second point I would make is that my right honourable friend was concerned with the orderly process of our rundown. We shall have an opportunity in a defence debate shortly to go into this subject rather more fully. I have the figures here, but they have been published, and I will not weary your Lordships with them at this stage.
On expenditure, the table published with the Prime Minister's Statement shows defence reductions of nil in 1968–69, apart from the £100 million which was already announced last November. All these defence reductions are further cuts in a programme which had been reviewed and reduced on a number of occasions. The total saving from all these reviews, including the latest, on the cost of the programme which the Government inherited, is enormous. It will amount to more than £500 million in 1969–70 and about £1,000 million in the year 1972–73. Although these cuts are large, we ought not to get them out of perspective in relation to the Armed Forces themselves. The exact arrangements of these are still being worked out.

141
The main consequence to the Royal Navy of our withdrawal from the Far East and the Persian Gulf will be the earlier phasing out of the carrier force, but not until the reductions in commitments have been completed; and there will be some re-phasing in the rate of naval new construction. So far as the Army is concerned, certain reductions announced last July to take effect by April, 1971, will now be completed in 1970, and the further reductions foreshadowed to take place after April, 1971, will, it is proposed, be completed in 1972. The rundown in supporting manpower will take some more time; but we have to face, as we have had to face before, the fact that famous regiments with distinguished histories have to be amalgamated or disbanded. This probably occasions many of your Lordships more pain than almost any other single item.
For the Air Force it is the cancellation of the F.111 that is the greatest blow; and it is this cut in the Armed Forces, as your Lordships will understand, that I personally most regret. I will not conceal my feelings on this subject. We all have our Service loyalties, and my own connection with the R.A.F. and my spell of duty as Air Force Minister more than confirm my own affection and admiration and, indeed, I hope, sense of loyalty to the Service. In a sense, the F.111 had become for the Royal Air Force both the symbol and the reality of the strike reconnaissance power which, if they were to carry out the roles originally assigned to them, they judged to be essential. Now the F.111 is gone, and with it a particular capability which will not be replaced. But I hope that none of us will draw conclusions from this that the Air Force or the other Services will not continue to be superbly manned and well equipped Forces.
Perhaps in some ways the most damaging effects of the cuts will be on the lives and the morale of many Servicemen. I freely admit that these changes represent changes in policy which can cause both disappointment and indeed bitterness. But while I have shown, I hope, that I have no intention of deceiving either your Lordships or the men in the Armed Forces, there are certain factors that we should bear in mind. The Royal Air Force will be second to none in Europe. It will have over 1,000 aircraft,
142
400 of them the most modern jets. The, Phantoms, the Harriers, the Jaguars, the C.130s and the Nimrods will all be coming into service shortly, many of them next year, and indeed a lot of them (I am not attempting to make any Party point) before aircraft which had previously been planned to go into the Air Force. I say this to justify the statement I have made that the Royal Air. Force will still be superbly equipped.
The Army, though small in comparison to the conscript Armies of our European Allies, will still not only be a much larger Army than we had in Europe before the war but, again, will be, I believe, highly equipped. The Royal Navy will not only be the biggest Navy, in the world after those of the super Powers but will be larger than all the other European NATO navies combined. No doubt the Opposition will have legitimate grounds for criticising the Government's actions, but I hope that your Lordships will bear those facts in mind, because we do not want to get the matter totally out of perspective.
There is little difference of opinion on the basic nature of our problems. I would again urge your Lordships, before we get despondent, that we should regain some sense of proportion. Unlike the vast poor areas of the world which are engulfed by a real crisis between the population explosion and the limitations and rigidities of traditional agriculture, this is still one of the world's richest countries and a creditor country. The transfer of real resources, which is now required and which the Government are determined to carry out, to enable us to balance our international payments and acquire a surplus sufficient to meet our short-term obligations, and to find resources for productive investment, amounts to between 4 and 5 per cent. of the national income. As the process of readjustment will inevitably take some eighteen months to two years, this represents no more than the increase in the gross national product in the same period in unfavourable circumstances; and, my Lords, we should do better than that. On the cuts in social services, which again we all regret so much, it must be borne in mind that they are essentially cuts in planned increases rather than net reductions in present levels.

143
The measures that we have taken to defend the old parity, which failed in relation to defending the parity, are still exactly the same but they need to be reinforced. They are needed to make the new parity a success—retrenchment in foreign expenditure; a slowing down of the increase of private and public consumption. No axe; no cuts; a restraint which every one of us would practise in our own private lives, but which we seem unable to enforce for ourselves collectively. There is then, I claim, a need for both a sense of proportion, which at times we seem to lose, and a duty for restraint, which we have not as a country yet learnt. This House, I hope, will give the country and the world a lead in regard to this; and if we do, we shall find that we shall be able to say of 1968 that this year we really faced the economic and national issues that were put properly before the nation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the policies announced by the Prime Minister in his Statement made to the House of Commons on 16th January.—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.22 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper; namely, to leave out all the words after "House" in line 1 and insert: "while having no confidence in Her Majesty's Government whose mismanagement of the economy has led to the present situation, recognises that there is a need to curtail public expenditure, regrets that the Statement is purely negative in character, and deplores cuts in defence which involve breaking faith with friends and allies and will severely undermine our national security".
I am sure that your Lordships will wish me to preface my remarks by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, on his first major speech as Leader of the House. He has stolen such few runs as the rather sticky wicket on which he is batting has permitted him. I should also like to congratulate, in advance, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, on his maiden speech—my old boss at the Ministry of Defence. It was a far happier place in those far-off days, four years ago, than it is now. May I also, in
144
advance, congratulate the three score speakers who are to follow my noble friend, at least on their endurance.
This debate takes place against the sombre setting of the Prime Minister's Statement in another place last week: sombre in its disclosure of the economic pass to which we have been brought; sombre in its military consequences, at least for those who hold the honour of this country dear; and sombre, too, in its political implications. I doubt whether any of us has known a time when the man in the British street has ever entertained a deeper distrust for Whitehall and, indeed, Westminster. He distrusts the present Government. That, perhaps, does not surprise me, or indeed worry me unduly. But there are also signs that this particularised distrust may be flowing over to the institutions of our Parliamentary democracy itself—and that does worry me. Nothing will more surely exacerbate that more general and insidious distrust than the Party game played in a petty Party spirit in what is, above all, a time of real national emergency.
We are all in this for better or for worse. We must hope for better, even though improvement may improve the miserable prospects of our present miserable Government. I must confess that, from some points of view, I should have preferred a general debate these two days, a debate indeed without an Amendment and without a Division; more especially as there are some signs that the Government, late in the day though it is, and possibly under the impulsion of a Chancellor for whom I have a considerable personal and public regard, are acting with somewhat greater realism in some aspects of their economic policy. But to be asked actually to approve this package from this Government, after all that has gone before, with all the doubts the package itself raises and which have yet to be allayed, and containing as it does breaches of this nation's international commitments, commitments on which the ink is hardly dry—that is more than I can stomach. Hence, my Lords, this Amendment, an Amendment which I trust your Lordships will approve tomorrow evening.
Our Amendment refers to our lack of confidence in the Government's ability to manage the economy. I will cite just

145
one example of why we feel that lack of confidence. Only last November, at the start of this Session, we debated economic affairs. Many speakers from these Benches drew attention to the worsening economic situation, to that ugly and unprecedented conjuncture of heavy public expenditure, stagnant production, a worsening trade balance, obstinately high unemployment, and, not least, the pound under pressure. But all we got from the noble Earl the then Leader of the House—and I apologise to him for singling him out—was a bromide, the sort of bromide that this Government have been administering to the people of this country for the last three years. But we know that the picture we painted was not overdrawn. We now know that our visible trade deficit last year, at £565 million, was higher than that for 1964. And within a fortnight of that bromide we were debating devaluation.
My Lords, that devaluation, and the painful package presented to us last week, are the direct consequences, I hold, of the Government's actions and lack of action. They are the direct result of uncontrolled public expenditure, of irrelevant nationalisation, of ill-digested and unduly complicated fiscal measures and of ideological extravagances like the total arms ban on South Africa. But all through these last three years there has been a further and recurrent theme. Time and time again this Government have been some months behind the economic hunt. Time and time again, through failure to take stiff and painful action in time, they have been forced some months later to use still stiffer and more painful measures. The economic history of the last few months illustrates only too vividly this sorry and recurring pattern: the initial complacency—the bromides; the failure to concert measures in advance. Hence the mishandling of the act of devaluation; hence the lack of proper
contingency planning; hence the two months' delay between devaluation and the present package. And, curiously enough, this Government, who have shown more sensitivity for their public image than any Government in recent times, have nevertheless shown themselves curiously inept in their public handling of these events.
The Prime Minister in his post-devaluation tranquilliser did his best to
146
blunt the psychological impact of devaluation. I am glad to notice that there has been a change since then. I was glad to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to this frankly as a defeat. The Cabinet, by their daily dose of January leaks, no doubt unwittingly dented in advance the impact of the particular package we are discussing to-day. It is not surprising that we question the Government's ability to manage the economy. We—and it is not only we; it is unfortunately also the outside world—question the substance of their policies, and also their presentation.
This lack of confidence in the Government's past performance is a heavy carryover when we, and the outside world come to examine the Government's present package. We recognise—and the Amendment recognises—the need for cuts in public expenditure, given the pass to which we have been brought. We also welcome the first signs that the Government are edging towards sanity in the administration of the social services, in their reluctant and belated conversion to selectivity. But there are three specific cuts in the civil field which I feel bound to question. If roads are to take their cuts it is right that the main weight of the cuts should fall on the secondary road system, but I am more doubtful myself whether in the scale of national cost-effectiveness it is sensible to cut so heavily into the major road programme, especially when we all know how much of the operation of the railway system in this country is uneconomic.
Conversely, my Lords, we are highly critical of the third approach, in paragraph 53 of the White Paper, towards the size of the Civil Service. It has been swollen in three Socialist years by 57,000 people, getting on for the number of our troops whom Mr. Healey intends to get rid of during the next five years. Containing growth is quite insufficient. Reduction is what is required: reduction to targets expressed for each Department—financial targets, I would suggest, related to manpower—and if the concomitant to such a reduction is less legislation, so much the better.
Finally, education. I suspect that not all my noble friends will be with me on this matter, but I for one, not only respect Lord Longford for his resignation; I

147
also wish he had won his battle to maintain Sir Edward Boyle's date of 1970–71 for the raising of the school age to 16. I recognise the difficulties of so doing, but I am convinced myself that the disadvantages to the nation of not so doing outweigh the difficulties. If we are to pull ourselves up in this technological age by the technological bootstrap, we need many more skilled workers and technicians, and this demands at least a full five-year secondary course. Moreover, the continuation of the present system, with its glaring imbalance of those staying on between the North of this country and the South, makes nonsense of the Government's regional policies. I deplore this particular retrenchment, and I wish that more of the noble Earl's colleagues had had the courage of their previous convictions.
So much for specific criticism of the package. I must add a number of general observations about it. The White Paper, if one examines it closely, demonstrates with really startling clarity how during these last three squandered years of this Government public expenditure, despite successive flourishes of the axe, has got quite out of hand. I should like to illustrate this by one example. Owing to the stagnation in our production, it would seem likely that the shortfall in the gross national product in 1970 will be some £2,560 million—that is, below the original target in Mr. Brown's National Plan. But public expenditure by 1970, judging by the figures in the White Paper, will be only some £50 million or £60 million below the original target planned. That, my Lords, is after the present cuts. It raises to my mind, at least, a doubt whether the present package, the November package coupled with the present one, is even now adequate.
That doubt is reinforced by the "phoniness" of some of the cuts themselves. The Government claim that they amount to £300 million. It is a marvellous feat of juggling. On the one hand they exclude from the figures for the next two years the very considerable cancellation charges which will have to be paid then, on the specious grounds that they are transitional. No more transitional than the men who have made these cuts! On the other side of the ledger, they include £80 million for not accelerating
148
the payment of investment grants, having never previously announced that they ever contemplated such further acceleration. It looks as if the true cuts in the package for next year are much nearer £200 million than the £300 million the Government claimed. It also looks as if the Government—at least to this suspicious observer—have fiddled the books in order to appear more bloody, bold and resolute than in fact they are. This is no way to inspire confidence.
So much for the package itself. But once again the presentation of the package appears as faulty as the package. Once again the economy is being exposed to the erosion of Government by driblets. It is clearly the Government's view that devaluation will not work—that we shall not secure sufficient elbow room for more exports—unless, in addition to the cuts in public expenditure, decisive action is taken to restrict consumption. I personally accept the fact that it is unreasonable to ask the new Chancellor of the Exchquer to advance his Budget before mid-March. I would dissent from the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the Christmas spending spree is not continuing—that it is losing momentum, as he expressed it. Any sane housewife who needs a new cooker is rushing to the shops to get it now. I must ask the noble Lords who will be replying, "Is it, or is it not, the Government's intention to use the regulator?" If it is, and if Mr. Jenkins waits for two months, he will need on March 19 to be far more severe than if he were to act now. Surely to the biographer of Asquith the disadvantages of "wait and see" must be obvious. Surely if a touch of the regulator is necessary—and it certainly seems so to me—would it not have been better to have applied it as part and parcel of last week's package? Again, I would claim the Government have missed an obvious psychological opportunity. Again, this apparent absence of any overall economic strategy is no way to inspire confidence.
The third inadequacy in this inadequate package, and one which we deplore in our Amendment, is its air of total negation. My Lords, after these two months of waiting, the unfortunate and puzzled people of this country were entitled to receive not only a bleak

149
package of goods but also a coherent and positive definition of the Government's economic strategy. And this, my Lords, they still await. We still have to learn whether the Government are planning to increase industrial training, which we so clearly need. We still have to learn whether devaluation will be matched by a review and a reduction in our tariffs. We need—but it looks as if this is a need which will go unfulfilled with the present Government—an entirely fresh framework of industrial relations. There is much crying cut to be done by way of improving the machinery of Government and its economic administration. Above all, my Lords, we should be told what the Government are proposing in order to encourage savings and whether, most important of all, their first hesitant steps towards selectivity will be matched by a determination to rid themselves of old dogma and old ideologies, and to ensure that both individuals and corporations receive real incentives for worthwhile effort and success. But none of this emerges from this arid document, and very little has seeped through in the speeches by Ministers in another place. This silence, again, does little to inspire confidence or lo promote real recovery.
My Lords, I turn last to defence. I have tried, at the outset of this long debate, to make my criticisms of the Government's policy reasonably dispassionately. However, as one sees the wounds, the deep wounds, which the Government are inflicting on our Armed Forces, and as one surveys the plethora of broken pledges to those Armed Forces and to our friends and allies, to those who have had faith in us, I find it rather more difficult to avoid a trace of passion. I trust that in military matters I am not a "Blimp". I think that here I am with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, because I have recognised that it was unrealistic for us, looking further into this century, to visualise a permanent British military presence on the mainland territories surrounding the Indian Ocean. Likewise I have reckoned that in the intervening period the contribution we could make in and around the Indian Ocean might be marginal. I do not hold, and my Party do not hold, any post-Imperial illusions on this score. But what is crucial is the timing of withdrawal, the manner of withdrawal and what we leave behind.
150
Timing is vital and it usually only invites trouble if one advertises one's intentions unduly. That is one of the reasons why I was so critical of the fact that the dates for our probable withdrawal from Malaysia and Singapore were given in the Estimates last summer. If one was critical then, one must be despairing now. Now the dates have been significantly advanced. Now a definite timing is given for our extrication from the Persian Gulf. Now no latitude is apparently allowed to ensure that there is a real basis of stability in South-East Asia and in the Gulf before we quit. Now there is no mention of that amphibious force to be stationed either within or around the Indian Ocean with which, for a few brief months, Mr. Healey tantalised us. And, finally, there is the naked breach of undertakings given and obligations assumed, a bare six months ago. And for all this, my Lords, no real reasons in strategy or military posture are advanced. Only the plea of the economic pass to which our rulers have brought us—an argument which looks somewhat hollow when we read that, one way or another, real economies cannot be expected within two years or so.
It is clear (and I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said) that we must pursue these issues at greater length and in greater depth at an early date. Meanwhile, I wish to confine my comments and my questions to a minimum. In the Persian Gulf what I have mainly feared, at least in recent years, from a premature withdrawal of our direct military presence, was not so much a direct assault on our oil interests but rather that our withdrawal would exacerbate the overlapping claims of the Limitrophe States and lead, in the Gulf area, to a sort of civil war. It seemed to me, as I listened to Mr. Healey in his television interview last night, and as he was dragged knee-deep through a forest of his broken promises, that he was conscious of this danger. He talked about bending our efforts to ensure that there was agreement between the major Gulf Powers on the status quo when our military power was withdrawn. And in paragraph 15 of the White Paper we read that our forces there, after withdrawal, will be available for deployment, if need be, and if we judge it right, in the Gulf.
I put two questions to the noble Lord. First, what happens if by the terminal

151
date, the end of 1971, these conditions of stability have not been assured? Do we then just "rat"? Second, how, given increasing Soviet military penetration of the Middle East and of the Southern Mediterranean shores, do we see our reinforcements reaching the Gulf? Round the Cape, by sea, if they cannot over-fly? And, if so, does this not enhance the importance of the Simonstown base, about which my noble friend Lord Swinton knows so much and which the Government seem wantonly bent on discarding.
As for South-East Asia, I would only say this. Quite frankly, I regard this whole great region as perhaps the crucial arena in our world to-day. It is there, in my view, more than in any other region of the world, in which during the next half decade or so, the great issues of war and peace are most likely to turn. I confess that I was utterly astonished to read that in an interview which Mr. Healey gave to the Sunday Times on January 7 he was reported as saying:
"There is no doubt that the danger of war in South-East Asia at the moment is very low".
That seems to me to be one of the statements, to use Mr. Healey's own phraseology, that had better have been left unsaid.
We shall in due course have many questions to put to noble Lords opposite about the abdication of our responsibilities in South-East Asia, in particular towards Singapore and Malaysia. But I should like to ask one question here touching on our relations with New Zealand and Australia. It is of course inconceivable that we should not attempt to help them should these Commonwealth countries be threatened in a military sense. Those of us who saw the new Prime Minister of Australia on television yesterday evening will have noted that he expressed his lack of assurance about our ability, without bases and without an amphibious force in the area, to come if need be to the assistance of Australia from this country. As he put it, it raises
"a whole lot of questions to which I want to know the answer".
Does this mean that the Government have failed to consult in any proper
152
sense the Government of Australia? Or does it merely mean that, as usual, they have no plans and that there is no answer?
I do not quarrel with the Government's decision to give priority to our military forces in Europe. I am quarrelling only with the exclusive priority, and I wish to put only one question to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. In the White Paper there is talk of forthcoming negotiations over offset costs with the Federal German Government. In his winding-up speech in another place, however, the Foreign Secretary categorically stated—and I quote his words from col. 2077 of Hansard for January 18:
"That is why we are maintaining our contribution in Europe and why the cuts have been made elsewhere".
Can the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, categorically assure us that no further reduction in our Armed Forces on the Continent of Europe is contemplated?
One might have supposed that at the moment when the Government were planning to emasculate our Armed Forces they would at the same time be planning to build up our reserves. But not this Government, my Lords. Not a bit of it. At this precise moment, as your Lordships will have seen from paragraph 43 of the White Paper, they propose to cut home defence to the bone and to wind up, without a word of thanks or a word of explanation of the thinking behind their action, the Civil Defence Corps, the Auxiliary Fire Service and the Territorials—A. and V.R.III. I repeat—no explanation; no thanks; no consultation. It is the old story, with this present Government, of no consultation. If, as I trust, proper consultation is now going to take place between the Council of the Territorial Army and the Government, I hope that there will be no question of disbanding A. and V.R.III while these consultations are in train. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us an assurance to that effect.
My Lords, by their savage cuts the Government have done great damage to our national interests, our honour and the Armed Forces themselves. Mr. Healey seems to take quite lightly, at least in public, the breach of those undertakings. But at least he seems a trifle worried about the breach of faith

153
to the Armed Forces themselves, as well he might. In March, 1966, they were told that the major defence decisions had been taken. Only 15 months later there was a retreat from that promise. Further major decisions were taken, and then the finality formula was repeated. Mr. Healey had to eat his words again last November when a further £100 million was knocked off the Defence Vote. And now we have what amounts to a third or fourth Defence Review, if this quilt of broken promises can be called a Defence Review. And a fifth Review and a further White Paper now hang suspended over the heads of the Armed Forces.
The effect of all this, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, rightly recognised, upon the morale of our Armed Forces must clearly be devastating, and we must do all we can, whatever we may feel about these measures—and I hope both sides of your Lordships' House will join in this—to arrest what can be a very dangerous slide. I would therefore implore Mr. Healey not to worry too much about some of his more defined cost-effectiveness techniques—we have seen what their worth has been in practice—but to bend his not inconsiderable energies to making quick and definitive decisions and announcing them. We shall reserve our right to pitch into them if need be, but anything is better for the Armed Forces than this continuing and recurring uncertainty.
To conclude, what sickens me to-day, when I see the disarray of our economy and the dismantling of our defences, is the certain knowledge that this country can do so much better. We all know this perfectly well. We all know that this country is one which par excellence responds to a clear lead. But a clear lead demands clear, cogent and courageous leadership. Only this, in my view, will restore our confidence in ourselves and the confidence of others in us. I cannot honestly any longer pretend that this Government, this defeated Government, can exert that type of democratic leadership, and if this is so it is time they made way for one which can. I beg to move.
Moved, as an. Amendment to the Motion—
To leave out all the words after ("House") in line 1 and insert ("while having no confidence in Her Majesty's Government whose mismanagement of the economy has led to the present situation,
154
recognises that there is a need to curtail public expenditure, regrets that the Statement is purely negative in character, and deplores cuts in defence which involve breaking faith with friends and allies and will severely undermine our national security.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.53 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I propose, so far as I am concerned, and with the permission of the House, to concentrate this afternoon exclusively on the defence cuts. Later the views of the Liberal Party will be presented on the other cuts. May I, at the outset, say that I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that this is far too grave a matter for Party politics. I think we all agree that that would be very undesirable. But, my Lords, I believe you would think I was barely human if I failed to recall that, in deciding to remove the British military presence from the whole area of the Indian Ocean in a period of three or four years from now, the Government have in the main at last adopted the policy of the Liberal Party which I had the honour to develop, very broadly, in this House nearly three years ago, and which I have repeated at intervals ever since. Indeed, they have gone even further than we suggested as regards Singapore.
It is all very well for the noble Lord the Leader of the House (whom I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating most sincerely on his appointment; I could not do so yesterday as I was not here) with his charm and infinitely disarming manner, to suggest, as I think he rather did suggest at the beginning of his speech, that we ought, if possible, to forget the past. Admittedly, he seemed to say, "We may have made rather a mess of things, but, after all, that is all water under the bridges and so let us now chiefly concentrate on the future."
Nor do we, contrary to what he said, believe that it was not the actual policy of the Government in the matter of defence which was responsible for the present decision to evacuate the Indian Ocean area. It really was not a case of their being forced to adopt what they apparently believed to be a wrong policy by a series of accidents, by being blown off their course, or being stabbed in the back, or having a rock put in their way

155
by mistake by somebody else, or whatever. It was not, I say, a question of having to adopt a wrong policy owing to a series of accidents. It was, as we think, a case of adopting from the start a wrong policy which was bound to fail. That is our thesis and I am sure it is a right one.
Therefore I think it is necessary for me now to delve a little into the past, and I hope the House will excuse me if I do so. Naturally, on these Benches, at any rate, we take note with much satisfaction of the Government's conversion to our own policy, even if it is a forced conversion, while, as I said, we strongly deplore the fact that the Liberal policy was not adopted when the Government came into power at the end of 1964 or shortly thereafter. How many millions of pounds, how many hundreds of millions of pounds, mostly against the exchanges, have been, or will have been, squandered by the Government by the simple failure to read the writing on the wall? That is anybody's guess.
And the Government may well reflect, too, that had they not been so obstinate in their refusal to listen to Liberal advice they might well not have had, in extremis, as it were, to massacre one or more of their own sacred cows. Who knows, if it had not been for this obstinacy they might even not have been forced to devalue the pound. Certainly it would not have been necessary to violate the various pledges given to the admirable and excellent Prime Minister of Singapore.
What was the advice given by the Liberal Party at the beginning of 1965, nearly three years ago? It was, first that we should clear out of Aden within a reasonably short period of time and subsequently evacuate our various other bases in the Persian Gulf area. Here I may say I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that it is fatal in these matters to name a date. On the contrary (and I think I am speaking for my noble colleagues here), we think that it is only if you do name a date that you will ever get out of these bases; it is the only thing that precipitates the issue. If you do not name a date you go on and on until possibly you are forced out in terrible circumstances.
156
On Malaysia and Singapore—and your Lordships will remember that the confrontation, as it was called, with Sukarno was going on at the beginning of 1965—we suggested that, having liquidated all our island bases in the Indian Ocean and the Middle East (Cyprus being maintained for so long as there was acute Arab-Israeli tension) our communications should in future be organised "West-about", the other way round the world, and that—and here I quote my own words, which is not always a good thing to do—
"we should rather try to associate our European neighbours with us in an attempt, in co-operation with the Americans"—
and of course I meant also with the Australians—
"to establish a sensible, long-term plan for the general defence of South-East Asia, and conceivably, of course, also of India, if, as is by no means certain, the Chinese are found over the years to be incurably aggressive in this particularly sensitive area of the world."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/4/65, col. 192.]
In general, we suggested that the entire White Paper of the Government was totally unrealistic and should at once be scrapped and re-written. In making this last suggestion I am quite certain that everybody would now think that we were right.
Subsequently, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I questioned the whole potential role East of Suez of the F.111s which the Government insisted on ordering, and have now abandoned, at such a ruinous cost. Who, or what, I asked, were these expensive and potentially nuclear toys going to bomb, and in what conceivable circumstances? Why not rather rely chiefly, East of Suez, on what the Tory Shadow Minister of Defence at one time, and as we think most sensibly, described as an "Asiatic balance of forces", a conception, I believe, subsequently repudiated by the less enlightened leadership of the Tory Party—or perhaps it was not; I do not know.
All this advice, I repeat, is now accepted by the Government. But what a pity they did not accept it before! Your Lordships will remember that when it was first advanced on these Benches it was regarded by both the major Parties as a miserable scuttle—that was the word—which would plunge large areas of Asia into what was always referred to as

157
"chaos". Do the Government still maintain that this will be the inevitable result of the cuts which they now ask us to approve to-day? If they do not, why did they make such foolish remarks then? And would the Tories really, if they came into power, proceed again to imperil the pound by devoting hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of millions of pounds to the reconstitution of any credible British military presence in the Indian Ocean? Would they? If so, then let their colleagues in another place put that into their Election addresses and give some estimate of the cost, and see what happens to them at the polls.
I must say that I have often wondered why a Socialist Government who, after all, could hardly, on the face of it, have been expected to finance a sort of "white-man's burden" policy, should have embarked on a course which, as I observed, I say again, as long ago as April 8, 1965, in this House, ran a grave risk of ending up with a forced devaluation of the pound. I suppose that the main explanation is that they were not only obstinate but also, at that time, a little, I am afraid, swollen-headed. When they came into power the Prime Minister declared that our frontier was "on the Himalayas". I have not actually checked that reference, but no doubt some of my noble friends opposite will give me the date of it if they are so inclined. Then, after his election as Prime Minister, on his return from a triumphant visit to Washington he announced that the great thing for Britain was to "sit at the top table".
Of course, it is clear that the American Government approved of the world peace-keeping mission of Her Majesty's Government, and I suppose they may even have hinted that its maintenance was a condition for American support for the pound. I do not know. But how much better if we had said then, "Thank you, but we propose to maintain the value of our currency, if we can, by our own efforts, and notably by transforming ourselves into a primarily European State with no specific plans for peace-keeping except those assumed in common with our European colleagues and in connection with the United Nations. "However, the contrary attitude persisted, in spite of the gradual, and, I must confess, rather reluctant conversion of the Government, again on Liberal
158
advice, to an acceptance, if not even now, I am afraid, an entirely full acceptance, of what might be called "the European idea". I may perhaps just add here that, as I think Le Monde pointed out last week, if the present change in defence policy had been made earlier our application to join the European Economic Community would have looked much more convincing.
Looking back, one finds it a little extraordinary to observe the number of times when Government spokesmen have declared their absolute belief in the necessity, or apparent necessity, of a world peace-keeping mission for this impoverished country. It was presumably the ghost of the old British Empire speaking. In many ways, nothing is so fundamentally conservative as the Labour Party, and none are so unwilling to abandon the modes of thought and the trappings of our Imperial heritage. At long last, the ghost seems now to have been laid; but until and unless Mr. Healey resigns it will probably, I am afraid, linger on in Cabinet meetings. Positively its last appearance is likely to be in connection with Mauritius.
Well, in politics, I am told and I believe, it seldom pays to dwell on the past, so let us now concentrate just for a moment on the future. What, then, is likely to happen now? However inevitable, it is of course always dangerous to disengage. Nobody would dispute that. But the point is that in our present condition it would be, as we here believe, much more dangerous not to disengage. For then we should probably be sucked into local wars without having the means to pursue them; and nothing could be worse than that. Far from scrapping the aircraft carriers we should, as Mr. Mayhew said when he resigned, want many more carriers. It seems to me to be obvious that what should happen now is the replacement of Mr. Healey, who has been so wrong, by Mr. Mayhew, who has been so right. But as things are, I am not myself pessimistic. I am optimistic by nature. I do not see any real reason to be too pessimistic at the present time, when the Government have adopted what is, after all, as we think, the right policy.
Already, so far as the Gulf is concerned, there are signs—I have read it in the papers, and perhaps the Government

159
can confirm—that the Persians and the Saudis are willing to co-operate and are getting together; and that even the Trucial Sheikhs, or some of them, are, as it were, emerging stealthily from the Middle Ages. This is a healthy process; and to contemplate some fearful carnage in the course of which the Russians or the Egyptians, or both, will establish bases at Bahrein or in Muscat, or somewhere else, is much too pessimistic. Certainly, Russian penetration of the Middle East is a potential menace, but in our strange world of the nuclear balance of terror we must always remember that there is a point beyond which neither super-Power will dare to go. Thus, there is no reason why we and the Americans should not continue to support, if we want to, by gifts or the sale of suitable arms, for instance, those more reasonable régimes in the area which seem to have a good chance of establishing themselves after we go.
As regards the oil, the great thing is, if we can, to get some common policy adopted by the consumers. Here, unfortunately, we come up against the policy of France, who, as we all know, is at present in the process of waging a cold war against her friends. But this deplorable situation would have to be reckoned with whether we evacuated the Gulf or not, and can indeed, I suppose, be ended only when and if we enter the European Economic Community and develop with everybody else concerned some sensible common European policy.
On Singapore, all I can say is that I sincerely trust—and I hope that Lord Chalfont may reply to this later on—that the Government will not entirely ignore the possibility of working out, gradually of course, some scheme for maintaining some British presence in Singapore, even if it is quite limited, but with communications going the other way round the world; and in the process of doing so utilising the enormous facilities of America. After all, the Government, rightly as we think, are continuing to maintain a garrison in Hong Kong, and one might have thought that this could have been combined with some scheme whereby we, and eventually possibly Europe—let us hope so—could be associated with a long-term effort to help to defend Australia and, if possible,
160
to discourage the spread of a sort of militant anti-Western national Communism in South-East Asia, if that is found to be a danger in the course of the years. Heaven forbid that we should become involved in anything resembling the Vietnam war where, as it seems to me, the Americans have been for many years in serious error—and I agree with Walter Lippman over this—by allowing themselves to become involved in full-scale hostilities on the Asian continent. But there must be intelligent and profitable ways of maintaining a Western presence and influence, more especially given the fact that none of the nations concerned, and hardly any of the political parties in the nations concerned, want in any way to come under the influence of China.
There is one other point which I would mention. In my speech in this House in 1965, to which I have already referred, I said that the last thing we should do is seriously to reduce our troops in Germany. I believe that that is still true to-day. In fact it is even more important now than then, for since 1945, unhappily, the forces of nationalism have risen again in several European States; the Western Alliance is weaker; the sense of insecurity, whatever people may say, is growing. The B.A.O.R. is thus an essential component of NATO. It is proof—expensive proof, if you will—of our recognition that our vital interests demand full participation in the defence of Europe. It is very important that nobody should have any reason to doubt—I am sure they will not doubt—the Government's determination to maintain the B.A.O.R. even if they have to part with a considerable amount of foreign exchange in so doing. Of course, if technical economies can be made with no loss of efficiency, then well and good. But if there were any sign of our political will weakening, of our wanting to withdraw from our European responsibilities, I am quite certain that the consequences could be disastrous.
What can I say, my Lords, in conclusion? Perhaps only this. It must be obvious that for a nation such as ours, which ruled a quarter of the world for so long, the process of what has been called "disimperialisation"—
LORD CONESFORD: Oh, no!
LORD GLADWYN: —must be more painful than it is for other States. Yet this process was, and is, inevitable. After two World Wars and the rise of the super-Powers, it was obvious that the Raj could not endure and that it would have to be liquidated. The process of liquidation was rendered largely painless by the device of the Commonwealth—a highly intelligent and sympathetic device which concealed, for some time, as Kipling said, the "sinking of the fire"—a device which has a real and continuing value as a link between industrialised and non-industrialised countries, but still only a device. Now, however, we are indeed back in an island and if we do not want to join Nineveh and Tyre we must find another outlet for the energy, the intelligence and the huge capacity of our ex-Imperial people. There is, in practice, only one direction in which this energy can be put to profitable use, and it points across the Channel. Blocked at the moment, it remains the right road, and we should do well to regard the present difficulties in regard to our entry into Europe as temporary and proceed to do the things which are admittedly necessary before we can enter the European Economic Community in any circumstances.
I believe that the so-called "I'm Backing Britain" movement, however much it may be laughed at and criticised, is at least a sign that the British people are beginning to be conscious of the dangers of their present position in the world, and of the fact that nobody owes them a living. If this spirit catches hold, then, much more quickly than we at present think, we shall succeed in combining, in a new form, the ancient glories of Britain with the ancient glories of Europe. There, I believe, and only there, lies our hope and our destiny.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, we have listened to a fine exposition of the Government's case from the Leader of the House and to two very interesting commentaries from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. We have now the pleasure of listening to about fifty other speeches, including two important pronouncements from the Government side before we come to the winding-up speeches tomorrow night from the noble and learned
162
Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which I am sure will be most incisive. I realise that it is rather difficult for a former leader of the House to pay a compliment to the Leader of the Opposition which will not embarrass him. If I imply that Lord Carrington was a marvellous partner, there will be a suggestion that in some way I have "wrapped him up", so I must be careful what I say. But everyone who knows him and who has seen him in this House will agree with me that he is one of the greatest patriots in this country, and that in all he does he puts the country first.
We are looking forward, as soon as I have sat down, to a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. He has followed me, after a good many years, into this House and is following me in this debate. But I have just followed him in another important activity, the art of resignation, and therefore I am a humble student at his knee. I hope he has found that as the years have passed he has benefited, or the world has benefited, or that somebody has benefited from that great act of sacrifice. I was reading this morning the journal of the late Pope John, and this passage was written when he was about 22:
"When it is right for me to speak, I will make a point of never speaking about myself either well or ill and never in any way referring to my own affairs unless I am asked about them."
I would gladly subscribe to that doctrine, but it is a little difficult in the circumstances. The House is engaged to-day and to-morrow in pondering vast matters of long-term moment to this and other countries, and I do not want to distract attention to my personal problems; but I am sure that noble Lords will expect a few words from me as to why I have resigned from the Cabinet and from the Leadership of the House.
Let me say at once that I resigned on one issue only, by common consent a major issue, as I and many others see it: an issue of enormous significance. I refer, of course, to the decision of the Government to postpone by two years the raising of the school-leaving age. The last Government pledged themselves to a certain date. We in this Government reaffirmed that pledge—and I, as a member of the Cabinet at the time, fully shared the responsibility—as recently as September last year. If the Cabinet had

163
not decided on the postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age, I should have come down to this House and played a prominent part in sponsoring the "package". No one would suppose that, in so doing, I would have meant that every word was inspired—things do not happen in that way in this imperfect world. But I have sponsored it. Apart from this one great difficulty which I have just mentioned, I still feel that I should have been right on sponsor the "package" with all the moral responsibility involved. But with the school-leaving age included I had, and have, no doubt whatever that any words of commendation from me would have stuck in my throat. I should have forfeited my own self-respect for all time if I had uttered them, and the self-respect of anyone who knew me in this House or elsewhere.
My Lords, I shall be as brief as possible. The occasion for a fuller educational discussion can, I suppose, hardly fail to present itself. I was very glad that no attempt was made in another place by the Government spokesman to disguise the profound regret which is felt by the Government at the postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age. The Chancellor of the Exchequer described it as much the most repugnant part of the package, and my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Stewart said he was not going to pretend that the postponement was a blessing in disguise. This, he said—and I am quoting his words:
"is clearly a great disappointment, and it is really no good dodging the fact."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 17/1/68, col. 1904.]
I should hope that by now, therefore, it will be clear to all that there is no validity in the suggestion, which has certainly not been made this afternoon (and I was glad to feel that on this matter the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, sympathises with me), that there are technical educational reasons why this postponement was in any case desirable.
The same so-called educational arguments raised their heads for a short while, I believe—though I was not in the Cabinet, I was in the Government—in 1947, when the question was one of raising the school-leaving age from 14 to 15. They were mercifully defeated, however, and no one supposes that in 1947 we
164
should have done better to hold the age at 14. It was, indeed, made plain not long ago by a Government spokesman that progress was in a technical sense fully satisfactory, and therefore there is no educational excuse for delaying the introduction of the higher age. We must ask: what has brought about this catastrophic change between the pledge of September and the postponement by two years of to-day? The reason, of course—and I cannot possibly be giving away any secret, because it has been set out fully in public by my late colleagues—is that the economic prospect has in their view deteriorated so sharply that what was ruled out in September has become by January an inescapable duty.
I need hardly say that I do not for one moment question the sincerity of those who take that view. But let us take that purely economic ground for a moment. It does not represent by any means my whole philosophy, but I cannot feel that here the Government's line makes sense. Many experts, many informed commentators, the authors of the major educational Reports, expert American views are agreed. All these experts stress the relevance of raising the school-leaving age to 16 as a direct contribution to the Government's economic recovery. It seems incontestable that a highly industrialised society requires a higher all-round level of education for its citizens to survive and prosper. The Minister—a great friend of mine, incidentally, although there is no special meaning in that—admitted in September that raising the age would mean a loss to the labour force of about 350,000 a year. But this, he said, would be outweighed by the increase in the economic potential of school-leavers as a result of their continued education. It was said on behalf of the Government a few years ago, that the loss of manpower would be outweighed by the ultimate economic gain.
"We lament",
wrote Sir John Newsom to The Times on December 30—and I am sure we all have read, and many of us have debated in this House, the Newsom Report, as we have the Crowther Report, in past times—
"the brain drain of a proportion of our intellectually able overseas, but our traditional hypocrisy will be manifest if we dig our own drain for 300,000 of our young and push them down it."

165
I now quote Sir Geoffrey Crowther from the same issue of The Times.
"It is idiotic to suppose that we can be competitive and efficient without a broader educational base. The decision on the leaving age will be the touchstone of our national ability to get the priorities right."
If any two educationalists command more support than Sir John Newsom and Sir Geoffrey Crowther I shall be glad to know their names.
I can touch on only a few aspects of this general topic which must be pursued for a moment further. We are told that special assistance—and this kind of criticism was, I think, in the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—for the development areas will be maintained, yet it is precisely those areas that will be badly hit by the decision to defer the raising of the school-leaving age, for it is in those areas where the proportion of those who stay on beyond the age of 15 is at its lowest. There is a grave inconsistency here.
Passing from the economic to the moral aspect, the arguments are equally damaging. We know about the great regional imbalance, particularly the contrast between North and South. It is the underprivileged child who will suffer most from the postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age. There is the child from the home where there is no parental interest in education; and, even more tragic, possibly, there is the child from the home where sheer poverty or other distressing family circumstances force the parent to deny the child the educational opportunity he desperately wishes to give it. Whatever may be the case in other circumstances, it is precisely the weak and underprivileged who will come off worst in education under this proposal.
There are other educational points that I ought to be making but, as we know, there are fifty other speakers. There is a grave doubt in my mind as to whether the full economies will ever be achieved. There is the whole question of the impact of the postponement on delinquency among the young; and many of us who remember that telling speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in our last debate on crime will not need me to underline that point. But two points must at least be mentioned. Sir Edward Boyle,
166
honoured among educationists everywhere, said in 1964 that
"setting a firm date for the raising of the age must be regarded"—
and I am using his words—
"as a test of our commitment to secondary education for all."
He clearly thinks the same to-day; and I am sure he is right. Another point—and it is a very vital one—is this. Whatever may be the case with other features of the package this decision, once it takes effect, cannot be revoked. It deprives many children of opportunities to which they are entitled and which we have promised them, and those opportunities cannot be returned to the children in question. They will be lost to them, by our action, for ever.
So much has been said, and will be said, in one form or another, no doubt very often, by all who care for education. But perhaps for a moment or two—it will not be longer—I can ask forgiveness for striking a different note. Nearly forty years ago, soon after leaving Oxford, I went to live in the Potteries, teaching for the W.E.A., at night, and by day in what would now be called a secondary modern school and later a grammar school. From this experience I acquired a lifelong belief in equality of opportunity for all as a supreme social aspiration, and in equality of educational opportunity as the very centre of that vision. For some time after that experience in the Potteries I worked, as was mentioned by my old friend the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in the Conservative Research Department, under the munificent rule of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I struggled for quite a while—two years perhaps—to see whether ideas such as those I had acquired could be fulfilled under the Conservatives. I reached the conclusion, rightly or wrongly—and I have never doubted the rightness of it—that that was in fact impossible.
When, eventually, I joined the Labour Party thirty years ago the idea of educational equality seemed to me at the very heart of our political convictions. I believe that that is still true. I believe it still lies at the heart of everything we stand for. Nothing that has occurred in recent weeks disturbs my ultimate confidence, but, for me, this postponement of the raising of school-leaving age in all

167
the circumstances represents a grave, if temporary, departure from our fundamental Party principles. Against it I could not fail to make the fullest public protest in my power. I hope and believe that a return to the true path will be swift, total and vigorous.
My Lords, one final word, in a wider perspective. As has been mentioned already to-day, politicians of all Parties are receiving hard knocks just now, many of them, though not perhaps all of them, unjustified. Some of those scribes who are now denigrating the Prime Minister might read again with profit Robert Browning's poem, The Patriot, which begins with the famous line:
"It was roses, roses all the way …"
They may recall, in view of their present vicious disparagement, some of their eulogies which were written about the same man not so many months ago. Fortunately, Mr. Harold Wilson is a man of great heart in the two recognised senses. He has the courage to endure and the mercy to forgive—and I would say the same of my other late colleagues.
But for myself, I have reached a stage when the Observer pays tribute to me as one who has now ended a distinguished career, which I think is equivalent, in other terminology which has also been applied to me in the past, to what is called, "being put out to grass". I would not know where the borderline came between those two kinds of fortune. I can therefore, perhaps, for once abuse the privilege of senility and issue a respectful warning, not to my own Party any more than to any other Party—and certainly I do not speak as one who is holier than anyone else. The public are said to be disillusioned. I do not think that that is true in any fundamental sense, but I do think—and it seems to me that we must all agree—that they are bewildered. They have lost their way, and they will not find it by magic or through the intervention of some deus ex machina, whether in the guise of a business chief or otherwise. If anyone is going to help them, it should be us.
It seems to me that we politicians, of all Parties, must clear our minds much more effectively than in recent times as to where our principles lie; and, indeed, as to what constitutes a principle. That
168
is not so easy as it sounds. For example, the postponement in these circumstances of the raising of the school-leaving age seems a principle to me, but it may not seem like a principle to others. So one cannot just fasten one's own principles on to other people. But I do believe that in times ahead we must all, particularly those with responsibilities in public life, spend more time and energy, and show more moral courage, in identifying, proclaiming and giving effect to the principles to which we are prepared to give our lives in peace time. I believe that if we can do that we shall find once more that the British people will respond wholeheartedly in their spirit of sacrifice and striving upward, in their love of justice and their love of home.
4.34 p.m.
LORD THORNEYCROFT: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House on the occasion of the first time that I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships. I believe it is customary to be non-controversial on these occasions, and I can only say that I will do my best. I count it a singular honour to be allowed to follow the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat. If I may be allowed to say so to him without presumption, I thought his speech fulfilled all the highest qualities that one has learnt to expect from a Minister in those particular circumstances. I do not know what powers arrange these things, but there must have been a certain wit in putting me in to follow after the noble Earl. I suppose it was felt that in some sense there would be as least one subject about which I had some experience in an otherwise complicated debate. But if I may say so to the noble Earl, I was moved by his early experiences in the Conservative Central Office, and even at this late stage I am sure that some opening could still be found. But, my Lords, we respect him, not only for the speech which he has made but for his whole attitude to public affairs; and if I may say so on your Lordships' behalf, though only a newcomer, we thank him not only for that but for the many services which he has rendered to your Lordships' House.
In a sense, this is also an anniversary for me. It so happens that it was on January 23, 1958, that I was making the same kind of speech as the noble Earl

169
has made. I was explaining in another place my reasons for parting from the Macmillan Government. As Mr. Anthony Sampson has reminded us in a recent book, Mr. Macmillan, who had great qualities, I think we shall all agree, and who will take a great place in history, found it exciting to live on the edge of bankruptcy. My Lords, I found it very exciting, too. So did my other colleagues in the Treasury. But we found it was an excitement which was perhaps scarcely consistent with our responsibilities for the national Exchequer, and we parted company. I rather reflect upon Pope John's remarks here.
I do not want to talk about myself for more than a moment, but it is an anniversary, and perhaps a couple of minutes would be permitted. I remember that I said then that no Party and very few people could escape all responsibility for some of the economic problems that we faced. I said—and I only recall these words; they may be useful to the noble Lord who is to make the winding-up speech—that we had been attempting to do more than our resources could manage, and that in the process we had been gravely weakening ourselves. I said that we were undertaking nuclear and conventional defences in the Far East, the Middle East and the Atlantic, plus attempting a Welfare State on one of the highest levels in the world: and that we were doing all this against a background of repayment of debt abroad, meeting maturing debt at home, setting up in business as an international banker and engaging on a large scale in foreign aid and investment. I said then, and I think I could say to-day, that these are not unworthy aims, and no one can condemn the men who pursue them, but it meant or had meant that we slithered from one crisis to another, and I warned that unless we mended our ways we should see a steady devaluation in the pound.
My Lords, I am neither so vain nor so silly as to imagine that everything I have said in public life is right, and I must confess to your Lordships that I have made many errors in public affairs. Indeed, I have been privileged to have the opportunity to make many errors in public affairs. So I do not claim by any means that I was always right. But I believe that I and Mr. Birch and Mr. Powell, who were with me, were right
170
on that occasion; and I believe—and I am bound to say this—that if the Macmillan Government had stood then, as I think they should have done, though the Conservative Party might well have lost the next Election, this country would not be in the state of humiliation that it is to-day. That is all I wish to say in reminiscence about myself, but I felt I had some right to say it.
What I have said governs a little my approach to these matters. I will leave to others the detailed examination and analyses of individual men and individual Ministries. I prefer, if I may, in what I say to your Lordships' House, to look a little deeper at the national problems that have led us to this situation, and the measures that may be necessary to extricate ourselves. We are a nation long ago stripped of an Empire, denied access to the only viable commercial and political alternative, the Continent of Europe—denied by the determined opposition of an ageing but very powerful Frenchman. And at the same moment we are undergoing a great, perhaps the greatest, technological revolution of our age. Now to face all those things together is a great challenge; and I am bound to say that as a nation—and I am not talking at the moment about individual Parties—we have certainly so far failed to take it. We have slithered from one crisis to another. And each time we have slithered—and I have watched quite a lot of them—we have slithered a little deeper and have found it a little more difficult to extricate ourselves. And in the measures we take—and they are the same measures: all Governments pursue the same measures; there are no novel ones in all these—each time we have to try a little more; and they work a little less. Finally we reach a point when we have devalued the pound sterling.
I do not think that anyone now would say, after listening to the reverberations of the Cabinet discussions, that this was a planned devaluation. Indeed, I doubt whether anybody would plan a devaluation of the pound sterling. I am sure that nobody to-day believes that we have not devalued the pound in our own pockets—and if there are those who believe that they have only to wait until March 19 to find they are wrong. We are all going to suffer. There is no question of having to select particular

171
branches of society. We are all going to suffer, and suffer severely, from devaluation. I hope that no one believes what a prominent professor of economics wrote in the Observer in the euphorium that followed devaluation: that we have now put the balance of payments back where it belongs as one of the important back room technical concerns of our economic masters. If anybody believes anything as silly as that, he will believe almost anything.
The fact is, my Lords, that devaluation is not a cure, it is a symptom of a disease. It is a disease which some of our Continental friends sometimes call the "English sickness". I suppose it could be defined in part as a continuous overstrain of our resources. I suppose it could be defined in part as a national determination and attempt to take more out of the economy than we put into it—and all these things are apparent to-day—and in part, too, of a determination to spend our way out of our difficulties. We all do it. There is no particular part of the body politic which likes it more than any other. All Prime Ministers like it. No Prime Minister likes to go down to history as the "good Lord Mayor of Birmingham in a lean year"; they all like to be remembered by the things they have constructed round about them.
Take our financial advisers in the Press. I have seen that many of them—not all, but very many—have advocated that we must get expansion by a rather bolder and more radical approach to things. The idea of any man who gets up and says the nation ought to seek to live within its income has been regarded, until fairly recent times, as remarkably "old hat". So we have these symptoms; and perhaps most of all the symptom of a determination not to work the system, not to work a system that depends in its essentials on high profitability and considerable incentives—something which we have all tended to flinch from saying. And while refusing to accept that system, with the profits and incentives that go with it, we have still not had the courage, if we do not like it, to think up something else to put in its place.
We are—and the noble Earl rather indicated this—at a moment in politics
172
when we are all under attack. I think it worth while to remind your Lordships that it is not one Party or another: it is politics in general which are under attack to-day. There are men from all quarters who are coming along and saying that we should find some other way. I have a deep respect for my old friend Lord Robens; but I do not conceive that we should be better run by the Coal Board at the present time. I have listened at a distance to the reverberations of the internal administration in the universities. Nothing I hear there leads me to suppose that government by university professors would get us anywhere. As for business, well, I believe that it is the confusion between the responsibility for running businesses and the responsibility for running Governments that has led us into a good many of the troubles that we have at the present time. If each of us could do his own business, and do it well, I think we might all be in rather better shape.
I recognise the difficulties in which the Government and the Prime Minister find themselves. They are the difficulties of all Governments at all times. The Prime Minister, faced with great difficulties, has to carry his supporters with him; and in our democracy he must carry his supporters with him, even though they are not representative of the country, and even though they are not even representative of those who voted for them at the last Election. For this is the fundamental upon which our political system is based. And Party managers have to pay some regard to the idols of political Parties—and all political Parties have their idols and they must be treated with a certain reverence. F. S. Oliver, in that brilliant analysis of politics, The Endless Adventure, in a greatly moving chapter (which I wish some commentators would read again) called, "In Praise of Politicians", says that all great leaders must—indeed it is necessary from time to time they should—bow down in the House of Rimmon. And perhaps I would only add that the greatest bow down least. I do not want to exaggerate; no one would suggest that the present Prime Minister does not nod from time to time in the House of Rimmon. This I admit. He did, indeed, I think, make a pretty deep obeisance a little time ago.

173
From the ranks of industry struggling to get exports it should be understood what a battle it is, knowing the keenness of the competition and the difficulties they face, and how much it takes to get even a million here or a million there, suddenly to find £200 million; and to realise that that might not be the end of it, through the unpleasantness that was caused; and to find it was being put forward on the basis that we should not sell submarines but could sell machine tools and handcuffs; to see the orders going to France and the U.S.A.—these were hard things to learn. I recognise the reason that prompted him. I recognise it as well as any man because, like many noble Lords here, I have been brought up in that hard world. But it was a very big price to have to pay.
What about the measures which it was to ease? Let me say this. I believe that in these measures there is a great deal of courage and a great deal of determination, and it must have been very hard, in many cases, for a Government—any Government—and particularly a Government which in the course of time had often been committed in other directions, to put them through. I am not going to stand here and quote phrases in an opposite sense or chide men for changing their opinions. Perhaps it is very necessary in this country to-day, if we are to get through, that many of us should change our opinions. But the test of these measures is not arithmetic; it is not the precise sums that are put forward. It is the purpose that lies behind them, the heart that is in them. If you like, look carefully at the damage which some of them may do. But look too, and look importantly, at what can be built upon them, for at best they are only a beginning.
My Lords, may I say just a few words—a very few words—about defence? May I say that I thought the Government were right to cancel the order for the F.111? I do not conceive that this aircraft has a role in any foreign policy concept that I can wring from the phrases that are in the White Paper, or what I conceive to be in the Government's mind. I think they are right to keep the deterrent. I am happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, defending that position—"There is more joy over one sinner that repenteth", as they say. But, in any event, I am happy that they have made
174
that decision, convinced as I am—because I have listened to the same arguments—on the arguments of the Chiefs of Staff, which I believe are really unanswerable upon this point. But where I am a little anxious is about the position in South East Asia.
My Lords, I too heard the remarks of Mr. Gorton, the very able Prime Minister of Australia, last night. I thought he spoke with immense restraint and good sense and understanding of our position. And I thought that he put his finger on what is the real purpose of anybody being in South East Asia. It is not the defence of an Empire that has disappeared; it is not even the defence of an immediate, direct, material interest of one country. It is to give stability in a very unstable part of the world. And when Mr. Gorton says there is danger in leaving now, I beg the Government to listen very carefully to what he says. I have been in that defence world, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has, for quite a bit, and he will bear me out. If there is one thing on which the Americans have always been consistent, it is not to leave them alone. It is not that they demand a great contribution; it is that they ask for some presence.
I have read the proposals that we are going to have a capability here, and we hope to be able to deploy it. I think we could. I do not think that vast resources are needed for this purpose. I think you must have a maritime capability of putting troops there, either by strike or commando carriers in some form. But these, after all, are going on until 1971; and by 1971 very many things may have changed. All I ask at this stage is that we should pause before we become too definite about removing all presence from South East Asia. After all, there are many, many Americans who believe in the American fortress. There are many powers in America who are advocating, and always have advocated, that they should give up this lonely struggle and retire within this great fortress of the United States of America. We want to be watchful that we do not give strength to those arguments by removing ourselves.
As for the rest, I would make only two suggestions. One is, do not throw away the offer of a monetary subscription from the sheikhs in the Gulf—do not do that.

175
It is not a novel thing. We do it in Hong Kong. The local people in Hong Kong subscribe very heavily, and very properly. There is nothing wrong or improper about that. When Mr. Healey said it was like a white slaver (one gets very out of touch with the Ministry of Defence) I thought a white slaver was something quite different. But, in any event, I would beg noble Lords opposite to think very carefully before we turn the sheikhs down without, at any rate, some very proper consideration.
The other suggestion is about the base in Singapore. I would urge that somebody make some economies at the base in Singapore straight away. Do not wait until 1971. It is the most extravagant base that we have anywhere in the world. There are really four of them: there is a huge naval base, a huge air base, a huge Army base and the Ministry of Defence. Let us take three of them out. This would save a very considerable amount, and it would do no harm whatever to our defences. I say this only because, while I am anxious to support defence cuts, I want at the end to be left with some "teeth"—not a lot of "tail" but some "teeth". So I commend this as a positive contribution.
So much for defence. One word about the social services. I would say only this about them. It is the theme that matters. May I commend a slogan to your Lordships' House:
"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."
That slogan has the most respectable antecedents, but it is difficult to carry out without any test of means or any test of needs. The truth is that what we want is a radical looking at the problem of the social services—not back to Beveridge or back to the Webbs, but a new look at these social services in the very different circumstances of the second half of the 20th century. I should hope, my Lords, that somewhere or other a radical may be found to look at it on those lines; not simply in the interests of economy, but in the interests of the poor and of the afflicted as well.
We have these measures, but it is what happens next that matters. The measures are all right. They concern public spending; but where Governments run into
176
difficulties is not simply on public spending, it is on private spending. What is going to happen to prices and incomes? Well, my Lords, we know what is going to happen to prices—they are going to go up. The Government mean them to go up, and they are right. It is part of the mechanics of devaluation that prices go up, and they are clearly going to go up even more when we have the Budget. What is going to happen to incomes? I do not know, but I hear 3½ per cent. on basic wage rates being talked about. My Lords, if we have 3½ per cent. on basic wage rates we shall lose very quickly indeed any advantage we have had through these cuts. An amount of 3½ per cent. on basic wage rates could scarcely mean anything less than over 6 per cent. on take-home pay, and that may well be an understatement.
These things have got to be faced and many of them faced before March 19. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer's difficulties, but at the moment it is rather like "King Lear".
"I will do such things,—
What they are, yet I know not; but they shall be
The terrors of the earth."
This is the way to drive people to a spending boom; and to keep on painting the horrors which are to come, while not taking the action, is a very dangerous position for any Government ever to get themselves into. So I urge that we do not wait too long, either in what we do about consumer spending or in saying what has to be said about incomes.
What has to be said about incomes is, "No". I do not say this in any antagonism to Mr. Woodcock. He is taking the best middle position in the trade unions that he can, and all honour to him; it is his job to say it. But from the national interest none of us really has the slightest doubt about what has to be said; it is, "No". Because if we drifted into anything like the wage situation which is current talk at the present time, all the benefits of these cuts and, more important, all the benefits of devaluation would be lost within twelve months. My Lords, it does not need me to say what the next step might be.
Now, there it is. The Government, as I say, have many difficulties. Personally I know it is very easy to say, "Let them

177
go and make way for someone else." Perhaps it would be a good thing if they did. Yet at this moment I should not welcome the spectacle of the disintegration of any British Government, for I should feel in such a moment that my own country was being damaged at a time when it could ill afford operations of that kind, and the damage might well spread to the whole of the body politic. Much more, we must urge the Government to get on with what is a desperate and difficult task. We must tell them that we wilt support them in any measures, however unpopular, provided they are relevant and right. We must try to give an appearance to the world, whatever our divisions here, that behind it all is a country which is not so concerned with differences but more concerned with comradeship, with confidence and with courage.
5.1 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, the House has listened with hushed attention to one of the most remarkable maiden speeches which it has been our privilege to hear for many years. I feel that an apology is due to the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, that the first words of congratulation after his speech—he had a few before—should come from one so distantly related to the political scene as a mere Spiritual Peer. But I am not going to decline the privilege of expressing our immense appreciation of what we have heard. The opening pleasantries with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, were in the most civilised tradition of British political life. The speech itself was delivered with authority and immense weight, and even included two Biblical allusions, one from the Old Testament and one from the New. What more could we ask? I am sure that we shall all look forward with immense pleasure to many similar contributions from the noble Lord in the years to come. I notice that there are three more maiden speeches on the list, and greatly daring I am going to say that if not all the maiden speeches are referred to by all the speakers, I am sure that no discourtesy will be intended.
There are many inhibitions which might operate to prevent those of us who sit on the Episcopal Benches from taking any part in a debate of this kind. There is the obvious inhibition of ignorance.
178
Most of us lay no claim to a detailed knowledge of the financial and economic matters which are being debated. And there is the inhibition of discretion, for it is a matter on which it is difficult to speak without betraying in one way or another some political bias, and that is something which in the modern situation Bishops, on these Benches at least., strive strenuously to avoid. The words of Richard Hooker come to mind:
"Our safest eloquence is our silence."
Yet we, too, have received a written summons and are called to give our counsel, such as it is, in the light of
"… the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the State considering the difficulties of the said affairs and dangers impending."
I feel that it would be a poor thing if no brief word, either of encouragement or warning, could not come from these Benches in the course of a debate of so immense a length.
So I ask myself aloud a few questions. They concern entirely the pyschological atmosphere in the country, which I believe is not irrelevant to the solution of our economic difficulties. Are we suffering from the very success of our Parliamentary system? We have become accustomed to what in effect is a two-Party system of Government. I say this in no disrespect of that other group of Peers who, like us, always remain where they are, however many times others change sides. But the system is accepted as a convention. It has been a convention which has served the nation well, but it is one that needs to be thoroughly understood to be appreciated. For it is like the convention of the law courts, where opposing barristers select from the total number of facts those that best fit their case and arrange them in the most convincing order. But the jury before which Parliamentary duels are fought is the whole nation—indeed, the world. And it is an audience that gets its picture of the contest through a most varied series of media, and few can prophesy what will finally register in their minds, grasp their imaginations or stir their wills. The one thing that is probable is that it will be something said or done without any particular planned purpose.
Is our system too rigid? Are Parliaments too long? In our more volatile society would it not be a good thing if the nation could feel that Parliament

179
could more rapidly reflect its changing moods? Would it be a good thing if there were more, not fewer, rebellious M.Ps? The resignation of our late Leader of the House, quite apart from the reasons for it, has at least reminded the nation that political decisions are not matters that just go on as some great juggernaut that cannot be stopped in its tracks, but can find reflection in the personal actions of those whose judgments are involved. These are some considerations concerning Parliament.
In industry, we have a similar problem. Have we allowed the great industrial machine to get so vast in its organisation that there is no place left for individual initiative? I do not believe that any of us think that the individual actions of the Surbiton typists can in the end count for very much against the weight of great national organisations such as the C.B.I. or the trade unions, but the incident does at least show that what individual people do or say may have effects far beyond anything that could be imagined.
Are we allowing our society to become much too much a society of daily new sensations? Publicity media heighten every incident until it is presented in the most exciting and critical form in which it is possible for it to be presented. How can we achieve those qualities of steadiness and of a sense of proportion which are at least as important as the continual titillating of the public with excitement? Have we given too much time and attention to legislating for the permissive society? I was thinking of some of those groups of unfortunate people or, at any rate, deviant people for whom we have made provisions in our own legislation in this House during recent years. I do not necessarily mean during the present Government. I was thinking of the would-be suicides, those homosexually inclined, those needing or desiring abortions, those who have committed murder; and we must include even those whom we should have once called Sabbath-breakers. All this is a sign of a tolerant, understanding and compassionate society. Nobody could suggest that all these people together represented a very important creative element in the life of our nation. In providing for a permissive society, are we forgetting the need to provide for a challenging society?
180
Finally, do we understand as a nation what we really mean by an improving and increasing standard of living? It seems to me that there are four different ways in which the individual lot of persons or families can be improved. There is a natural process of growth into experience and maturity, which is, fortunately, the lot of almost all those who work for their living in any way at all. There is the advance that can be made when, through ability or initiative, that rate of progress can be accelerated beyond the normal rate of physical or mental development or experience. There is, thirdly, whether we like it or not, the advance that can be obtained when one particular group, through the process of collective bargaining, can obtain a larger slice of the cake; and that is, in fact, the way in which a great many people's standard of living is either permanently or temporarily improved. Fourthly, there is that general increase of the national wealth which comes through the scientific and technological developments wisely applied to business and commerce.
What we have to remember, as it seems to me, is that a number of people have a big improvement in their standard of living quite apart from this fourth national source of improvement, but that when we are thinking of great national expenditure it is only improvement in that particular field that is going to provide the source of what we want. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Life of Asquith, which has already been referred to, quotes a letter from one who subsequently became a Lord Chancellor here, Lord Haldane. He said in a letter to his then Prime Minister that in his view it was entirely justifiable to take a much larger slice of the increasing wealth of this nation for the defraying of social expenditure of various kinds. What struck me as I read that was that the wealth was there first, before the expenditure. That is something which I think will apply in our nation as well as in all our individual lives.
So I ask myself these questions. Fortunately, they are not the kind of questions which any Government Minister could be expected to answer. But I think they are not unimportant. They remind me of the kind of questions which Matthew Arnold was asking this nation almost exactly 100 years ago when he wrote

181
Culture and Anarchy, and when he contrasted the quest for excellence in education, taste and culture with what he thought to be the vulgarity of the Industrial Revolution as it was working out, and the irrelevance of measures such as those to make, it possible to marry your deceased wife's sister. These are questions that I believe are always with us, and I only hope that our nation, and not only the Government, will find some of the answers to them.
5.15 p.m.
LORD CARRON: My Lords, to deliver one's maiden speech during a debate on a subject of such vital importance, and to follow the brilliance and sincerity of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, would be a cause for apprehension were one not fortified in the knowledge of the tolerance shown by your Lordships. Much has been spoken, and more written, in recent times on the economic affairs of Britain, and almost every facet has been covered time and time again from all angles. Had all the advice to Government from all quarters been taken, one wonders what would have ultimately resulted. Possibly little different from the existing situation.
One would find it difficult to define in precise terms of time exactly when our really serious economic problems, as we now know them, commenced. It is, however, well-known that we have been subject to escalating financial and economic dangers for some years. During those years it would probably have been possible, had the right measures been taken at the right time, to arrest the slide in our fortunes and prevent the present acute crisis to which we are still subject. Possibly every one of your Lordships could in hindsight, by one formula or another, now indicate what might have been done. Regrettably, we are unable to put the clock back, and while we may gain some knowledge from past experience, I feel it is fruitless at this time to dwell in the past. We have a duty as a matter of urgency to cope with the present and the future.
Most of the many measures suggested as ideal solutions to our problems would appear to be regarded by those who enunciate them as panaceas which in themselves would, as with the touch of a magic wand, extricate us from our difficulties. Renunciation of the role of
182
sterling, a floating exchange rate, devaluation—all these and other measures have been proposed, singly and in combination. Unfortunately, the full implications of such measures have all too rarely been fully appreciated or their practicability fully assessed.
On the role of sterling, one would really be led to think, having regard to some views expressed, that Britain could shed quite casually, like an old coat, our involvement in sterling as a reserve currency. Surely those who advocate that step should know the major and dangerous complications which would ensue were any but an extremely well-considered, well-planned, exercise of that kind undertaken, and in the fullest consultation with all the interests involved. One must applaud the efforts of the Government to obtain international agreement to the establishment of adequate monetary mechanisms in order to facilitate the increase in world trade on which we as a trading nation are so vitally dependent.
A floating rate is certainly, in our circumstances, a myth. We should not have a floating exchange rate: it would be a sinking rate, with the very adverse consequences that would ensue for the people of Britain—and not only for the people of Britain. Perhaps, my Lords, I am not absolutely correct in that statement. It is academically possible that we could have an exchange rate that really floated, or even floated up. But what would be the formula for that miracle? We should have to take measures so formidable as to be, in my estimation, quite impracticable. A first inescapable necessity would be to establish our real reserves at a level vastly different from their present size, which is, I am sure, known to your Lordships. The kind of miracle required, having regard to present circumstances, just does not happen. I feel it would be futile were I to pursue that line further.
Now that, unfortunately, but in the circumstances inevitably, we have had to devalue, I am sure that many advocates of that step realise that devaluation in itself solves no problems. It can create many, especially when devaluation has to be adopted as a crisis measure. There is some substance in the criticisms concerning the timing of the announcement of the decision, but

183
not knowing the precise problems confronting the Government at that time, I will not comment further. But one can say that in so far as the technicalities were concerned, they were carried out with great skill.
Devaluation having been effected, the Government had of necessity to devise the measures consequentially necessary not only to secure such advantages as devaluation might render possible, but in order to ensure our survival and future progress. I fear that even now there is a failure even in many responsible quarters to recognise the magnitude of the task. Confronted with the massive amount of external debt which has to be redeemed, some in the not far distant future, coupled with our forward commitments, the extent of our balance-of-payments deficit, the international agreements to which we are party, and also the understandable desire of our people to continue to enjoy and increase our standard of living—to find a solution in such circumstances would seem to border on the impossible. In fact, to satisfy all interests involved was, of course, impossible.
In the result, the measures taken by the Government have, as one would expect, attracted criticism from all quarters. Quite simply they go too far for some, and not nearly far enough for others. I doubt very much whether one single item would command universal approval. For my part, I can say that I dislike each one of them, although my reasons in some cases would possibly be opposite to those of others who share my dislike. Nevertheless, as an interim package I consider that the decisions taken are in the circumstances meaningful, and I shall most certainly support the Government in those decisions.
Only the wilfully blind or woefully ignorant could have imagined that the measures already announced would in themselves have sufficed to restore our economic health. The stern warning given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of forthcoming harsh decisions was to be expected. I share the view that it is unfortunate that the full scope of the measures necessary to ensure our basic stability could not have been announced at once. One cannot ignore the fact that all that has so far been decided has done
184
little to restore international confidence in us. There are those who lightly dismiss the effects of international confidence; but, having regard to our vulnerable position, the restoration of confidence is of major importance to us. Had I the time, and your Lordships the patience, I could develop that theme, and other assertions I have made, much more fully.
So far, I have, I know, joined in the gloom in which, understandably, so many participate. Regrettably, that gloom has not yet lifted, although there is a gleam of light discernible. That light could be a mirage. Unlike the mirage, we ourselves can create reality, but not painlessly, much less by wishful thinking. Just as we all dislike the measures already decided, so we must brace ourselves as a nation to face the stronger measures that the Chancellor will have to devise if they are to be effective. Half-measures will not help, but will, in fact, still more impede our recovery.
My Lords, even the most adequate decisions taken by the Government will not in themselves effect our recovery and provide the basis for sound, sustained expansion. The nation as a whole must be prepared to be full partners in what is, I believe, the most unpalatable and difficult exercise since the end of the last war. As in all such circumstances, there are alternative choices. We can decide to take the not too difficult path, but with ultimate consequences that I do not desire to contemplate. Alternatively, we can face a comparatively short period of self-discipline and self-denial ending in a progressively better future.
A key factor in that interim period is the degree of incomes restraint which must be exercised. Having regard to my own background, I know of nothing more difficult for me to advocate. I have great faith in the capacity of our people to accept sacrifices, provided they are convinced that the wellbeing of the nation is at stake and provided the sacrifices are, and are seen to be, fairly shared. The Government have indicated their dislike of compulsory measures in respect of incomes, preferring to rely on good sense and co-operation in carrying out voluntary adequate restraint. I most certainly hope—and I am sure your Lordships will share my sentiments—that the response

185
will justify the hopes of the Government. It would be a massive disappointment if voluntary restraint failed, thereby compelling the intervention by the Government which in the circumstances would in my opinion, be inevitable.
My Lords, I know how much noble Lords not favourably disposed to the Government dislike the measures on which this debate is based. Very few, if any, on these
Benches like them much better. However, whether we like it or not, we are in this situation of very real national crisis. Unfortunately, we cannot work out our salvation in isolation, and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. Every one of our decisions is scrutinised by powerful influences abroad. In these circumstances, therefore, there devolves upon all of us the responsibility to do nothing at all which would reduce in the slightest degree the confidence so vital to us at this time.
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is a great honour for me, on your Lordships' behalf, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carron, on the speech—that balanced, clear speech—which we have heard to-day. Lord Carron has been asked, I am sure wisely, by successive Governments to hold appointments of high responsibility. He has been asked to do so similarly by academic bodies; and not least, of course, by his fellow trade unionists. Each of these requests has been made in the knowledge that he normally speaks with fearless frankness on any subject to which he cares to address himself. I think he has been restrained, if balanced and clear, to-day, and I do not doubt that on other occasions he may speak with more force, and possibly brutality. I hope he will address us on frequent occasions, and I assure him of the very warm welcome he will always have here.
My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft on his speech which I think we all enjoyed. I wonder whether he would have spoken quite so frankly if he had been speaking in the other place. I would also say how glad I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, leading the House. We are grateful for the frankness with which he approached his not very attractive task to-day. He may not always be able to be quite so frank as
186
he has been on this occasion, but I know that he has the qualities which this House greatly appreciates and recognises in him. I have to say that I enjoyed very much hearing the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who I think came into the House about the same time as I did, but I have had longer experience on the Back Benches than he has.
I am bound to say that if anyone from Mars were to come down here, and look at the White Paper, and see that next year we are going to spend £15 billion—that is £15,000,000,000—it does seem strange that there is not room for that essential minimum of educational advance to which the noble Earl referred. I can only give, if I may, a wholly uneconomic but simple explanation. Is lit that we have lost a sense of responsibility with public money? Is it that it has ceased to be of importance and significance as it has in the past? I do not want to go back into the past, but I remember that in the far distant "Middle Ages" of October, 1964, I think it was the Prime Minister who said that he could do all that Mr. Maudlin said, and with no overall increase in taxation. From that has flowed, I think, a disregard of public money, and I think it has played a not inconsiderable part in the deflation, the devaluation, the deep indebtedness we have got to.
What I fear now is an attack on the defences of the country. If we look at paragraph 23 of White Paper on Public Expenditure we see this statement:
"… we shall energetically continue the process of cutting the size of the Ministry of Defence."
That is about the only place in which the word "energetically" is used. I expect we are only beginning to see the attacks which are going to be made on our defence system. This is disturbing because, quite frankly, it is very hard to-day to believe any statement that is made on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. Only last summer, as was clearly stated in the Defence White Paper at that time, it was said in the conclusion, on planning the Forces required to carry out this role:
"This statement marks the end of this process."
That was only six months ago. It does mean, unfortunately, that, any statement made now will, I fear, be regarded as very unreliable.

187
I feel strongly on this question of pledges which have been given, particularly to Asian countries. There may be—one does not know—a moral purgatory for those who do not carry out their promises. But what is quite clear is that there is a pragmatic disadvantage in telling lies and that is that nobody believes you. That is a very serious administrative handicap in any relations which we have to conduct, whether it be by our diplomats, our politicians or, indeed, whether it be our businessmen. I had a letter from a former Indian judge who said that the Englishman's word was his bond. He gave me those words in Spanish; he gave me those words in Arabic, and he assured me in all those languages that the words used to carry a very great deal of weight.
The second thing which has worried me is that this document which we are looking at, and which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has told us is not necessarily perfect in every syllable, shows a strong tendency to drive this country back on to itself. There is a strong note of what I would call "economic nationalism": the rest of the world does not matter; we can carry on ourselves. It is made a little respectable by talking about Europeans—that sounds a little better. In fact this is not much more than going back on our own economic resources, and no country in the world can be or has been more dependent on international institutions. If we look only at the money which we borrow from the International Monetary Fund, and the basis of our trade, both visible and invisible, this will have to continue on a world basis. We are the worst country to think we can run our own separate economy. I did not find, when in Germany this week, any very great excitement that we should concentrate on Europe. They took much more the line, "If you can pull out of South-East Asia like that, you can pull out of the Rhine just as easily".
The third point I should like to make is this. These proposals show no consideration for the problems of other countries. The outstanding feature, I believe, of this century is the disappearance of empires, not only the British Empire, but about a dozen empires—the Austrian Empire, the Hungarian Empire, the Turkish and the French Empires, all of which
188
have disappeared. The problem is to reconcile the succeeding position with the previous Imperialism. On the whole, we have been pretty successful in doing that. We have not had a Congo, an Algeria, an Indonesia. We have indeed had a Zanzibar, and a Nigeria, but we have not had a Vietnam.
We have not only an interest but indeed a duty to see, if we possibly can, that that does not happen. It is very difficult for the countries in the Indian Ocean. For 25 years ago, with the exception of Ethiopia and Thailand, every one of those countries was under the aegis, in defence and foreign policy, of some European country. This is a terribly difficult task for them to undertake and it is both in our interest and, if we have any sense of moral duty, our moral duty to help them through this very difficult phase. When Malaysia was formed in 1963 it was of course implicit that we should leave Asia in due course. We deliberately "fuzzed" the issue; we did not want to put any detailed point on it. We knew perfectly well that that was the situation. There was never any question of leaving Singapore. I was at the Admiralty all the time Mr. Sandys was there. What we did was to close the dockyard at Hong Kong, close the base at Trincomalee; we handed over Simonstown to the South Africans, on one of the most favourable treaties which this country has ever entered into; and that anyone should allow this to go by default at this time seems crazy and beyond belief.
What is so hard is that these countries have, in some cases, far more intractable social and economic problems than we have ourselves. I referred in a letter to the problems of Singapore—racial, population growth, absence of raw materials, inability to migrate anywhere. But who created that country? We did. We played a very considerable part in it. We are proud of it in many ways. For the way this country grew up we carry no small responsibility, and have no small interest in seeing that it goes on being a success. We may ask ourselves, "Why are we going back from here?" Is this really on economic grounds or questions of principle? I am bound to say that the frank statement to the Press of the Chairman of the Labour Party suggests that this is a question of principle, and

189
that she is glad to get out, regardless of economic consequences.
We have had here quite recently the Prime Minister of Singapore. What he has asked for is really something fairly modest. He is a man, as I think we know, of considerable intellectual ability, a student of Marxism, and indeed one of the few democratic leaders in the world who has defeated an attempted Marxist takeover. He speaks with an articulation which is rarely heard among Asians. What he is seeking is two more years, as a minimum, to start getting into a defensive position. Each and all of us want the nations of Asia to be able to defend themselves. If they cannot defend themselves, then they are a danger to their neighbours and to the whole area. He has been criticised because he has had too much confidence in the Labour Party in this country. It is a criticism which noble Lords must bear in mind, and it is a criticism which has been made by his own people. The real danger seems to me to be—and we saw a reference to this in the Observer this week from Dennis Bloodworth, one of the best reporters in South-East Asia at the present time—that already the Chinese Communist shops are setting up in Singapore. Well, that is good for trade and there is nothing wrong with it, but if this were to lead to a Communist takeover in Singapore there would be war between Malaysia and Singapore for an absolute certainty.
Are we trying to prevent this happening? Are we really making a contribution? After all, we talk about the principle of self-determination, and surely those who live in the area, whether they be Australians, New Zealanders, Singaporians or Malaysians, are entitled to their own views as to what is to the advantage and the benefit of the development in the area. I would refer to a remark made by a Japanese diplomat when he heard that we were going. He said, "I could not believe our luck". I am not against the development of the Japanese economy—I am delighted. But do not let us hand it to them on a silver plate. We have interests there, and if we leave Singapore in a disgruntled state we shall suffer, chiefly probably in our invisible exports, that essential sector which has apparently enabled us to balance our payments,
190
according to recent studies, over the last 140 years. These are the delicate things in which we shall certainly suffer most.
I should like to say a word about the Persian Gulf. It is really remarkable that the year after the Government say that they will leave the Persian Gulf this country will be more dependent upon oil as a primary source of power than on coal. According to the Ministry of Power that is what will happen the year after we leave the Persian Gulf, in which there are two-thirds of the world's resources of oil. Perhaps I may add that I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, referred to the most unfortunate and insulting remarks which the Secretary of State for Defence made to one of the rulers in the Persian Gulf, and I hope some apology for that will eventually be made.
The danger is that there may be a gangster takeover. That happened in Bahrain when I was in South-East Asia. A gangster sought to take over the State of Bahrain with, roughly speaking, a cool £100 million in the Bank of England—something that makes the activities of A1 Capone simply slide into insignificance. That is the sort of thing which could happen in the Gulf of Persia, and it is a situation about which we could do something. I have never held the view that once we left Aden we could do very much in Bahrain, but this is something to which we could contribute and for which I believe the people in the area would be grateful.
I ask the Government not to underestimate what will happen in a vacuum in the Indian Ocean, and how important it could be for us. We have had responsibility in the area for a very long time, and the greatest assistance we can render is to give some assurance of stability until they are in a position to defend themselves. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, who I see has left the Chamber, told us that aid was a matter of conscience for the Labour Party. The best aid that can be given to anybody is stability. It is practical for us, and it is practical for the people in the area.
5.46 p.m.
LORD FRANKS: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to address your Lordships. I hope therefore that any mistakes as regards

191
usage or tradition that I may make will be ascribed to ignorance and not insolence. A number of noble Lords who have preceded me have expressed their anxiety about the economic situation and about our prospects. I share those anxieties. I suppose the thoughts that come first to my mind are the disappointing results of last week—the disproportion between the build-up and the character and content of the actual announcement. I have never thought that many of the things there stated were of great importance, particularly those in the strategic and military fields, but so far as economic problems are concerned the centrepiece was missing. I refer to the crux of the whole affair, the switch from personal consumption to exports. That had to be deferred. It had to be put off for two months, until March 19, and as a result there was no pattern to the policy of the Government; there was nothing that they could say to the people of this country. That is one thing that causes me anxiety.
Another cause of anxiety is the general climate of world trade. For twenty years we have lived in a world of expanding trade and a world in which it was easy to trade, but this is changing. The two reserve currencies that have carried so much of that trade on their backs are both in trouble. What happens? Rising nationalism, increasing tendencies to protection. There is a risk—I do not say a probability but a risk—that the volume of world trade will decline. That is a risk that we in this country must take account of, because if it happens—and it could happen—it will not add to our difficulties, it will multiply them.
These are the two things that have been in my mind. I think there is not much that Britain can do in her present weak economic state about the second, but I believe it is worth looking a little harder at the first of the points I have made. I suppose this must be the third or the fourth time that we have had the familiar routine of endless discussions between ministers, an atmosphere of crisis engendered, all the points which are to be announced being well known beforehand, and the result, no novelty or surprise, less than everybody anticipated. It was in that situation that the calculating boys persuaded themselves to put
192
things off for two months. Perhaps they had persuaded the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps even they were right, but they are the men of means, not of ends. They are the masters of methods, not of policies, and I am sure that to have to put off everything that really immediately concerns the people of this country to two months hence was a mistake of policy, not a matter of means or of calculation. But it prevents the nation from giving support to the Government, support which the Government in fact must surely need.
I think it is because of this inability to communicate, to talk with the people, this appearance of being so preoccupied on reconciling Ministers, reconciliation within the Party, surviving in power, that they have not been able, so to speak, to look up over and see and talk to us, the ordinary citizens of the nation. And I am sure this is among the main causes of something which to-day is quite widespread, and that is doubt in the effectiveness of the Government to govern, doubt whether it is in control of the situation. This seems to me important. It is important because now we are in the sixth year of the crisis. At the beginning of the 1960s somebody said we had "never had it so good." He meant the statement, I think, historically. It was also a prophecy. We have never had it so good since then. Year by year we have rolled that crisis forward, Conservative and Labour Governments alike have rolled it forward, by borrowing money from foreign friends. We have borrowed until we could not borrow any more. The next device, which has now been employed, is devaluation. But I think now it is difficult for us to borrow any more. Repetitive devaluation—who would recommend it? We now, I think, with the obscurity stripped away, face the crisis of six years as it is.
I do not say this to attack a Labour Government. My concern is with the British Government, our Government, the Government we have. It seems to me that any citizen of this country is entitled, in a situation like this, to make demands upon his Government, and I make three. Many years ago I travelled down in the train from New York to Washington with Sir Winston Churchill, and after he had had his lunch he suddenly broke into discourse, and he enlarged upon the

193
theme of the difference between a statesman and a politician. The statesman, he said, had a theme, he had a vision; he saw the sort of society that he wanted to aim for; he saw the sort of relations in which he wanted his country to live with its neighbours. And because he had a theme and he had a vision in which he believed he could communicate, he could convince others, he could lead because he would be followed. Not so the politician. He, concerned with day-to-day matters, manipulating his way among persons and circumstances, had no theme. The great need, I suggest, of our Government to-day is a clear and coherent theme and policy which they can tell the people about. Without it there can be no joint effort, no sharing of the burden, no expectation of a common reward. But what can a Government do unless it is backed by and supported by the people it should serve?
I turn to incomes policy. Suppose on March 19 we make our switch, a full and adequate switch from personal consumption to exports—we make room. Even that will not count if the annual round of wages increases, supplemented by wages drift, whether of wages or of earnings or of salaries, goes on. It has gone on for 15 or 20 years. If one had to pick a single cause of our present embarrassments it would be that the system under which we have lived has cracked up, not our real incomes but our money earnings, wages and salaries, year by year, until those money increases, reflected in costs and prices, have made it difficult for us to sell in world markets. That is the position which, unless we change, loses us the effects of devaluation, loses us its opportunities within a year, or two at most.
But so far as I see it, when one looks for a firm, clear framework of policy on incomes one finds a certain haziness and fuzziness of outlook. Three-and-a-half per cent. is mentioned. It seems to mean one thing to the Government one day, something a little different the next, something else to the Trades Union Congress, something different again to the Confederation of British Industry. But surely, if we are to reap the opportunities of our situation, here is the place where we simply cannot afford to be vague, where we have to be firm—I hope, as my noble friend, Lord Carron, said, with
194
consent between the trade unions, the Confederation of British Industry and the Government. But if not, I think it has to be clear and firm anyhow.
I come to my last point. I think and I hope that the Government intend by the way they act to cease organising our nation, fragmenting it, into its separate sectional interests. If there is no clear, central theme and announced policy, which everybody can follow and see roughly the opportunity it presents, and at a time of trouble it is known we are in a mess, what happens? Every man begins to think for himself, every group begins to think where its own interest lies. It may be someone with old-fashioned capitalist attitudes like Mr. Frank Cousins, believing in the virtues of the market, thinking he ought to test the strength of the market in favour of the men he represents; it may be a group of industrialists, wondering whether they should themselves try to think out the way ahead and perhaps getting rebuked for their pains; perhaps it is thousands of families up and down the country buying beds, buying sofas, buying tables and chairs. Why? Because they ate good, hard, durable things and they ate a little worried about the money in their pockets.
Surely the time for the Government to frame a policy is very, very soon, something that is clear and embracing, something with which they can speak for the people and gain their support, without which so little can happen. I spend matt of my time in the society of young men and young women from 18 to 25 years of age, students, undergraduates and graduates. A very large number of them are disinterested in the great institutions of our society, whether social or political. They are not against them; they do not want to reform them—I wish they did. They just think they do not count in their lives and they are insignificant to them. That mood, I think, in the last few months has spread beyond that age group. It is the greatest challenge that the British Government face. To overcome it I am sure there will have to be a complete statement of policy, something which is coherent and can endure through time, something which, though adapted to circumstances, and circumstances changing, nevertheless has an integrity. This is a field in which endless fresh starts are all

195
bad starts; it is better to be nearly right and endure. The effect will be great.
My theme is that a Government cannot be effective unless they can get the support of the people they serve. I do not think in its handling of the present crisis the Government have yet found the way to look beyond their own immediate problems and difficulties and talk to the people in terms that they can understand and to which they can give their assent and therefore give them, the Government, the support they could and must have.
6.0 p.m.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, it is my great privilege, as the first to follow the noble Lord, Lord Franks, to congratulate him on a speech which was made with authority and clarity, and which I am sure carried its conviction on all sides of the House. Of course he comes to us with a reputation, rightly deserved, on both sides of the Atlantic, and I hope he will make many more occasions to address us in the future and bring his mind to bear on the problems with which the Government are seeking to wrestle.
I will follow him in this respect. I do not want myself to try to take up your Lordships' time by commenting much on particular measures in this package, except that I should like to say my word of tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for the stand he took about education. I, too, as interested in that field, deplore the decision that has been taken. May I say also that I deplore the manner and the method of the way the defence side of our affairs has been handled. But from what I shall say it will be clear that I am more concerned about the future, even accepting the Government's programme as at present announced. And in the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Franks, has spoken, it is not for someone on these Benches to address the Government as if it were just the Labour Government; it is the Government of our country that we are thinking of at this time. It has been part of my duty in many posts abroad to look at a Government's performance and to report upon it, with, I hope, sympathy—because without sympathy you are a bad representative—yet also with objectivity.
196
If such a friendly foreigner were here, what would his comment be over and above the first comment which I am sure he would make; namely, the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Franks: that there does not seem to be any clear objective in this exercise, except to receive a kind of actuary's account, either from the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about how the national books are looking and how, somehow, these books should be got into balance? This without sense of responsibility for the decisions leading to this position, but
just simply as a bookkeeping affair. But there is no theme, no objective. I think that would be his first comment.
I think the second comment would be: "The medicine, what is it? It is all stick and no carrot." Of course if he were a friendly foreigner, he would recognise that the British are known to be lions for punishment. But I think he might question whether this particular form of self-inflicted punishment alone will in fact achieve the objects which we still set ourselves. I suppose he would say to himself that it is extraordinary that they think, or apparently think, that there is no other way of running their affairs. He may reflect on taxation that the basis of our present system is not apparently a simple method of raising revenue by means calculated to upset the wealth of the country as little as possible but rather to give an incentive to increase in all ways the size of the "cake". It is rather a system of combined obejctives, partly to raise revenue, partly for social surgery.
I think he would also reflect on how the Inland Revenue have been placed in these last years by various measures, that the social surgery is coming to the point of endangering the manhood of the nation and of effectively achieving emasculation. In the same way, in industrial structure he might say that the British seem to have accepted that it is a law of nature in these Islands that it takes three men to do the job that is done by one man in the United States, and sometimes even for twice the capital invested per man. But it is not a law of nature; it is just the way we happen to choose to run our affairs. Here again, there is not the remotest sign in the speeches made that these things, any more than the taxation,

197
system itself, are going to be looked at; and, if anything, I suppose we wait perhaps for the Royal Commission on the Trade Unions to see whether that may shed light. Here again, up to now it is rather the restrictive side than anything to give hope for increasing the size of the cake.
The same applies, I think, in the way the incentive to export through devaluation has been treated. Here, once more, inescapably there is going to be an offsetting element in the increase in the price of the raw materials. That is not the only offsetting element, because almost every time the Government make an announcement about this there is going to be some increase in cost through taxation, either directly or indirectly, upon the exporter. So now the benefit, far from being 14·3 per cent., is not even 8 per cent., but is driven down lower. Each time the incentive to go and make a bigger "cake" seems to be lost in the concentration on trying to get our books, in an actuarial sense, in balance.
So perhaps I may ask; are thoughts being given to these things? If they are, I would suggest that in order to get the confidence of the foreigner as well as of our own citizens, the Government should make more of them, and so too of other possibilities. Is it, in our particular circumstances, when we are told to welcome the income deriving from investments overseas, really sensible, in our desperate situation, to make it exceedingly difficult to invest in countries who are going to pay? Can we afford really to switch the investment to those countries where the immediate prospect of return is less? I instance the case of Australia.
Then again, I suppose it is fair to ask: what is being thought about and calculated of the advantages to us of a North Atlantic Free Trade Area in industrial goods? I recognise, as Lord Franks has said, that it may be that we were coming to a point where protectionism will increase. But if the Kennedy Round goes through, there are, I understand, a number of industrial goods in exchange between us and the United States where the effective tariff will be
only 7 per cent. If it is anything of that order, it is no obstacle whatever to a large American corporation to export to this country—with only an obstacle of 7 per cent. or
198
some such figure. On the other hand, if we could persuade the Americans to accept our goods without tariff even of 7 per cent., this would make a vast difference to the profitability of our exports. I only ask: is this being considered as a possibility. Indeed, if it is a possibility, can we even afford to spurn it?
Once again, I think the friendly foreign observer would make these comments and raise these questions for a particular reason which has already been touched on in this debate. I think he would do so because he would be anxious whether, in the end, at the end of the two or three years, we shall be in fact up and going. If not, the writing is fairly clearly on the wall. There will be another crisis. We shall again have to cut our coat according to our cloth. We shall decide perhaps, in such a circumstance, that defence must once again be looked at. At that time that will be effectively our part in European defence, and the foreigner here will observe that we have already concluded that there is barely a military threat to us. The Home Defence Service is all to be wound up. That implies we have concluded that there is no military threat of any significance in this area. Therefore I think this foreign observer will watch extremely carefully what we do and will make his conclusions from what he thinks we shall in fact be able to carry out, even with good will, at the end of three years and this could greatly affect our possible relations with Europe.
May I pass from these reflections about our economic state of affairs to certain constitutional questions which seem to be of validity now? It has been a great strength to us to be able to boast of our Constitution and our democratic way of life. I would go entirely with what Mr. Macleod said in another place in the debate last week, when he observed that he did not much take to the other various specifics which had been suggested, whether by the chairman of the Coal Board or by anyone else. He concluded by saying that he hoped they would be able to show in the other place that they could conduct a dignified debate about our affairs. I am sure that that is true, and I think that we shall show that equally in this House a very dignified debate can take place.

199
But is it just a debate that is at issue now over the Constitution? Do the Government consider that if they have to embark on a course radically different from that put to the electors at the General Election when they came to power, they are under any obligation to consult the electors again before putting into force a totally new programme? If so, in what circumstances do they consider such an obligation arises? I submit that it is desirable that we should consider this matter, for in our Constitution there are now few checks and balances other than conventions. The absence of a written Constitution and formal checks has in the past been considered a virtue giving strength and flexibility to our system of Government. But if, in practice, a Government or a series of Governments on their own can alter radically a programme on which they were elected, or as a result of their policies are forced to change such a programme and are under no obligation to consult the electors before the end of their five-year term, we have a strange version of democracy.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for one moment? I think that the Government's case, as I understand it, is that they have not altered their policy; that it has been altered for them by circumstances; that they are not to blame at all, and therefore no constitutional point arises.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, I should prefer to hear this from the noble Lords when they come to reply, if that is their position. I would only go on to say that such immutable power is not possessed
by the President of the United States, who has very distinct checks and balances
of a legislative and judicial kind. I think that this is a fair question to ask because, if we are to continue in this way, then we are tending towards a Constitution where what the electorate are invited to do is to return a Prime Minister who, from then on, can do entirely as he pleases so long as he can keep his colleagues together. I thought that Mr. Healey yesterday made it very plain that in certain circumstances they had much better hang together for fear of hanging separately.
Well, there is still perhaps one last check, and that is that at the end of
200
the five-year term the Government will have to face the electorate again. But there is no absolute bar, as I understand it, even in this, for a Government can, if they wish to use their majority, prolong the life of Parliament. It is only a convention that it has not so far been done except in time of war. These things are not now merely academic questions, for there is scarcely a major pledge which was in the Party programme in the last two Elections and which has not now had to be abandoned or drastically amended. This is the case in finance over taxation: in the economy over growth; in defence over our commitments: and I submit that it has become important to know whether there is any point, and if so what point, at which the Government consider they should go back to their original source of power, the electorate, for confirmation or denial. Or is this now in practice merely a question of calculating the date of an Election on the basis of Party tactics? No doubt the Government may think that a change would be a national disaster—they are fully entitled to that view—but if they are not then prepared to consult the electorate, again I ask what sort of democracy have we then got?
To turn from this very general question of the accountability of Government, another constitutional question of some interest arises. What, in the opinion of the Government, should be the convention about Ministerial accountability? The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has a very precise view of this, and one with which I personally have great sympathy. If a Prime Minister tells the British public that the Government, for good reason, are set on a certain course, and indeed asserts that any other course would be full of peril, and then has to abandon that course and set off on another, is there any point where he should now feel any sense of personal accountability? In other words, when does he think that his own word and honour—and in foreign affairs, through his, his country's word and honour—have been so far engaged that he personally should not remain in office? I realise that there is also involved in this the cover of Cabinet responsibility. The Minister of Defence last night said that he was deterred not only by the fact that the Government decisions were ones

201
taken by the Cabinet as a whole and were therefore not personal in any particular sense; there was also the reflection that the country would hardly benefit by a change. Well, that again is entirely a fair point of view. But is it what we understand should be the proper position under the constitutional conventions which are all that now effectively stand to protect the democracy which we have had and which I hope we shall continue to enjoy?
Again, I think these questions would be asked by any foreigner living in our
midst. I think he would say, "Their Constitution has stood them in great stead in the past; it has been an enormous source of strength to them; but, if it is run like this, in what precise sense is it really any more a representative democracy?" It is a five-year rule so long as you can keep the team together and you are tinder no commitment at all, as a group or as a person, to go if you do not carry out anything approaching the programme on which you were originally elected. I raise these questions in the hope that they may be answered in a sense which will give comfort to our friends.
I finish by asking one perhaps easier question. In the midst of all our troubles the Prime Minister has gone to Russia. I know that he was invited. Of course that is quite right, and it is right in certain circumstances that we should all wish to back him solidly in any conversations he may have with the rulers of a foreign country, and with Russia in particular. But as questions have been raised, and as the Government have not given any explanation of why he has left his post at this particular time, may I ask them to say something on this, since it would quiet a lot of honest doubt? The normal place for a Prime Minister in a crisis is in his own country. He is the captain of the ship, and should he not be on the bridge? It is not an offensive question to ask, but it is a question
which I think needs a reply. Of course, it is impolite to postpone invitations, but one must reflect that this would not be the first invitation that we had issued to, say, a Russian leader of which he had thought fit in his own interest, because of demands at home, to ask for a postponement.
202
So I ask again, in the hope that this may lead to a reply which would give comfort: what is it that the Prime Minister hopes to achieve by going to Russia at this particular time? I would add only one rider. I beg that we may not be told he has gone there in order to be an honest broker between Russia and the United States over Vietnam. The United States have their own representation, they have their own means of communication with the Russian leaders, and I think it is harbouring a delusion to suggest that they need us in order to be able to communicate over matters of national life and death.
Let me conclude where I started, by saying again how impressed I am sure we all were—and, certainly, I was myself—by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Franks; and, as a last word, by combining with him in begging the Government to give us all some idea of what is the object of this exercise, other than to hear an actuary's account.
6.22 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I have great trepidation on intervening with a maiden speech in such a major de-date, particularly when it is so difficult to follow such distinguished speakers as the noble Lord, Lord Franks, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Carron. But I think it is agreed in general in your Lordships' House that we have in some way to learn to pay our way in the world. I think it is also clear that there is probably no one noble Lord here tonight who does not find one or many of the proposals which the Government have outlined distasteful.
It would be impossible to improve upon the sincere and moving speech which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, made, particularly about the raising of the school leaving age. Personally, this action seems to me to be not only wrong in principle but to be eating the seed corn. If we are to balance our payments we must have a highly educated working population in order to keep up our exports. Equally distasteful for many noble Lords has been the imposition of the prescription charges. Again, for many of us this is wrong in principle and it will probably be unfair in its application. But we have to face the fact that we must get our economy straight.

203
What really matters, and what seems to me to be very serious, is the atmosphere in which this is being done; the atmosphere in which discussions are taking place, particularly outside Parliament. There has been a despair—what the Sunday Times called a "near hysteria", a kind of cynicism which I think is new in our country and which I believe to be not only distasteful and wrong but quite unnecessary. I very much welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said about chauvinism and about not going back to 1931 and closing up our trade, and all those mistakes which we made in the past. I think chauvinism is one of the great sins.
Nevertheless, it is important for us to realise that we have a great significance still, and that it does not depend on military commitments. We have a very great potential as a nation, and great contributions to make. If you look at technology, you find that many of our wisest friends in Europe want us with them simply because of our advanced skills in this field. If you turn to pure science, you find we are pioneering basic things which are important in the deepest sense. As a small example, there are three Nobel Prize winners working now in molecular biology which, as your Lordships know, is about the chemistry of the body; it is about heredity. Their researches will almost certainly teach us new things about cancer. They may teach us how to alter character, perhaps desirably. These things are very closely bearing on the science of immunology, without which none of the spectacular and, to some of us, rather shattering heart transplant, and other organ transplant, surgery can succeed. In this field we in this country are pioneering.
One of the things in the Government's measures which I was very glad to welcome
was that we did not in any way limit our contribution to the arts. If you look at our actors, our producers, our dancers, you will find that, by their originality, their deeply intuitive and deeply educated performances, we are enriching the theatre everywhere in the world. If you turn to fashion you find we have created a new gaiety of fashion which has become worldwide and which has delighted our eyes in London. Perhaps more important, people come from all over the world to buy our beautifully-
204
designed and made mass-produced clothes. This, in itself, has brought about a minor social revolution. There is nothing which cuts class inequality, particularly for women, better than well-produced clothes and cheap, hygienic, attractive cosmetics. This we should welcome for every reason.
There are many other fields in which we are in the van. I do not know whether your Lordships are particularly fond of "pop" music, but you may not know that in this, too, we in this country are what is called "Top of the Pops". "Pop" music is a very vital expression of young people all over the world, and our "pop" musicians, by their vitality, their sheer inventiveness, their musical subtlety, are listened to and copied all through the Americas, Europe and behind the Iron Curtain. This summer I went to a very distinguished international conference, and was delighted when one of my Russian colleagues asked me if I could teach him to sing a song with a Liverpool accent. This may not be greatness, but it shows influence.
I think it is just as bad for a nation as it is for an individual to have an inferiority complex. I very much share the concern which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, showed about the increasing cynicism over our democratic system of Government. I cannot go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, in his, if I may say so with respect, gloomy prognostications about our Constitution. I myself feel that our political and social system is one of our greatest assets. We are a homogeneous society. We are not riven by basic hostilities. Broadly, we all have the same aims. That is why, even in times of great difficulty such as now, we can still design and build new cities which are intended to serve the community and not simply the interests of small sections of it.
My Lords, I feel that in spite of everything we are a rich country. After all, this year we are going to spend something like £2,000 million on gambling and betting alone. I could not help reflecting, when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was talking about "irrelevant nationalisation", that it is a pity that this industry, which seems to be one of our big growth industries, is not to be nationalised. Then we could pay for the

205
social services—health, and so on—much more painlessly. My Lords, it is difficult to be constructive at a moment like this, but I feel very deeply that there is enormous potential in our country. I should very much dislike to be thought jingoist, but I think we should not forget this. We are a rich country.
Some of my work lies in being chairman for the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street. I never cease to wonder at, and to be proud and thankful for, the care that we give our children. We are able to provide an average of more than one nurse for every sick child and to keep the care constant, day and night, week in and week out. It costs an enormous sum every week to keep each child, but the nation affords it, and rightly so. Another side of my work lies in the underdeveloped countries. The sort of children's wards with which I am familiar in Africa are very different. Each cot has two children at the top and one at the bottom. In the case of the tinier babies, they are laid in a row across the cot—four, or even six, and I have seen eight. Your Lordships can imagine the dangers from infection and from cross-infection, and the rest of it; and yet those children are better looked after there than they would be outside.
But in the real things we are still rich. I do not believe that we are significant only when we have far-flung military commitments. I think that even when we are welcome (which is mostly, apparently, when we are just about to withdraw), and especially when we are overwhelmingly not welcome, we do better to cut our coat according to our cloth. I believe that we should have made these defence cuts many years ago, and that we should not be in the present balance-of-payments difficulties if we had. For that reason, my Lords, I wish to support the Government's proposals.
6.33 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Baroness has addressed the House for the first time in a speech of singular persuasiveness and charm. There were other features which I thought made it remarkable. Though she appeared to hold some notes in her hand, she did not once glance at them. The whole speech was spontaneous and natural; and on a day of most distinguished maiden speeches, I think her speech occupies a worthy place.
206
My Lords, I scarcely know the noble Baroness, although I had known something of the work of her distinguished husband even before he came to this House, because I take the greatest possible interest in architecture. Possibly I have greater agreement with him when he speaks on architectural matters than I am likely always to have with the noble Baroness; but after her speech to-day the whole House will wish to hear her on many occasions.
My Lords, I should like to mention other maiden speeches, because it so happens that I served on a Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Carron, and learned something of his quality, and have met at Oxford and elsewhere the noble Lord, Lord Franks, who gave us such a brilliant maiden speech to-day. But I think I must say a word about the speech of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. It is not merely that we are old personal friends, but it so happens that from the year 1951 to the year 1955 he was my Minister. He was President of the Board of Trade and I was the Parliamentary Secretary. That was before the days of the great Wilson innovation when a Department has to have three or four Parliamentary Secretaries—certainly two—if it is to be a Department at all. I was the only Parliamentary Secretary throughout that period; and I think one day either my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft or I will tell the House something about the economic position that the Conservative Government of 1951 inherited.
A comparison was drawn by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe on a previous occasion
between the position and the deficit that we found and the position and deficit that the present Government found, of which they never cease to remind us. The great difference was that we did not moan about it but set about the resuscitation of the country and its economy. That is the big difference between the two Governments.
Before I pass to the substance of what I am going to say I should like to give a word of welcome also to another personal friend, the present Leader of the House. If the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was to go, we are all agreed that we have the best possible successor—and I liked his approach on this occasion. I agree with so many noble Lords who have spoken that we must not be too pessimistic. On the other hand, we

207
must not hesitate to tell the truth as we see it. To my noble friend the former Leader of the House, Lord Longford, I would say only this. I am quite certain that the honourable step that he has taken will be that which will ensure his own personal happiness. It was the right step, and he has shown on an important occasion that the habit of resignation on a point of principle is not quite obsolete.
My Lords, in the broadcast that the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered on
June 16 there is one very important sentence with which I completely agree. It is this:
"… there is no greater recipe for disaster than a persistent refusal to face unwelcome facts".
That, my Lords, is true. It represents a great declaration from a Socialist, because the fundamental principle of Socialist Governments in this country for some time has been the great principle of the non-recognition of fact. One of the unwelcome facts to be faced is the appalling injury that Her Majesty's Government have inflicted on our country by their incompetence and mismanagement of our affairs. Let me say at once that that would not prevent me from supporting any action that they may take which I think is calculated to put our country right. But I am bound to say that nothing in their record or in their present proposals promises, in my opinion, a successful issue from our present afflictions.
They seem to me altogether to miss the importance of, and the danger to our recovery that has been caused by, the light-hearted way in which they have backed out of their commitments, even their recent commitments. They seem to have no idea of the effect, either in this country or abroad, of the fact that the same Minister of State goes to the Persian Gulf on one occasion, making promises and giving undertakings, and then, within a short time, has to go round and say that he was quite wrong and that the whole thing has been altered. We know, from the Prime Minister of Singapore, from the Prime Minister of Australia, and from others, something of the effect of altering the date from the mid-1970s to the date now proposed: but of course there is no sanctity whatever in their minds about the date now
208
proposed. People who can, almost or entirely without apology, break their word once, may break it again. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, about the effect on our international reputation.
The most important element perhaps in which the Government have gone wrong is in this question of defence. Defence is not a luxury; it is not the last duty of a Government if they can afford it, after doing all the other things they would like to do. Defence is the first duty of a Government. This does not mean, of course, that there is no limit to the sums that we can afford for our defence; but it does mean that we should not pay with our safety to appease those who do not believe in having any defence at all. The noble Lord the Leader of the House—and the whole House accepts his sincerity in this—said with what regret some of these defence cuts have been made. But that was not the attitude of the Chairman of the Labour Party or of a great number of Labour Members of Parliament. Their attitude was: "We need not vote against the Government or resign office over the prescription charges because we are confident that this tremendous abandonment of defence overseas is exactly what we have always wanted; and we welcome it on that ground."
After the appalling injuries they are inflicting on our Armed Forces, this section of the Government's supporters still want the Government to throw their imaginary weight about in foreign affairs. There is scarcely a day in another place when some honourable Member below the Gangway does not demand that the Government should do this, that and the other among the great Powers and in every quarter of the world. They seem completely to overlook the effect that has been brought about by our "ratting" on our obligations and the loss of our defences. Frankly, their attitude is still that which I heard Winston Churchill describe in the House of Commons some thirty years ago. Their motto, he said, is "Disarm and quarrel".
For this ignoring of our obligations, noble Lords do not have to believe me; they have only to study the speech of Sir Dingle Foot, until recently the present Government's Solicitor General. This dishonouring of obligations does not

209
depend in the least on taking the word of any of the Government's opponents; it has been set forth in the speeches of the Government supporters. Yet the Minister of Defence stays in office! In seeking an explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon, I recall a quotation that I have long treasured, although I can no longer give chapter and verse for it. The quotation is as follows:
"He had a life-long struggle with his own conscience; but he always won."
The failing of the defence cuts consists not merely in the fact that they have injured our international reputation; they will not even, I think, produce the results in the saving of foreign currency which provides their only alleged excuse. When we consider the interests at stake in the Persian Gulf and the amount it would cost us to maintain the defence we recently promised, it is out of all proportion even to seek to save the sums we are seeking to save at the enormous price of that which we put at risk.
My Lords, I leave foreign affairs and I come to what is proposed in home affairs. Here, because there are so many other speakers, I shall make only two or three points: They may sound rather disjointed. I very much agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Franks, about the importance of a theme. I believe—and I have made it clear in both Houses and in many speeches I have made in the country—that there are two ways in which a country's economy can be made to work. There is the Communist method of having no Parliamentary government at all and ruling by absolute tyranny. I hate that method; but it can be made to work—although with one exception, and he is not here to-day, there is nobody in this House who wishes that method to be adopted here. The other great method of making an economy work is to rely on the freedoms of a free society and to harness the energies excited by love of those freedoms to benefit the State. I have never been a believer in pure laissez faire. That was always a Liberal and not a Conservative doctrine. But, although I believe that the State must intervene to end abuses, I still believe it is worth harnessing the energies of a free society to produce the results you want.
I mention two or three matters in the hope, a very distant one, that possibly
210
the new Chancellor of the Exchequer—for whose intellectual capacity I have considerable respect and whose personality I found when I was in the House of Commons most agreeable—will consider them and take the right action, but I fear that he may be tempted to go wrong. The first is this question that everybody has seized upon—all the critics have seized upon it quite naturally—of the absurd expansion of the Home Civil Service which it is not proposed in any way to remedy. My Lords, I am not going to join in any attack on the Civil Service. From my experience—and I have held some ministerial offices—I have the greatest and highest respect for the Civil Service; and, of course, the great expansion is not due to the incompetence of the civil servants; it is due to an absurd excess of legislation. Some of that legislation is extremely foolish. It is proposed to go on increasing that volume of legislation, quite irrespective of the certain economic effects on this country. I beg the Chancellor to have a look at this and to ask whether he really believes that anybody, at home or abroad, will believe that he is trying to save this country's economy if he goes on with all the legislation already planned, and does nothing to remove some of the very uneconomic activities that make the retention of this vast increase in the Civil Service necessary.
I am sorry to say that we are beginning, once again, to hear the usual nonsense about dividends. I hope the Chancellor, who is an economist, will look into this nonsense and not be swayed by a popular belief in the nonsense in certain quarters, created largely by the Government's own previous statements. Let me remind your Lordships' House of this simple fact. Company profits and dividends are perfectly distinct things. Let me take them separately.
Profits, I have always thought, were a perfectly proper subject for taxation. But I have always thought that profits were better than losses; and to tell companies, engaged in the export trade and elsewhere, that they should not even try to increase their profits is to say something perfectly absurd and contrary to the national interest. But if they do make profits, what about dividends? In molt cases probably it will not be possible

211
to pay any increased dividend, partly because it may still be very difficult to win the profits and partly because the state of the company may make it desirable to keep the profits in the company. But not always. Sometimes there may well be no reason at all why profits should not be distributed to those entitled to them; namely, the shareholders.
Years ago the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income came to a conclusion which I have frequently quoted to your Lordships' House. They stated quite clearly that it was not in the national interest that a company should retain in its own coffers profits which it did not need and which, if circulated to the shareholders, might be invested in companies where investment was very badly needed. The reason why I fear there may be further folly on this subject is that in his broadcast speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"There can be no automatic increase in wages or salaries or dividends to compensate for price increases."
Of course there cannot. Whoever heard of an increase in dividends to compensate for price increases? An increased dividend can be paid only out of profits, and an increased cost of living cannot in itself result in any dividend.
I do not wish to develop this, but if we insist, if the Government insist, on talking nonsense on this subject, so will people throughout the country, and the improvement of our economy will be delayed. It is worth while studying the way the German economy recovered—it is sometimes referred to as an economic miracle—after what happened during the war. It was by relying on freedom and a free society. Now they are very rich, but they did this when they were very poor.
My Lords, my next subject is foreign travel. I know that probably the noble Earl, Lord Longford, thinks that I attach too much importance to this, but I know, too, that the noble Earl recognises my sincerity in the matter. I think that prohibiting a citizen from indulging in foreign travel if he wishes to is barbarous and contrary to the national interest. This has nothing to do with the balance of payments. If I want to take a holiday in France or Italy (and now that I am a very old man I had hoped to see something
212
more of both those countries before I die) I should not wish to go on a package tour such as is advertised, lasting a few days—to be among the bathing belles and all the rest of it; I should want to see some of the great civilisations that Europe has inherited from Rome and Greece and Christianity. I want to be able to travel.
My Lords, we again started this limitation recently, and the British citizen is more limited than any other citizen, I think, in the world—with one possible exception. Hitler did it, and became, in this country, a figure for ridicule over this limitation. The most characteristic socialist institution in the world is the Berlin Wall, which prevents people from getting out of East Germany without the permission of the Government. We ought to be a little frightened of treating the seas that surround this island as a wall which people cannot cross for their own purposes without the permission of the Government.
I know that I may be told that this is what other countries have sometimes found to be necessary. At the present moment America is proposing it, and we may get that business of "Beggar my neighbour" to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia. But what the American Government proposes is something quite different. It does not pretend in any way to limit the amount a citizen may spend abroad on travel. What it does propose to do is to make it more expensive and to tax the person who is going to indulge in that travel. If we are to have this limitation at all, that is the way to do it.
I pass to agriculture. If there is one thing that I should have thought was needed, it is to give some encouragement to agriculture and to stop the disgraceful process of taking agricultural land for this and the other purpose; to the enormous impoverishment of the beauty of this country and the possibility of increasing our food supply. The latest chapter in the Stansted infamy is that they propose to take even an increased quantity of good agricultural land.
My Lords, I apologise if I have taken too long. I have never been so unhappy about the state of our country, but I do not take the pessimistic view that things

213
cannot be improved and go right. I accept what was said by the Leader of the
House, that we must not be too pessimistic. But we must be honest enough to realise that the consequences of actions are things which can and ought to be foreseen. I would end with a famous quotation from Bishop Butler, which I think I have inflicted on the House before:
"Things and actions are what they are and the consequences of them will be what they will be; why then should we desire to be deceived?"
7.0 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to those which have already been given to four maiden speakers of great distinction. I cannot remember more distinctive contributions from those who have spoken for the first time in your Lordships' House. I would pay them the compliment of taking an introduction from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, a phrase from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Franks, and hope that what I have to say will be imbued with the vigorous severity, almost, of the noble Lord, Lord Carron, and perhaps will be a little aerated by the confidence and enthusiasm of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies.
I noticed in the muscular speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, that he was dubious about the possibilities of a Government run by businessmen, and he extended that dubiety to a Government run by college professors. I thought he was then going to say something about the Church. He did not, but I am sure that he has a similar dubiety about the Church running the country. I reflect that one member of the Church to-day, the right reverend Prelate who spoke, advanced almost as an argument for his intervention his lack of knowledge of what was going on. That prompted me to think how apposite was the reflection of the noble Lord, Lord Franks, that there is a breakdown in communication and that the communication of a theme is required perhaps more than anything else at the moment, if we are to see this matter in which we are now engaged in the proper perspective, to see it steadily and to see it whole. That seems to me an admirable introduction and an admirable text.
214
I do not believe that the present situation is an economic situation which is prompted by a moral dilemma. It is a matter, if not of moral, then of psychological condition which has precipitated the economic condition. I would begin with one of the most taking comments in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. There is a widespread sense of bewilderment, which is not only shared perhaps by politicians but more or less is endemic in the community. I should be inclined to think that it was more than bewilderment. I would venture to say that what must come out of these cuts, if they are to be acceptable, is some kind of resolution of this problem of lack of communication of a general theme which would justify them. Let me hasten to add that in some respects I cannot see that this is so. Nevertheless, I should like for a little while to invite your Lordships to look at some of these cuts in the light of this requirement of some overall pattern or theme by which they ought to be judged.
To begin with the defence cuts, I confess, declaring my own faith, that I am delighted that they have been made. I wish that they had been made earlier and were much more thorough. As a thorough-going pacifist, I look forward to the day when we have no defences at all. I make a witness to this. I know that it is an impossible argument at the moment, but it is coming nearer to an argument. It is not much use now having an adequate force or a small force. One noble Lord advocated the strong-arm man keeping his goods in peace, as if that was a suitable argument for the maintenance of armed force. The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft quoted from the New Testament but gave only half the quotation:
"To each according to his need, from each according to his power."
But the New Testament goes on to say:
"… until a stronger than these shall come upon him, there after he shall take from him all the armour in which he trusted".
If it is still thought that that is a suitable quotation in support of armaments, it refers to the Devil.
That is not germane to this particular matter. What is germane is that increasingly we are faced with the position where we are either capable of delivering a decisive blow, either we have a competence which is equal to a particular

215
situation, which in many cases must be problematical, or we are just as safe without anything at all. I welcome heartily this reduction in our arms capacity and I hope that it will be the focus of clear and protracted thinking as to what, if anything, is the role of the Armed Forces in a community which is likely to survive to the end of this century.
But that is not the matter about which your Lordships should first of all be concerned to-night. It is much more what the effect of these arms reductions will be on this prevalent condition of bewilderment. There is one fact which can first be put into the locker. Since the devaluation proposals have been made, Gallup Polls have indicated a return of some of the confidence which had previously been lost in the viability of the present Government. I think this is due to the fact that, belated as it may be, the Government have appeared at last to take resolute, forceful, disagreeable action, and this has evoked a favourable comment from people who were bewildered and now are inclined to think that some resolute measures are being taken. I am putting it as bleakly as I can, because I feel that it is necessary to put the case as one sees it in the light of the environment in which one finds oneself.
I feel sure that many of the people with whom I am in contact think that a Government which lives on a diet of eating its own words must necessarily become debilitated unless there is sufficient reason for changing its mind, and the changing of its mind about matters and the breaking of its word need not be a thing of shame if there is an adequate and sufficient cause to prompt that course of action. If a man gets converted, it is perfectly right that he should renounce the purposes and attitudes taken before he was converted, and if a Government becomes converted sincerely to a new attitude, that Government is entirely free to make new judgments and in many cases to repudiate old ones. When it appears to the man in the street that these changes are forced for political and economic reasons which are not related to economic principles, then his bewilderment tends to increase. For there is little virtue in doing the right thing if it is done for the wrong motive.
216
It is this lack of a sense of virtue in what is happening which is to be found in one corner of these cuts, of which little mention has been made. The Civil Defence organisation is to be disbanded. I have always thought that Civil Defence is a rather macabre charade, but I have an abounding confidence in the sincerity of all kinds of simple people who feel quite genuinely that the only proper safeguard against an atom bomb is not to be there when it goes off, but if you happen to be around it is your bounden duty to do what you can, even if only peripherally, to save the lives of those who in many cases will be on the verge of the actual explosion itself. I recognise that. I still think that it is a waste of time and that there are better things which should occupy people than engaging in that kind of operation, but I think it is entirely improper that the Government should renounce, reject and repudiate that kind of voluntary service without attaching their reasons. The only reasons which would satisfy me are such as these—the need is no longer there, or, in the judgment of the Government, there are better occupations by which ultimately security would be safeguarded and therefore this is a waste of time. It is this kind of thinking which I hope that the Government will be able to say with clearer voice and so meet the demand of the noble Lord, Lord Franks, that this communication of a sense of theme and purpose is the only way to justify what appears to me and many others as a belated but necessary exercise in the reduction of our Armed Forces.
In turning to domestic matters, I have to register my ardent opposition to prescription charges. I believe that they are psychologically rather than economically promoted. I believe that it will be almost impossible to make them effective. I think they will lead to a loss of medication in many cases where medication is necessary, and I think, on the evidence of many people more competent than I am, but also on evidence that comes to me in my own work, it is highly likely that the poorest will suffer. I expect that there are other reasons which do not occur to me at the moment, but those are enough to be getting on with. Therefore I regard this whole question of the imposition of prescription charges with great aversion.

217
I remember this, too, for a deeper reason still, if I may advert to it. I remember the time when there were no prescriptions except for those who could pay for them. I remember, as a young Minister of the Gospel in the Old Kent Road, the miseries that there prevailed. I know the day when the Welfare State raised the, so to speak, brazen serpent in the wilderness, where so many people were being beaten by the snakes of unemployment, destitution and poverty; and I know that one of the characteristics of the promise for which they looked as they gazed at that brazen serpent, as the Israelites did, was that here was a free and full expression of public welfare in terms of the manifest giving and sharing of responsibility by those who could do this, and the free reception of the benefits at the point at which they were needed.
I know that discrimination can be made between those who can competently pay for these things and those who cannot. But it is not only necessary in judgment and in politics to be right; it is necessary, also, to appear to be right, It is this vision of the brazen serpent, that has now turned into the sacrifice of the sacred cow. I very much object to the idea that this is a sacred cow and is therefore expendable. To me, and to many others, it represents something much higher than that. Until the Government are prepared to renounce and repudiate this infliction of what appears to so many to be an injustice, I for one shall take my individual opposition to prescription charges as far as I can.
I entirely approve of, and, if I may say so without impertinence, I entirely concur with, what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said about the other cut, the postponement of the extra school year. I recognise that cuts have to be made. I recognise that many of the cuts are disagreeable. I recognise that the situation is extremely difficult and more complex than I, as a working parson, am capable of understanding. I want to make my contribution. I can only make it, in one sense, by registering my convictions. But I should not like to sit down in such an arid atmosphere as merely to recognise how much good there is in one part of this deal, in the arms package, and how much I disagree with others.
218
I want to say what I am sure my friends on the Episcopal Bench would say; that is, that if confidence is to be ultimately restored, it must be by an inner revaluation. And I can think of nothing that would restore confidence and a sense of purpose rather than bewilderment than the reintroduction into the minds and hearts of ordinary people of a sensible, intelligent 20th century religious faith. I am well aware that such a change and transformation is as necessary in your Lordships' House and in ray own life as it is in the lives of those whom we regard as the people of this country. Nevertheless, this to me is not some afterthought or some addition to an otherwise pertinent comment. I still believe that we are suffering from a spiritual malaise of which this economic phenomenon is one expression, and alongside those methods that are desperately necessary to get ourselves straight with the bank, straight economically, there remains, as I see it, the more peremptory need that we should recover a faith which will carry us through the difficult times that lie ahead.
7.15 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it is not easy to follow such inspiring statements as those with which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, ended his speech. I do not agree with a great deal of what he had to say earlier, and perhaps at some time I could explain to him the principle of the deterrent in relation to defence forces, whose purpose, indeed, is to save life. It is perhaps worth bearing that in mind.
To turn to my theme, I do not propose this evening to devote much time to defence. I think that what the Government have done is disastrous; but it has been well covered by my noble friends, and I do not want to make more than one point; that is, that in altering the dates on which the Government are proposing to cut defence they are now making it more difficult for their errors to be put right by any successors. This is very dangerous, because errors that are made in defence equipment and manpower cannot be replaced quickly in these days as they could 200 years ago. Here we come to what the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, said: Are we in a democracy when a Government can stay in power indefinitely regardless of what they do? Are we in

219
a democracy when a Government commit themselves to a major mistake and so organise the timing that their successors cannot put this right? That is all I wish to say about defence.
My main point to-night is to go much more fundamentally into the problems which have been touched on by various noble Lords earlier. It is the fact that the Government, no doubt with the best intentions, have lost most of the confidence of this country. I am sure that they are as puzzled about why this has happened as many other people may be. A great deal of study has been given to the question of how men and women should be managed, and in commerce and industry to-day great steps are being taken to bring up to date the methods of managing people. Our system of government, which has evolved itself over so many centuries, is fundamentally at fault in respect of the latest and most modern management methods. This is because it has been based over the years on an assumption that, to put it simply, those at the top know best. This is a theme which starts in the Bible; it starts in early family life. It was necessary up until quite recently, even in the most civilised countries, because individuals who had to be managed were not properly educated. One can probably say that it is only in the last twenty years that the vast majority of people have had sufficient education for it to be not only a good thing but highly important that they should be consulted as to how they could best make their own contribution.
Unfortunately, our present Government, with their Socialist antecedents, will find it even harder to adjust their attitude than Governments of other political Parties. This is because when the Socialists formed their theories they saw that the managers were managing badly; they put the fault down to the managers and said, "We must replace them by the State", instead of putting the fault down to the system, which was the system of authoritarian management. This, my Lords, is probably difficult for people to hoist in in the short space of a brief speech on a Tuesday evening; but it clearly needs serious thought. There is a great deal of literature on this subject, and the fundamental of it—which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, men-
220
tioned in passing—is that there is an equality for us all, an equality of contribution we can all make. And we must recognise that the people who do things, whatever they do, have as much to contribute in deciding what that should be as those who govern them or manage them.
The malaise that has been mentioned—and noble Lords have mentioned it repeatedly—is, I think, in the arrogance of Government, and this applies not only to the Parliamentary members of Government but also to those who sit behind their locked doors and communicate with the public by letter, if they communicate with it at all. Any noble Lords who, like myself, have had the privilege of working in a Ministry will know what a desperate effect this has on one's sense of proportion in relation to one's effect on other people.
I would suggest to the Government that the most important thing they can do is this—and here I go very much with the noble Lord, Lord Franks. We want to be told, and told clearly, what the Government are doing. But even that will not take us through; even that will not be enough, because what we must cure is this arrogance which naturally exists with people in authority. We must recognise that people in the country have a contribution to make, and have a very clear idea what it should be. We should have a two-way communication. In fact, to do this properly we have to unshackle ourselves from centuries of legislation which restricts our movement forward.
Only recently it has been said that the most highly supervised country in the world is Russia, which has the lowest productivity per man, and the second most highly supervised country in the world is our own, and we have the second lowest productivity per man. Now this is a fundamental feature. We can get this dealt with only if we set to work to evaluate all the legislation that exists, with the specific object of getting rid of that which restricts the human individual. Do not get me wrong: of course one does not want to abolish all the criminal law and have the criminals let out of prison. But anything which is hampering development, various tax laws and all these things, needs to be investigated impartially by people who are specially

221
chosen as understanding the value of other people. And this is much more difficult to find than you would think, my Lords. This, in fact, is the solution. Whether we can expect a Socialist Government to arrive at the same conclusion I very much doubt. So perhaps the first thing to do is to invite the Government to step down in order that we can set to work to put this country on its feet.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, it was announced earlier to-day that there would be an interval about this time for the purpose of securing adequate refreshment and nourishment, and therefore I beg to move that this House do adjourn until five minutes to eight.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.55 p.m.]
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I have never, I think—or not for a very long time—so nearly had the privilege of talking to myself as I have this evening in this House. There is a lot I might say, but in the absence of those to whom I should like to address my words, perhaps it would be unwise to say it. Nevertheless, I think I must express my sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in the dilemma in which he finds himself. I must express my admiration for the solution which he finds to that dilemma, and I must thank him for the many courtesies which he has shown to me when he was Leader of the House. If he were here, I should like to welcome the new Leader of the House, and my welcome is none the less sincere because I believe in my bones—although I cannot support it by argument—that he will not be Leader of this House for very long, and that within a far shorter time than many of us expect he will be sitting on this Bench on this side of the House.
My Lords, the debate has been conducted at a very high level, and I hope I shall not fall too far below it. It has been distinguished by some remarkable maiden speeches and if, in the first instance, I single out that most remarkable Parliamentary performance of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, I hope I may be allowed to make that exceptional distinction to an old Parliamentary colleague. I think Lord Thorneycroft was entirely justified in disobeying Pope
222
John's injunction. I think he was fully entitled to claim, as he did, that if in 1958 the Government had accepted his advice, instead of his resignation, we should not be in the position we are in to-day. I think, too, he was perfectly right to stress the fact that we were living under a system which depended for its efficacy upon high profits and real incentives, and that we had been making a great mistake in disregarding these realities in the past. I am sure he was right in what he said about the reaction of our allies to the defence proposals of the Government. I am sure he was right in what he said about the Welfare State, that it was something we had to look at again, that we had to re-model, not in the interests only of economy, but also in the interests of the assumed beneficiaries of the Welfare State.
But where I do differ from my noble friend is in this. I do not share his view that it is necessary now, at this stage, to preserve Party unity and that it is better to support a Government, even as bad as this one, rather than seek to dismiss it from office. We have heard from other noble Lords that this is not the time to play Party politics. Now Party politics is to some extent a game, and a very fascinating one. But it is something more than that. Party politics—the Party system—is a clash between opposing beliefs and opposing philosophies, and if we try to gloss over this clash, to pretend that it is not there, we are only doing a grave disservice to the State.
My Lords, it seemed to me that when the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, moved the Motion standing in his name he exposed at once the dilemma in which this Government, particularly, find themselves; a dilemma from which they can not escape and a dilemma which frustrates, and must continue to frustrate, all their efforts. I mean this. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was at pains to counter what he called "undue pessimism". He was at pains to say that though this was a serious crisis it rea11y was not as serious as all that: it was a temporary setback along the road on which the Government had started and on which now, in new forms, they could continue. The dilemma rests in this: that the Government cannot get from the people the response they need, and

223
the response they must have if we are to get through our difficulties, unless they stress the reality of the crisis. On the other hand, if they do stress the reality of the crisis then it focuses attention on their own failure and their own culpability. I think that is the real reason for what the noble Lord, Lord Franks, in that very remarkable speech, referred to as the lack of a theme and the element of doubt which attach to every action of Her Majesty's Government at the present time.
There was one part of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, from which I must most forcibly dissent. It was where he said that national defence was not an absolute; it was only the first of a number of relativities. But surely national defence is an absolute, because if you make a mistake there then everything is lost. You can postpone the raising of the school-leaving age but the damage done is not irretrievable, except in so far, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, says, as you frustrate the hopes of 300,000 children who will be deprived of another year at school—although I am not sure that "hopes" is quite the right word, so far as the children are concerned. But at any rate you can retrieve the error.
If you make a mistake about prescription charges, if you make a mistake about the Health Service, if you make a mistake about house building, those are all errors that you can retrieve. But if you make a mistake about defence, then everything is lost and everything is at risk; and it seems to me that in these cuts in defence to which the Government have committed themselves they are making an error which is putting at risk everything in which they themselves profess to believe. Equality of opportunity is a great thing; but if they have made a mistake in the field of defence there is no equality of opportunity, unless slavery and foreign domination can be so represented. If they have made a mistake about defence there can be no economic growth. I wonder what kind of a world the Government think they are living in. They seem to believe that it is a world in which force is of no account, in which there is no such place as Vietnam, in which there is no such power as Communist China, probing,
224
and probing and probing, down towards Cambodia, down towards Thailand, down towards Malaysia and Singapore, and India.
There was one particular aspect of the Government's proposals which struck a chill through my heart when I heard it announced in another place by the Prime Minister. He spoke of the reduction in the construction of hunter-killer submarines. One would think that members of the Government had not lived through the last war. Perhaps they did not all live through the First War but they must have read about it, and they must realise that twice within living memory this country has been nearly starved into submission; and by slowing down on this hunter-killer programme they are deliberately inviting that risk again. Of course they may say, "Well we have made a mini-realm, a mini-England; nobody is going to bother with us". My Lords, that is what Norway thought thirty years ago.
I should like very briefly to refer to something that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said, in a speech which impressed me very deeply, particularly his concluding passage. He said that in these days it is no use having small arms; he could see the argument, though he could not accept it, for great armaments, but in the world to-day there was no place for small defence forces. That, my Lords, is going directly against what has happened in the past few years. What has kept the peace in Malaysia? What ended the threat from Indonesia? It was just a small force. And we are so inclined to think in terms of the deterrent and of nuclear war that we forget altogether, I think, the possibility that we might be involved here in this country in a submarine blockade by an enemy, without nuclear war, without a declaration of war and without there being any real state of war, except that we were being slowly starved to death. It seems to me that the Government is taking a risk which no Government ought to take.
We have heard something in the debate to-day about the tough measures the Government is taking; but are they really so tough? If you look at the table in the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT of January 17, the day the Prime Minister made his original Statement,

225
you will see that there is only one field in which expenditure will be reduced in 1969–70. In every other field it goes up. They are being tough only in that field which does not hurt their Party susceptibilities. There was another remarkable thing in that Statement by the Prime Minister. He said, and he said it, I think, as a boast, or at any rate as a justification, that all through the social services in the last four years there had been an increase in Government expenditure of between 42 and 48 per cent. I had not realised that until I heard it from the Prime Minister. One knows that measure after measure comes before us. One knows that each one adds to the costs, but one does not realise how quickly the costs add up. And if there was one thing that shocked me more than that statement of the Prime Minister it was this reflection: that I believe each
one of those increases in expenditure was supported by the Opposition. My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft is fully justified in saying that all the fault for this crisis has not been on the side of the Government.
My Lords, when he moved his Amendment my noble friend, Lord Jellicoe, said that he regretted the fact that he was moving an Amendment. I regret it too, but for different reasons. My noble friend regretted it because he would much rather not have had a vote at all. I regret it because I would much sooner have had a direct vote on the Government's Motion. After all, the issue before us is not whether cuts in defence are more dangerous than other cuts, though most certainly they are. It is not whether the devaluation of our word is more damaging than the devaluation of our currency, though I am sure that in the long run it will prove to be so. The real issue is the credibility of the Government. The world no longer believes in the Government, the country no longer believes in the Government, the Government no longer believes in itself and certainly this House does not believe in the Government. I think it would have been very much better if we had said so directly.
What is it that has happened in the past two months so to destroy the reputation of Her Majesty's Government? After all, we have had three years of false dawns, of misjudgment, of miscalculation. We have got used to that. But in
226
the last two months something has happened from which this Government cannot, from which I believe no Government could, recover. It has become apparent in these two months that, having got us into this crisis through ill luck or ill judgment or through both, the Government is less interested in solving the crisis than in preserving the unity of the Labour Party. I think that is felt throughout the country and throughout the world. This Government is always talking about priorities. We know now, I think, what its priorities are: first, the survival of the Government; secondly, the survival of the Labour Party; and last, and least I am afraid, the survival of the country.
I have no doubt that the Government has only one duty it can usefully perform now, and that is to appeal to the country for its verdict, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he comes to speak a little later on will reply to the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia. Does the Government feel any responsibility to the electorate? Does it feel, in its long course of broken pledges, broken undertakings and reversals of programme, that at some stage before the five-year term is up it must ask the electorate for a new mandate?
8.20 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Coleraine has made a sincere and bitter speech which I cannot think is wholly unjustified. Unlike my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, to whose admirable maiden speech we have listened with such pleasure this afternoon, I do not remember ever having been wrong in the course of my Parliamentary career, which now spans a period of over forty years. On March 28, 1961, nearly seven years ago, I ventured to call the attention of your Lordships to the lack of liquid reserves in the Free World, and the consequent effects upon the currencies, economic growth and volume of international trade. I had been on the record for many years before that as an opponent of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1945, and as saying persistently that a radical revision of its terms was an essential prerequisite to the establishment of a sound and workable international monetary system in the modern world.
I suggested in that speech that the International Monetary Fund should be

227
transformed into an international Central Bank, with adequate powers of credit creation and contraction; or that the proposals put forward by Professor Triffin for a clearing union, should be adopted; that the I.M.F. should in any case be instructed to consider ways and means by which more economic international liquidity could be created, and holdings of national reserve currencies converted into holding of reserves with international backing. And I said that, failing agreement on any of those plans, the only way out was a rise in the dollar price of gold. At least I had the support of the late President Kennedy—and I quote:
"Increasing international monetary reserves will be required to support the ever-growing volume of trade, services and capital movements among the countries of the free world. Until now the free nations have relied upon increased gold production and continued growth in holdings of dollars and pounds sterling. In the future, it may not always be desirable or appropriate to rely on these sources. We must now, in co-operation with other lending countries, begin to consider ways in which international monetary institutions—especially the International Monetary Fund—can be strengthened and more effectively utilised, both in furnishing needed increases in reserves and in providing the flexibility required to support a healthy and growing world economy."
I also had the support of Lord Franks, who made an equally admirable maiden speech this afternoon, when he was Chairman of Lloyds Bank. But nothing came of all this; and this was seven years ago. The British Government, then Conservative, showed no undue enthusiasm. The United States Government stalled. The West German Government hold on grimly to national reserves which, not being an international currency, were in effect sterilised, and did nothing to increase the tenuous liquid resources of the Free World. Finally, the French Government vetoed every proposal for any kind of reform, radical or otherwise, of the international monetary system, and they continue to do so. This—and make no mistake about it, my Lords—is the root cause of the mess in which both we and the United States now find ourselves. In the final analysis, it is yet another form of virulent nationalism which might destroy the Free World if we do not take care. To be amazed at the continuous ineptitude of the financial authorities throughout the Free World is no new sensation for me. It has been
228
going on for forty years. If you imported all the most brilliant economists from Hungary, they could not even chip the granite of the Treasury and the Bank of England. As I have already told your Lordships, there was only one man who has ever done that, and at one critical point when he was laying the foundations of the Welfare State he had to hire a separate Civil Service in order to do it.
I now turn to the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. Some of them are, I think, courageous. The cuts in expenditure at home, even the deferment in the raising of the school-leaving age, seem to me to be both wise and right at this moment of time. I deeply respect the views of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose speech and whose action we admire, being in accord with his character and reputation. But I still think that Her Majesty's Government showed courage in making these cuts at home—too late, but better late than never.
I further believe that we are no longer in a position to police the world; and that in principle the decision to withdraw the greater part of our forces from the Far East is the correct one. That also required courage, especially on the part of the Secretary of State for Defence. There are, however, two spots which, in my opinion, are vital not only to the economic wellbeing, but even to the economic survival of this country. The first is the Persian Gulf, where the bulk of our oil supplies comes from. The second is the Cape, which all of it has now to pass, together with all our shipping, which means all our trade to and from Australia, New Zealand, India and Malaysia. I would remind your Lordships that the Suez Canal is likely to be closed for a considerable time to come. But even now the big oil companies are turning over to tankers which are of a size which will never be able to get through the Suez Canal in the future, and they will all have to go round the Cape. This, to anyone who has recently sailed from Cape Town—and I arrived at Southampton only yesterday morning—is most significant. In olden times, when the Suez Canal was open, you hardly ever saw a ship on this route. Now it is jammed with shipping. It is an absolutely fascinating spectacle to see the number of ships and tankers that are

229
moving up and down on that route to the Cape.
I greatly hope that at no distant date, and before any final decisions are taken—and by "decisions" I mean action—a conference will be held in which we ourselves will participate, to concert plans for the defence of our vital interests in these areas. Clearly, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and ourselves ought to take part in this conference. I would think that we might make a military contribution, and possibly a Naval contribution, to bases to be established in Australia. We ought to move quite quickly. But surely we should do these things, not by ourselves but in concert with our own kith and kin, with the people who have depended upon us. As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, pointed out, since the war, with comparatively small forces, we have twice saved Malaysia, first from the Communists and then from the confrontation with Indonesia. It seems to me that we must be in a position at least to get at the Gulf quickly, if the necessity arises. With modern air transport, and a frigate or two at Bahrein, it should be possible at no great cost. If the sheikhs wish to make a contribution to their own defence, I see no reason why the Secretary of State for Defence should put us in the category of mercenaries. This is absolute nonsense. We have taken assistance from many countries in the world in providing for their defence in the past, and I see no reason why we should not take some assistance from those who have so much to lose, in providing for their defence in the future.
I must say that I deplore the decision of the Government not to pull a large proportion of our troops out of Germany. They served their purpose, and served it well, when NATO was formed. Now, it seems to me, they serve no purpose at all. Never was there a more colossal waste of money and so unnecessary a strain upon our balance of payments. If war comes with the Soviet Union, now or in the future, it will be a nuclear war. That would be the end of us all; and that is why I do not think it will come. Meanwhile, to keep all these troops lolling about in Germany at great expense to us in foreign exchange is insanity in our present situation. I would say to Her Majesty's Government: bring them home,
230
they are serving no useful purpose. If any local emergency or "grass fire" war were to break out, we could very quickly put it down with modern air transport and it would cost us no foreign exchange at all.
I have mentioned the Persian Gulf. The other vital area is South Africa. I am well aware that this is not a debate in which the problem of Rhodesia or the problems of apartheid can or should be discussed. But South Africa as a whole fits into the general picture of our defence and economic requirements; and we are now in grave danger of losing the whole of South Africa. This would be a fatal blow to our economy and to our security.
I have just returned from a visit to South Africa and Rhodesia: I landed at Southampton yesterday morning. I can tell your Lordships that I kept well clear of the politicians. I talked to the farmers and to as many people as I could. I spent a week on a farm 80 miles out of Salisbury, I spoke to many ordinary people, and I was even allowed to do a half-an-hour television programme in Salisbury. The only other person who has ever been able to do a television appearance for half-an-hour is Mr. Smith, so I was flattered about it. I did not bring in politics, except to say, when I was asked about the political situation in Rhodesia, that if I had had the personal handling of it for the last six years there would have been no problem at all.
I want to say only two things to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government. The first is that I am absolutely convinced that you will not bring down Southern Rhodesia by economic sanctions. This will be only one of the many predictions of Her Majesty's Government which have been falsified by events. If it is any consolation to Ministers, I can tell them that feeling against Conservative Ministers is even greater than that against the Prime Minister. An eminent civil servant in Salisbury told me that negotiating with one Conservative Minister, who must be nameless, was like negotiating with a shadow in a bath.
There is still a fund of good will for the United Kingdom in Rhodesia and in South Africa, but it is diminishing and before very long it will be gone. I believe that there is; now only one way out. First of all, withdraw sanctions. They are no good and act as a perpetual irritant and

231
poison the relationship between the Rhodesians and this country. Secondly, let the Government state their terms, based on the "Tiger" agreement but with much more clarity and with time to negotiate any points which remain obscure. This is the last chance of a settlement which the vast majority of people in Rhodesia, both coloured and white, still desperately desire and which, I believe, could be negotiated on these terms.
As for South Africa, I agree with almost every speaker in the debate that Simonstown is essential to us as a base. It is now threatened. What matters about apartheid is more the methods which are used than the principles which are rigidly held. I had reason to believe when I was in Cape Town that the methods had greatly improved. Mr. Vorster has many more liberal ideas than some of his predecessors. Therefore I deplore our refusal to sell arms to South Africa at this time, arms which would be for our own defence as well as theirs. After all, we are apt to forget, when we are scattering arms all over the world, all over the Middle East, and sending missions to every Communist country in the world, that, whatever one may think about racial policies, South Africa and Rhodesia fought by our side in two world wars. This is all too easily forgotten.
I can only say that neither in Rhodesia nor in South Africa could I detect any signs of racial tension. The growing tension at present is between those countries as a whole and the United Kingdom. I came away with a great feeling of sadness because I feel that this tension is not necessary. We are not doing so well in dark West Africa either; we have not given them much help recently. In short, we are at present losing out in Africa generally. And, when all is said and done, we made it what it is.
I should like to say a few words in conclusion about imports. No one is a greater advocate of increased international trade than I am, but I have never shrunk from physical controls in a time of emergency. November's balance-of-trade deficit was the biggest ever recorded in peace time. The overseas trade accounts published by the Board of Trade make shocking reading and are proof positive that it is far more the
232
excess of imports than the failure to export which is the main cause of our balance of payments difficulties. There was a jump in imports for the first eleven months of 1967 of £409,600,000, or 7 per cent. above the corresponding period of 1966. Nearly half this rise was accounted for by a rise of £177 million in the purchase of machinery and transport equipment, which we could perfectly well have made ourselves. The two manufactured goods categories rose by £120 million—the most noticeable jumps being in imports of iron and steel—for heaven's sake!—by £30 million; of textile yarns and fabrics by £23 million, and of professional and scientific instruments by £18 million. We have an impregnable reputation in all these things, and I say that these imports should not be; they are grossly excessive.
And what about all these luxury goods which come pouring in from all over the world? Do we really need a thousand foreign cheeses when we can produce ample supplies of Cheddar, Cheshire and, for those who have the money, Stilton cheese, which are the three best cheeses in the world—better than any other country can produce? I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take a hard look at our import bill which accounts, far more than any failure to increase exports, for the deficit in our balance of payments.
Finally, I would make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is framing his Budget, which is the second part of the economic proposals of the Government. It is that he should distinguish between productive and portfolio investment overseas, and not penalise the companies which are bringing in much-needed revenue to this country by imposing on them taxation which handicaps them enormously in competition with their rivals, particularly the United States. He knows very well the companies which I have in mind. They are the invaluable result of superb British skill and endeavour over many years and they make—and will continue to make if they are only given the chance to do so—a vital contribution in our balance-of-payments problem.
My Lords, I have done. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that I shall not be able to be present

233
when he replies to this debate. I shall be here for the reply to-morrow night, but the reason I beg him to forgive me is that I am already an hour and three-quarters late for a dinner appointment, and there are limits to the extent one can be rude. If it is any consolation to the noble Lord, I would say that because I applaud some of the proposals of the Government and deplore others I propose to abstain in the vote to-morrow might, which perhaps befits a Cross-Bench Member.
8.39 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, as the third ex-Ambassador in Washington to intervene in this debate, I do not propose to follow the themes of my two predecessors. I shall confine myself to a single point only, the decision to withdraw British forces on the Persian Gulf by 1971. And I have not been in collusion with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, or the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, on this matter.
My reason for speaking at all—and one must have a special reason to add to the long list of speakers in this debate—is partly a personal one. Some years ago I was sent on a mission to the Western side of the Persian Gulf. It was after the Abadan affair, the Trucial Oman Scouts were just being formed, and following my visit—I do not claim that it was a consequence of it—increased attention was paid to our relations with the Rulers in that area. I also started the discussions which eventually persuaded one of the Rulers to entrust the management of his sterling balances to a committee in London. There have, of course, been many major forward steps in the development of the area since that time, but I doubt whether the nature of our relationship with the Rulers has changed. It has been essentially one of friendship, trust and confidence. The treaties were there, but the basis of the relationship Went beyond the letter of treaties.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in another place last week that the question of our disengagement from the Gulf was one of timing and not of principle. If the Secretary of State had said this about the Far East it would have been less open to question. In the Far East, however much one may regret it, the decision to withdraw had already been taken and announced, though with
234
assurances which have now apparently been negatived. The new decision is to accelerate the process of withdrawal. But in the Gulf, on the contrary, the decision had been to remain there and to build up the base. The decision to withdraw is a sudden reversal of a recent decision. Moreover, the situation in the Far East is quite different from that in the Persian Gulf. In the Far East there is a strong American presence; there is an Australian and New Zealand presence. There are viable States—Malaysia in particular. Our withdrawal is regrettable for obvious reasons: that it throws a heavier burden on our allies. But it is not a complete surprise and it can be regarded as a question of degree and timing.
In the Persian Gulf the British position is predominant. There are, of course, large American interests and an American presence, but this is one of the few remaining areas of the world in which we have a lead and in which our interests justify it, quite apart from our obligations. It is, moreover, an area in which we still seem to be welcome. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, our departure will leave a serious vacuum. Stress has been laid, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, who made such a forceful maiden speech, on the importance of maintaining stability in South-East Asia, and his remarks apply a fortiori to the Persian Gulf There are at least three territorial claims on Gulf States which are dormant while we stay there. Relatively speaking, our commitment is not an onerous one. It will be even less onerous if some contribution from the Rulers is in fact forthcoming, and I echo the hopes of noble Lords who have preceded me that, if an offer is made, it will be accepted as a share in the collective defence of the area.
I have said that one of the Rulers entrusted the management of his sterling resources to an investment committee in. London. I myself was a member of that committee for two years. Thanks in large measure to the skill and experience of the late Lord Piercy, those investments fructified and prospered. They steadily increased in value. Other Rulers had sterling balances in London, though not, I think, under that formal arrangement. Then came devaluation, which the Rulers I have little doubt were assured would

235
not occur. The shock of confidence was great, but the British presence remained, the obligation stood. Devaluation could be represented as an unavoidable step in the circumstances; not so withdrawal. I have considered the argument that we may be able to exercise more influence without a military presence than with one. I do not accept it and I do not think the Government accepted it a couple of months ago. There is a further point. Our decision to accelerate our withdrawal from the Far East places an additional load on our American allies, but they knew that the withdrawal was planned. It would surely have lessened the strain which the present steps place upon our relations with the United States if we had decided to uphold our obligations in the Gulf.
In saying this I do not think that I am actuated by nostalgia, nor am I the victim of post-Imperialist delusions. I am not even sure that I am out of date. Of course, it is a question of priorities, and everybody knows how hard it is to establish priorities between different objectives of policy. My own view is that successive Governments have been getting their priorities out of balance over a period of years, but that in the last three or four years this imbalance has been dangerously accelerated. Now comes the reckoning.
In their selection of priorities the Government have made decisions in the foreign, political and defence field which are by their nature irreversible. Many of the decisions on the home front, and the postponement of desirable social reforms, are essentially reversible when conditions improve. It has been said elsewhere that there is a package deal of which every ingredient is an essential part. That, I think, is an arbitrary assumption. A package deal can be a bargain at the expense of the national interest. My view is that the decision about the Gulf should not have been part of the package, that the net saving will be small, and that the damage to our political, financial and commercial interests, and those of our friends and allies, will be serious and far-reaching.
8.47 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to concentrate my remarks this evening on that part of the
236
debate which has dealt with matters of defence and foreign policy. Perhaps those noble Lords who have concentrated on matters more related to social policies will bear with me if I leave my noble friend Lord Beswick and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to take up their points to-morrow. I should, however, like to say that no one on this side of the House could possibly have contemplated without dismay the economic measures that we have had to take in the field of social policy. To many Members, on both sides of the House, these measures conflict with deeply held political and moral convictions.
In this context perhaps I may be allowed to follow other noble Lords in saying how deeply I sympathise with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in the decision that he had to make; in saying how much I admire the passionate conviction which led him to follow his objection—and regrettably, on this occasion, his objection to one of these measures—to its logical conclusion. I should also like to say how dignified and impressive and moving I found his speech earlier to-day.
As I have said, I shall try to concentrate on matters of defence and foreign policy. I hope that I shall not keep your Lordships too long, but a large number of points have been raised and I shall try to cover them as best I can. I shall, perforce have to cover many of them in a general way, without referring to the specific questions that have been asked, and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if it seems that some of their questions—all of which have been important and valuable points—are not directly answered.
Perhaps I may begin by making a few brief, general comments about the background and assumptions of this debate—a remarkable debate, in my view—on defence policy. Here I refer back to something which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said in his intervention in this debate. In the long run, I believe that we shall all have to make a determined effort to extricate ourselves from some notably old-fashioned patterns of thoughts about the uses of armed force in the modern world.
We must realise in time, I think, that the classic doctrines involving the use of

237
arms as an extension of national and communal policies are rapidly becoming outmoded. The ideas about the relationship of military and political establishments—the classic ideas, which have remained virtually unchallenged since the Platonic formulation of the origins of wars, right through the political philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and right up to the often totally misunderstood doctrines of Clausewitz—are quite simply, my Lords, no longer valid. The application of modern technology to weapons systems, particularly the development of inter-continental missiles with nuclear warheads and the development of biological and chemical weapons, has created, in my view, an entirely new climate of international behaviour; or, rather, it should have created it, and in my view must if we are to survive. It seems to me that it will in due time become evident to anyone of intelligence that the use of war as an instrument of national policy is irrational, and will soon become unacceptable.
But of course I realise, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, realises, that this is to outline a pattern of international behaviour which we cannot hope to achieve for long years to come. In the meantime, we, particularly those in this House and in the other place and in Government, have to live with the world that we have, however imperfect it may be, and in that world we have not only a right but a duty to defend ourselves. Yet even in the context of a world in which nations still maintain powerful military forces and do not hesitate to use them or threaten to use them against real or imagined opponents, I must say that some of the arguments advanced in this debate to-day seem to me to be of rather doubtful validity.
Perhaps I could now quickly look at a few of the specific things that have been said in this debate, not to take them up in any polemical sense, or even indeed in all cases to argue against them, but simply to identify some of the important things that I think have been said. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned the possibility that, had we changed our defence posture to one of a more European nature earlier, our application to join the Common Market might have been more successful. I take leave to doubt this. I believe there are reasons behind our failure on this occasion to
238
get negotiations going on the Common Market which have singularly little to do with the deployment of our defence forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft—this has been said before, but I do not see any reason why I should not say it as well—made a most statesmanlike and impressive maiden speech. In my short time in your Lordships' House it is, I think, the most remarkable maiden speech I have heard. I have often, with my pm in my hand, attacked the noble Lord n the past, and I hope that he will take these few remarks as some recompense for the pain which I hope he suffered at my hands. The noble Lord, Lord Carron, made another in the series of quite extraordinary maiden speeches that we have heard to-day. It was, as one might expect from one of his distinguished background and illustrious career, quiet but impressive, sincere and effective. I congratulate him sincerely, and hope very much that we shall hear him often again in your Lordships' House.
I should like, if I may, to take up a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. He talked of the possibility of a Communist take-over in Singapore, and of his belief that this would lead to war with Malaysia. I do not wish to argue with him at this particular time on the validity of that analysis, but I hope—and, indeed, I know—that by that he is not suggesting that we should therefore stay there for ever; that we should seek indefinitely to try to prevent that happening by the presence of British Forces and a British base. As I say, I do not believe that he is suggesting that. We all know that sooner or later, whatever the threat may be, Singapore will have to look after its own security. What we have done now, for economic reasons, is to bring that day forward; and, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton has said, we shall be prepared to continue to help Singapore and Malaysia over this question of their defence against aggression and their internal security, and talks to this end are actually going on at this moment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether I may just make this point. Of course, I said specifically that we do not intend to stay there indefinitely What I said was that the Prime Minister of Singapore had asked for two years to get his defences in order. The noble

239
Lord—very wisely, if I may say so—seems to be suggesting that he is going to try to meet that request; that is to say, we are going to be actively concerned in helping Singapore perhaps beyond 1971. If that is what he is saying, then I welcome it as being very valuable.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I should not like the noble Earl to believe that I had made any pledge in this House that had not been made by the Government before. What I am saying is that it is our decision to withdraw from Singapore by the end of 1971, as we have said, but we are discussing with the Prime Minister of Singapore at the moment how his difficulties can be overcome.
My Lords, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, said one or two rather extraordinary things. I hope he will not take that remark amiss. He suggested that the Government had at the moment no purpose but that of getting their books actuarially in balance. My Lords, I find this an astonishing suggestion.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, what I said was that I saw the Government were trying to get our books in balance, but that they did not seem to have any ultimate objective beyond that. I was taking up the point that had been made previously.
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords; I was about to deal with exactly that point. What I was about to say was that this is simply not so. What has been happening is that we have been living beyond our means. This is not a question of simple book-keeping. Living beyond our means as a nation, just as a family, weakens us. When we are a nation, it weakens us at home and it weakens us overseas. Our purpose is quite clear: it is to stop living beyond our means so that we can be strong at home and create confidence overseas. If the noble Lord thinks that a simple exercise in the balancing of books, then I can only say that his brand of economic and political philosophy is to me a bizarre one.
The noble Lord went on to suggest that the disbandment of the Civil Defence organisations demonstrated that the Government now saw, or implied, that there was no military threat to this
240
country. Here again, I find the reasoning curious. If the noble Lord will study the roles of the organisations that he mentioned—the Civil Defence Service, the Territorial Army, the Territorials (that is to say, the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, Category III), and the Auxiliary Fire Service—I think he will see that to draw an inference like that is vastly to oversimplify a very complicated matter.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Lord. He has told the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, that he has drawn the wrong inference. Could the noble Lord tell us the right inference to draw?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords; if I may be allowed to get on with my speech. I fear that I am going to keep your Lordships a very long time, but this, I can assure the noble Earl, will be dealt with during the course of what I have to say.
My Lords, it would of course be quite wrong of me to pass on without mentioning yet another remarkable maiden speech to-day—that of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies. This, I think, was perhaps one of the most elegant and delightful speeches that we have heard in your Lordships' House for some time. I was delighted at the tributes that were paid to it. I should like to associate myself with all of them, and to say, too, that I think the noble Baroness redressed perhaps some of the inspissated gloom purveyed by some of the more determined professional Cassandras in your Lordships' House. For that I was especially grateful.
So far as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is concerned, he was, I think, fierce with the Government. I do not suppose that he would disclaim an intention to be fierce with the Government, so perhaps he will forgive me if I am rather fierce with him; because I think that some of the military arguments put forward by the noble Lord were arguments from the pre-nuclear age. The noble Lord was pained that some members of Her Majesty's Government had not lived through the last two world wars. I confess that I have not. I lived through one but was spared the other. I can assure him, however, that in my view—and I have studied these matters at some length

241
and in some depth—there is no greater recipe for disaster than to base our future military arrangements on the alleged lessons from those two previous engagements.
LORD COLERAINE: Would the noble Lord answer one question? How many submarines do the Russians have? Does he know?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, at the last count the Russians had something between 500 and 550 ocean-going submarines. I think that is the figure. Although I am delighted to display such erudition without my notes, these figures are, to my mind, totally irrelevant—
LORD COLERAINE: It shows that the Russians are living in the last war, too. Perhaps we should be wise to do the same.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in certain respects I think the Russians are. This is a danger which afflicts a great many Governments. So far as I have anything to do with it, I am determined that it shall not afflict this one.
My Lords, I come now to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who moved the Amendment. He began by saying—I should say, by implying, for I must be careful how I quote—that he was not going to make a Party political speech. I can only say that I hope he will give us early warning when he does intend to make one. I should like to be here for that occasion. He implied at one stage in his speech that the Government had in some way cheated over cancellation charges, and I think he implied that we had left them out of certain calculations, the calculations, in fact, for the 1968–69 budget. I think this is rather an unfair criticism. If the noble Earl will refer to Hansard for January 16 I think he will see that although we did not specifically detail the cancellation charges (because they had not at that time been calculated in detail) there is a note in Hansard, underneath the figure, which says clearly that this figure may be increased by cancellation charges and other transitional payments. I can assure him that although the detailed figures were not there, there was no intention to mislead.
He also mentioned consultation with the Territorials about their disbandment, and he suggested, I think, that consultations should take place. He asked me
242
to assure him that no disbandment would take place until consultation was complete. Well, I can say that consultations with the Territorial Army Council are taking place. They are designed to discuss the implementation of the decision. Just when the disbandment will begin it is not possible for me to say; but I think I must say that this is a decision that must stand.
On the question of Civil Defence and the Auxiliary Fire Service, the noble Earl took us to task for not expressing thanks and appreciation to these organisations for the work they have done in the past. He gave the impression that we would dismiss them from our presence in a peremptory and cruel way. I hope this is not so. If these thanks have not been properly expressed I, for one, regret it; and I should like now, speaking for myself, for the Government, and I am sure for your Lordships' House, to pay tribute to the valuable and loyal services which these people have rendered: the Territorials, the men and women of the Auxiliary Fire Service and the men and women of the Civil Defence Service. They have served their country well, and their services, I am sure, will never be forgotten.
My Lords, I should like now to deal with the general criticisms that are made, both in the debate and in the Amendment, of the Government's defence and foreign policies.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. There were two questions which were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, which it would be of interest to many of us if the noble Lord would answer. The noble Lord will correct me if I do not paraphrase them correctly, but they were roughly these. Is there any point at which this Government would think they should appeal to the nation, having broken nearly every pledge they have ever made? And, with respect to individual Ministers, was there any point at which many of them would think they should resign after having broken every pledge they have made? I think those, more or less, are the questions that my noble friend asked.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I had not missed those questions. I must confess that I had not intended to answer

243
questions which in my view were totally out of tone with the spirit of this debate and which did not attempt to elicit any questions of fact. To my mind, they are statements of extremely tendentious opinion, and it is not my intention to waste your Lordships' time by answering them.
LORD RHODES: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? Surely the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, is addressing these questions to the wrong side of the House. He should be addressing his questions to the other side, because they have had more experience of this than we have. They went right up to the General Election of 1964, within a few weeks of the end of their term; and they had been very unpopular in the country for about two and a half years.
LORD CHALFONT: I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I think the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and the provisions of the Parliament Act are familiar enough to your Lordships without my taking up too much time on them in a debate of this sort.
May I now go on with the principal criticism which has been directed at the Government about the defence economies that they now propose? It is that we have done irreparable damage to the morale and welfare of the Armed Forces. No-one in this House has a greater sympathy than I for the sailors, soldiers and airmen of this country. I was a professional soldier for 22 years and I know how these people feel when they see their careers once again endangered and their futures disrupted. But I must confess that some of these criticisms seem to me to betray a basic misunderstanding both of the general situation and of the sort of people who serve in the Army, Navy and Air Force. They, as many of your Lordships will know, are the first to realise that men who bear arms bear a double responsibility. They are not only soldiers, they are citizens as well; and it may not be too much to say that in a social democracy like ours they are citizens first and not soldiers first. But certainly they cannot expect—and no soldier that I know worth the name would expect—to escape a share in the responsibility of citizenship by retreating within the closed society of a military establishment.
244
At a time, my Lords, when we have had to compromise with some of the basic assumptions of a modern civilised society—that, for example, the healthy members of the community should be responsible for the sick; at a time when we have had to cut our housing plans; at a time when we have been forced into economy and, as we have heard many times to-day, to deprive a large number of young people permanently of a full education: at a time like this, it seems to me perverse in the extreme to suggest that the officers and men of the Armed Forces would not be ready to accept part of the burden as well. Of course they are ready to accept it; they always have been. Welfare and the morale of the Armed Forces is of course a vital factor in taking decisions of this sort, but it is only one factor. To elevate it to a position of predominant importance seems to me to misunderstand the whole basic nature of this problem.
In any case, my own experience of this matter leads me to believe that the complaints about damaged morale tend to flow much more copiously outside the Armed Forces than they ever do among the officers and men of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Having said all that, my Lords, I do not attempt to conceal
that these measures will cause disruption and dislocation in the careers of many officers and soldiers, sailors and airmen. I must say, too, that we, the Government, will do all that we can to minimise that disruption and to help in the training and re-employment of these men when they leave the Forces.
Perhaps one of the most confused arguments advanced against the defence cuts (this is implied in the noble Earl's Amendment) is that in some more or less specified way we are putting at risk the safety and security of these Islands. Perhaps a great deal of the confusion here arises from the modern use of the word "defence" to connote military arrangements and preparations covering the whole range of the Armed Forces. I know this is a current phrase, it is part of the current jargon, but it gives the idea, to my mind quite mistakenly, that when the newspapers headline "Defence Cuts" and when we talk about cuts in the defence establishment something is being done necessarily that will reduce the actual safety and security of the people

245
of Great Britain. In this case that is simply not so.
What we have been doing up to now is carrying the burden of defending democratic institutions in many parts of the world against aggression from outside. I am the first to admit that this has been a great and an honourable role, but we can no longer bear it on our own. Whatever may be the feelings of noble Lords about the abandonment of military bases in the Far East and in the Middle East, it is simply not true to suggest that their abandonment affects the safety, the physical safety, of the citizens of this country. We have only to look at other countries in Western Europe to realise how misleading that kind of argument is. How many overseas bases are maintained by the Governments of Norway or Denmark? How many battalions or brigades of Swedish troops are serving overseas? I can also tell your Lordships the answer to that—there is one battalion and it is serving in the United Nations Force in Cyprus.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord, only because I was to have spoken next, but for the convenience of the noble Lord he is speaking now. I was going to put this question which is now relevant. Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to wind up the naval bases East of Suez, two in the Oman, two in Mauritius and one in the Maldives; and if not, why are these to be retained?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, first let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for allowing me to speak before him. May I say that I think there must be at least a mistake of terminology here, in that, so far as I am aware, there are no naval bases in the places he mentioned. There are no bases of any kind. There are small installations. I think that the noble Lord will find, if he studies the details of the cuts in the Defence White Paper when it appears, that all this will become clear. But I ask him to believe me when I say that there are no bases in the places he has mentioned.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I did not mean to say "naval bases". I withdraw that.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I was in mid-flow on the subject of the comparison between the Governments of Western Europe and our own. I was asking in a rhetorical way how many battalions, bases and garrisons the countries of Western Europe have overseas. The answer is in practically every case, none whatsoever. Yet I do not believe that any noble Lord would seriously suggest that in taking the measures we now propose to take we shall be putting our safety at any greater risk than that accepted by the countries of Western Europe—Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, France and Germany. Of course, the answer for us, as for them, lies in collective security, so long as a military threat exists. I mentioned Switzerland and Sweden. These countries believe that their security lies in a policy of positive neutrality. That is not the path for us. Until the world emerges, as I said earlier, into a more intelligent and rational pattern of international relations, our defences are the defences of Western Europe. That is where our strength will be.
Perhaps the most insidious criticism we hear, and it is relevant to what I have just said, is that which suggests that Britain is in some way giving up her world role and world influence by abandoning military bases outside Europe. This once again perpetuates the tired fallacy that world influence depends exclusively on military power. It is now being suggested that by taking these measures we are in some way condemning Britain to a position of military vassalage and removing her influence on great developments in international relations. I simply do not accept this conception.
It may help to put it into a more rational perspective if I recall for a moment the comparative percentages of national resources being devoted to military expenditure. I may say that the comparisons I shall now be making are not figures compiled by me or by the Government to prove a case. They are published by an independent research organisation, the Institute of Strategic Studies. If we study them, we find that military expenditure in this country last year, 1967–68, was running at 6·4 per cent. of the gross national product. This

247
was the highest percentage of any country in Western Europe, nearly twice as high as that of the Federal Republic of Germany and exactly 2 per cent. higher than that of France. Apart from South Vietnam and the countries involved in the Middle East conflict, last year there were only three countries in the world devoting a higher percentage of their national resources to military expenditure—China, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, a list that will surprise no one in your Lordships' House.
Even when we have carried out the full defence economies we now propose, we shall still be at the top of the table of Western European countries. We shall, in fact, have one of the strongest and most powerfully equipped military establishments in the whole of Western Europe. I am not suggesting that the possession of a powerful military establishment is the most intelligent road to real influence in foreign policy, but I hope that it demolishes the ridiculous proposition that we are about to divest this country of its military strength in some great act of unilateral disarmament.
I come now to the question of broken pledges. I had hoped to be able to deal with these in great detail, because I think that this is a matter that has worried a great number of people, certainly a great number of noble Lords opposite. Much has been made of the fact that we are alleged to have been breaking pledges to our friends and to our allies overseas, and this makes its appearance in the noble Earl's Amendment. If I may say this without being offensive, I think that some of these criticisms are based on a misunderstanding of how military power might be used and partly on a misunderstanding and even ignorance of the exact nature of the undertakings we have made in the past.
So far as the Far East is concerned, the Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia have expressed their confidence publicly that we shall find a way towards helping their people in attempting to protect themselves against the possibility of outside aggression.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask when that statement was made? I know of no such statement made publicly.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if the noble Earl will read the record of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's public statement before leaving this country after his recent visit, he will find that Mr. Lee expressed confidence that this country intends to support him in overcoming the difficulties caused by our withdrawal. I recommend the noble Earl to read the record of the official speeches.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, that was certainly not the impression I had when I spoke to him a very short time before he left.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this can only be a matter of subjective judgment. We in the Government also spoke to Mr. Lee, and my opinion is that he expressed confidence that this Government would continue to give him help to overcome the difficulties caused by our withdrawal. In fact, we are engaged in talks with his Government at official level about how to do that now.
So far as the Commonwealth countries are concerned, this has caused a great deal of worry, especially as regards Australia and New Zealand. I think we must ask ourselves here exactly what is the threat that people have in mind that might face Australia and New Zealand, and what we should then be expected to do about it. Many people point out, quite rightly, that twice in this century our Commonwealth Allies have come half across the world to our aid in time of war. This is a fact that none of us should forget, and none of us wants to forget. Certainly there would be no question of leaving them abandoned if they should face a similar emergency.
But what is the emergency that they are likely to face? It is not the sort of minor military operation that can be dealt with by a marine commando or a naval task force. If the integrity of Australia and New Zealand is threatened it will be—and this has been mentioned to-day—because there has been a wholesale and overt aggression on a very large scale. The scale of operations of an event like that would be such that the decision of how to deal with it would
not be taken by us alone. The scale of operations that we should be involved in then is one of collective security, as I

249
have mentioned before, and it is one which would demand the sort of effort which the national budget and the national Armed Forces of a country like ours in time of peace would be irrelevant to deal with. In a case like that we should almost certainly be involved in a situation of mobilisation. We are talking now of Chinese aggression of South-East Asia. I ask noble Lords to believe that in the modern world, with its facilities and capabilities for quick transport of men and material over long distances in short times, we do not need, in spite of what anybody may say, a military presence in order to exert influence in South-East Asia or in any other part of the world.
I should have liked to deal with that in much more detail, but time will not allow. I would, however, suggest that when we talk about broken pledges it would be as well to stop for a moment to reflect about the kind of world in which we live. It is a world in which, whether we like it or not, the presence of British troops, or indeed of any European troops, although in the past it may have been a guarantee of stability and order, is now—and we must face this—in the minds of many Asians and Africans no such thing. It is indeed, in many cases—and I ask noble Lords to accept this—quite a provocation and a reminder of a colonial era which for many of them has a very bitter taste.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Is that what Lee Kuan Yew told the Government?
LORD CHALFONT: I am not quoting Lee Kuan Yew. I am telling noble Lords what I believe are the principles upon which the Government's defence policy are built. This is a world in which armed forces, as I have said before, are equipped with new and powerful weapons. They can move swiftly and effectively from one part of the world to another at short notice. Of course the Far East, as the noble Earl, Lord Jelicoe, said, is a crucial area in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, made the same point, and nobody denies it. I agree with this. Of course the Far East and the countries a round the People's Republic of China is a crucial area in the world's security. But we must have priorities. The priority for us lies in the European Atlantic area. We cannot continue
250
to shoulder the role of the world's policeman everywhere in the world. I beg of noble Lords not to confuse a military capability and political influence with a military presence: they are three different things.
In conclusion, I do ask your Lordships' House to look rationally at this question of military expenditure. I have heard it suggested—and it has been suggested again to-day in your Lordships' House—that to talk about the military expenditure you can afford in a society like ours is an abdication of responsibility. People who use this argument say that you should first decide the proper military force you need and then devote whatever proportion of your national resources is required to achieve it. I must confess—I hope that this will not cause offence to anybody—that I find this Blimpish nonsense of the worst kind. It is a reflection of almost complete economic and political illiteracy. The question is one of priorities and a rational balance in the disposal of the nation's resources.
Of course, it is no good having a prosperous community if you cannot defend it from attack and aggression from outside. No one would argue with that. But equally, my Lords, it is no good having all the security you can buy in the world, the most powerful and highly organised military establishment, if behind your impregnable defences the quality of life is forgotten and the nation is unable to pay its way. The question for any responsible Government—and this is a responsible Government—is to decide what proportion of its national resources it can afford to devote to its military strength, and then with that proportion of its resources to buy, organise and train the best military forces that are available. Those are the priorities, and I suggest that no one who has studied political and strategic matters would gainsay that.
Part of the problem of this country for many years is that it has not been paying its way. It has been living beyond its means, and it would continue to do so, in my view, if we continued to spend between 6 and 7 per cent. of our gross national product—something like 25 per cent. of the total Budget—on defence, on military establishments. Of course, it was not possible—and I hope no one

251
opposite would still argue against this—to cut the defence budget without making a major realignment of the foreign policies that give rise to our military needs. To put it at its crudest, as it has been put many times before, you cannot cut the armed forces without cutting the commitments you ask them to fulfil.
I have been reluctant, and still am, to introduce too discordant a note of Party polemics into this debate. But I must say that if I have one basic criticism of the defence policies of the Party opposite—and I made no secret of these criticisms in a previous incarnation—it was that they tried hard to economise in their defence budgets, but without a change in their foreign policies. The result for many years was that, among other things, we had an Army desperately trying to fulfil its tasks about the world with outmoded equipment, with under-strength units and with the illusory techniques of the stage army. Those who talk of damaging the morale of the Armed Forces should bear this in mind. We have now resolved to reduce substantially the deployment of our Armed Forces outside Europe, and this is to my mind a great chance and a great challenge for the Armed Forces of this country. But, as I have said—and I hope I have made myself clear on this point—this is not a matter on which one side or the other can claim a monopoly of wisdom. Nor can it be said that only one side has made mistakes. We have all made our mistakes in the past, and I believe, like other noble Lords, that we owe it to ourselves, and to the people of this country, to say so clearly and frankly.
So far as this Government are concerned, we readily concede that we have been forced by economic pressures into taking measures of social policy that we should dearly have liked to avoid. There are people in this House, and in the country, who feel bitter and angry about the changes in social policy. But I believe that the real betrayal would be if we were not to make clear to the people of this country what sacrifices they are being asked to make to put the country economically back on its feet. And there will be no miracles; there will be no economic miracles, no deus ex machina. We shall all, as the noble Lord, Lord
252
Thorneycroft, said, have to share in the sacrifice. But, my Lords, the people of this country have made sacrifices before. What they ask of us is not some vague and doubtful genuflexion to the great god, leadership. They want the facts and the truth. And that is what we shall give them.
I readily admit, too, that we have been forced into unpalatable decisions on military policy. Here let me say at once that my personal belief is that in the long term our decision to concentrate our military strength in the European Atlantic area, and to disengage in an orderly manner from our commitments elsewhere in the world, is the right one. But I should be less than honest with your Lordships if I did not say that I, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place, greatly regret that it has been necessary to accelerate this process of disengagement. In doing so we have had to confront some of our allies in the Middle East, in South-East Asia and in Australasia with new and difficult problems. We shall do all we can to mitigate the effects and the difficulties of these decisions. But we have felt it right to tell our friends and allies quite frankly and quite clearly what we intend to do in time for them to lay their plans accordingly.
It is this matter of our defence policy outside Europe that seems to have caused the greatest distress to some noble Lords opposite. There has been much talk of abandoning and defaulting on commitments. The Government do not accept the accusations of bad faith implied in this. Situations have changed; our plans have changed with them. The decisions have not been easy, but we have accepted our responsibility, and we do not now seek to avoid criticism with excuses and special pleading. I would remind those of your Lordships so distressed about the decision to speed up our withdrawal from overseas, and from our commitments there, that we, both Government and Parliament, have a commitment of a more lasting and fundamental kind. It is a commitment to the welfare, the safety and the quality of life of the people of this country. If we are to keep this safe—and this is the kind of duty with which we are charged—we can do so only if, first of all, the economy of this

253
country is placed upon a sound and lasting basis; and this we are resolved to do.
EARL JELLICOE. My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask him a question on a relatively small area of home defence. I do so only because I thought he was going to answer it and he omitted to do so. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, Lord Chalfont said, if I understood him correctly, that Lord Caccia was wrong in assuming the reductions in home defence which the Government are carrying out to a care-and-maintenance basis were based on a belief that there would not be any war involving us in Europe. I asked the noble Lord what they were based on and he said that he would let me know. I still await a reply.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, in order to get the matter straight, because otherwise I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont will be answering questions which I did not ask, may I explain that what I said in fact was that the inference might be drawn, even by friendly foreigners. Because, having seen what happened to undertakings which we had given but which, through force majeure, we have had to abandon, or which the Government are abandoning elsewhere, they might ask, "What will happen the next time round if they are in this pickle?" The inference drawn, that what was sauce for the goose in the Middle East is going to be sauce for the gander in Europe, might be wrong, but this would have a damaging effect. Therefore, I hoped he would say something which would show that this sort of thing was not intended.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, perhaps I might take this opportunity to say that I hope I did not seem in the course of my speech to be discourteous to the noble Lord. I thought some of the things he said were outside the context of the debate. I did not mean to be brusque. So far as the question is concerned, I think it would be better if we allowed the debate to go on. There is an argument, and an answer to the noble Earl's question. I wonder if he will allow me to ask one of my noble friends to answer in the course of tomorrow's debate.
9.33 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My noble friend Lord Chalfont said that this had been a remarkable debate. I want to make some reference to other speeches, but I cannot begin to-night without recognising the very remarkable speech which the Minister himself has given. I regard that speech as one of the most convincing that I have ever heard in this House. I know that in saying that I am also expressing the views of other Members upon these Benches. My only regret is that Members of another place could not also have heard that speech, and I hope that what the Minister has said will be very widely distributed in this country. I have not heard a more convincing case for Government policy than that which was given by him.
I also wish to express appreciation of the debate as a whole. I am one of those who wish to see a change in the legislative authority of this Assembly. On the other hand, I recognise that this House contributes to ideas and to informed thought in such a way that it would be a loss if it were destroyed. From each side of the House we have had contributions to this debate which have not been restricted to partisan or Party views. I think it has been made quite clear that in all parts of this House there is anxiety about what the Government have proposed, and deep concern about many of their proposals. From the opposite side of the House that concern is mainly concentrated upon defence and foreign policy; on this side of the House it is mostly concerned with social services. In the short time that I shall speak I pm-pose to express what I believe is a very widely held view in our Party upon both those matters.
My Lords, I fail to understand how many of the cuts in the social services which
are proposed by the Government are relevant to the problem with which we are faced. In essence that problem is how we are to balance payments by increasing our exports and by reducing our imports. The theory is that in order to increase our exports we must reduce our home expenditure. As I look at some of the proposals that are made for social service cuts, I fail to find how they will effect that object.
May I take first the proposal for charges on the National Health Service

255
prescriptions? From the point of view of domestic expenditure it makes no difference whether those charges are met by the Government or by the patients. In both cases it is a matter of expenditure within our country for home purposes. This change in our social service will have an effect in reducing domestic expenditure only if it reduces the number of prescriptions. If it does have that effect it must be a result of one of two causes: either the patients, because of the charges, do not get the prescriptions they need, or the doctors have been giving prescriptions too frequently. If it is true that patients needing them will be unable to get them, that will be a loss to the health of the community. If it is the fact that this has been due to the too great freedom of doctors in prescribing, that should not be a matter of raising the charges to patients; it should be a matter of direct influence upon the doctors themselves by the Ministry of Health or by the British Medical Association. It is quite clearly not a ground for increasing the charges.
The Prime Minister has estimated that £25 million annually will accrue to the Government as a result of the prescription charges. I should like to know (I hope that an answer will be given on this point when a reply is made to this debate) whether that £25 million includes the cost of administration. Those costs will be very considerable. All of us, I think, on these Benches welcome the fact that the poor, the aged, the chronically sick and those with large families may be exempted from the increased charges. But the cost of the administration of these exemptions, the forms which will have to be sent to doctors, the checking of those forms which will have to be done, will amount to a very considerable sum. If it has not been included in the Prime Minister's estimate of what will accrue the figure will be much less than £25 million.
I put one other point upon the same matter. I have been to my doctor this week, and his alarm, as the alarm of other doctors, is at the increased clerical work which will be imposed upon him in order to fill all the forms that are going to enable these necessary exemptions to take place. Doctors are already a little disturbed. There will be a waste of doctors'
256
time. And I put it to the Government that, at the end of it all, the increased cost of the prescription charges will not be worth it from the point of view of the revenue which they bring to the Government, that it will contribute very little indeed to any solution of the problem of exports and of imports, and that it will be insignificant compared with the repudiation of the principle of a free health service.
Now, my Lords, I agree that if one is making this kind of criticism one should be putting forward some alternative directed towards reducing the cost of the National Health Service. I want to ask the Government this question. What has happened to the recommendations of the Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was the chairman? That Committee dealt with the cost of drugs. That Committee made a series of recommendations by which the cost of drugs under the National Health Service might be considerably reduced. I think it is notorious that a few large companies, so centralised as to be almost monopolies, are making large profits out of the supply of drugs to the National Health Service. I suggest to the Government that if they really want a reduction in Health Service charges it would be better to turn to the profits which are being made out of drugs and medicines rather than charging more for the prescriptions which the patients present.
For the sake of time I do not propose to examine in detail the other reductions in the costs of social services. I say only this: that I think the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is absolutely right when he says that the postponement of the lifting of the school-leaving age will do more harm to our economy in the long run than any immediate benefit which it will bring. If our economy is to expand it must be on the basis of a wider education in our community, on the training of more technologists and those who have a knowledge of modern science; and that training will be seriously jeopardised if the raising to 16 of the school-leaving age is to be postponed as is now proposed.
From housing I take one illustration. A great essential in reconstructing our economy is re-employment, and, as noble Lords know, re-employment will often mean that a worker must go from one part

257
of the country to another if he is to be employed in the new industry for which he is trained. That transference from place to place means rehousing; it means an increase in expenditure upon our housing programme. I deplore the fact that the cuts which are proposed in social services include housing.
I do not want to hide from the House the fact that I believe that these cuts are largely irrelevant to the balance-of-payments problem and to economic recovery. In my view, they have mostly been applied to satisfy the international bankers. In my opinion, they have mostly been applied because of the absence of
confidence by international bankers, who have an obsession that the economy can be put right only at the cost of the poor, the sick and the underprivileged. I was a Member of another place in 1930 when the international bankers, in response to requests for loans to this country, demanded the most savage cuts upon the unemployed. I cannot hide from this House my feeling that the cuts in the social services which are now taking place are due to the demands which the international bankers are making.
I want to make one general remark, on an assumption which is behind nearly all our discussions and decisions. It is that this country must increase its competitive power among the other nations. I recognise that in a competitive world that must be the case, but I beg Members of this House to remember what happens when, in increasing our competitiveness, we reduce the price of imports from abroad. Often those imports come from the developing countries, and it means that the poverty of the peoples of those countries becomes deeper. Despite all the aid that has been given to them, the standard of life of the populations of African and of Asian territories has fallen because of the fall in prices for their products. I suggest that we should begin to think in terms not of competitiveness, but of world economic co-ordination. We are moving from military war through international agreement. We should be moving from economic war through international agreement.
I turn to the section of these proposals which deals with the cuts in defence East of Suez. If one of the noble Lords
258
who dealt with this were present, he would hear me now confirm his view that many of us support the cuts in defence but oppose the cuts in the social services. My only regret in this matter is that these cuts in defence have been made under economic pressure, rather than from a far-seeing point of view which ought to have been applied three years ago.
Britain cannot and should not attempt to be a world military Power. It cannot, because of economic necessity; it should not, because no one nation should assume that it has the right to police other continents. That duty, when it has to be carried out, should be performed under the international authority of the United Nations. The decision to give up the military presence East of Suez will be historic. Mr. Macleod has suggested in another place that a Conservative Government would reverse it. No Conservative Government can do so because it will be against the whole trend of the history of our present times. The decision is as historic as the late Lord Attlee's recognition of the right of India to independence, which began the colonial political revolution that has swept over Africa, Asia and the Caribbean since the war. Mr. Macleod accepted the colonial revolution and became its instrument. He cannot avoid accepting the revolution which is now ending military empires. This is history.
Each one of us has to decide how he votes to-morrow. There can be no doubt about the vote on this side of the House on the Opposition Amendment. There may be a second vote on the Government proposals as a whole. Some of my friends in another place abstained upon that issue. I deeply respect their conscientious action. British political life will lose its integrity if votes contrary to conscience are whipped into the Lobbies. After careful consideration, however, I have come to this conclusion. The Government, in their East-of-Suez decision, have initiated a world change of enduring importance: they have stepped over a crossroad in history. That decision, in my view, cannot be reversed. The cuts in the social services, in the view of many of us, are a surrender to the bankers, and many of us feel that they are a repudiation of our Socialist principles. But the difference is that they

259
can and will be reversed. I shall not vote for them as in turn they come before this House; but balancing the two factors in the Vote to-morrow, I regard the irreversible decision on foreign policy and defence as more important than the reversible decision about social service cuts, and accordingly if there is a second vote I shall vote for the Government.
9.55 p.m.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, it is getting late and I assure your Lordships that I shall not detain you for more than three minutes. The axe has fallen on defence spending, and everyone is now familiar with the extent and the reasons for the cuts. My only purpose in intervening this evening is to say how profoundly I hope that the people of this country understand what the consequences may be if, unhappily, we once more find ourselves at war—and that, after all, is what defence is about. I put it in that way because, in the days when I was at the Naval Stall College, a long time ago now, the setting of our schemes or exercises, or whatever they were called, often seemed to open with the sentence "Britain finds herself at war with such-and-such a country."
Oddly enough, that seems to fit the case quite often. We wake up one morning and, against all our hopes and wishes, find ourselves at war. Though, of course, we all hope profoundly to the contrary we may indeed find ourselves at war again one day and if we do I cannot for the life of me see how we are going to bring a war to a successful conclusion if we are to be bereft of all our forces East of Suez. As everyone knows, something like one-third of our overseas trade is with countries East of Suez. We have very extensive trade with Australia and New Zealand, we get great quantities of rubber and tin from Malaya, and nearly a half of our total oil requirements come from the Persian Gulf, and all those goods have to be got back to this country by sea, whoever we find ourselves at war with.
Gone are the days when we had a large Fleet in the Mediterranean based in war time at Alexandria, and when we had an Army and the Royal Air Force in the Western Desert covering the Canal. Gone are the days when we had a base
260
at Aden and could control the Red Sea. Already the Russians have taken our place in those areas, and I shall be surprised if they do not before long penetrate into the Indian Ocean; and of course, it is perfectly clear that in war time we shall never again have the use of the Canal. So all this vast trade from East of Suez must come back to us the thousands of miles by sea round the Cape—10,000 to 12,000 miles in round figures; three to four times the distance between Southampton and New York. Knowing this, we still refuse to supply South Africa with warships and aircraft; we still plan to give up our only bases in the area of Singapore and in the Gulf, and to withdraw virtually all our forces from the area and we still plan to dispense with our carrier force which could for some years to come provide us with four fully equipped and mobile airfields anywhere in the world.
I want to make it as clear as I can that I believe that in this situation in time of war our undefended trade East of Suez would be attacked and virtually brought to a standstill, and without that trade we should not survive for long. Our enemies, whoever they may be, would have their way and we should cease to be a nation to be reckoned with.
10.0 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to take a very brief part in this debate, I recognise the impossibility of dealing with all the multitude of points that make up the record of the last three years. I do not propose to attempt to do so. I have listened with the greatest care to previous speakers and I hope not to take up more than five or six minutes in recording the impressions of a Back-Bencher in this House—impressions which I believe are shared by a majority of the puzzled ordinary citizens in this country looking in vain for clear guidance from their Government and a full representation of the facts in all their stark urgency.
But, my Lords, what are these facts? Let us look at the last three years. I am not going into them, because we have been implored not to mention the past, but it is inevitable to make just a brief reference to it. Looking at the last three years, we see that a political Messiah came into power who was to have led his country into a better, brighter future. In

261
the event, many promises were broken or ignored and there was much Government spending, which has contributed a great deal to our present plight. We are exhorted to trust the leadership which has led us into this plight, this pass, and to believe that this Rake's Progress—admittedly, the whole blame for it cannot rest on the present Government; it has been, in some respects, a continuous process, but we are dealing with the facts of to-day and the Government which has to face them—is part of the necessary approach to a happy future which only our lack of will can deny to us.
My Lords, it is sometimes interesting to see how these things look from the outside. An eminent American reporter, from the position of an onlooker—who, we are told, sees most of the game—summed it us the other day in this way:
"The British Government's actions this week have broken the structure of the Anglo-American special relationship and threatened the Anglo-American alliance. They have shattered Britain's essential links with the Commonwealth, and offered this country to Europe instead. They have destroyed the credibility of the British Administration and cracked the foundations of British Socialism's Welfare State."
Here, my Lords, perhaps I may mention what I think we constantly need to be reminded of, and that is that you cannot have a Welfare State unless you are able to pay for it. I listened just now to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointing out that you had to get your priorities right, and that defence did not come first. It is all very well to say, "Let us have a Welfare State and to hell with defence if we have not got the money for it", but neither of those two priorities is the first. The first priority is that our economy should be in such a condition that we have the money to pay for what we want, whether it be a Welfare State or defence. If we have not got that economy, which must be our first priority, then we cannot pay for any of these things and we cannot have either defence commitments or a Welfare State. The fact remains that the British people have open before them an extremely grim future of isolated austerity.
Then, to pile mistake on mistake, the new Chancellor, by promising unpleasant and unpopular tax measures at some time in the future but doing nothing at all about it at present, has triggered off in that process an explosion of consumer
262
buying on a positively fantastic scale. That, anyway, is how a number of people see it. Let me say again that the nation wants to see the whole picture and not the emergency measures in two packets, the first a bundle of so-called economy measures and then a postponement for two months of the other half, the most important portion, relating to taxation measures. So in that case we have a public picture which is distorted and incomplete. We are confronted with a series of hasty withdrawals whose general effect is no doubt likely to give real pleasure to China, Soviet Russia (I can think of no other country which is likely to be pleased with this policy) and the extreme Left Wing of our present Government—to say nothing perhaps of the French Government which hopes to profit largely by our outrageous treatment of South Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his intellectual Elysium to which he introduced us just now also does not seem to realise that, although he may convert us, although we may suffer from these delusions about defence and so on, we live in a world in which no other country holds these beliefs, a world which is still largely guided by the good old rule, the simple plan, that "he should take who has the power and he should keep who can". It is no good blinding ourselves to the facts of the world and of human nature.
My Lords, may I, before I finish, take one quick look at the line of policy which we have been discussing? The decision not to supply South Africa with the national defence arms it needs is, however you look at it, a flagrant and grossly neglectful dereliction of their duties by the British Government. It is just one more example of the fitful extemporising which passes for government to-day. These arms are needed for the defence of the sea routes against external aggression, the lifeline not only of ourselves and our trade but of the trade of Western Europe, and a need which is surely high-lighted to-day by the closure of the Suez Canal and the Communist acquisition of a base in Zanzibar—now known as the "Cuba of Africa".
As Captain Marriott reminded us recently, when the leader of the South African Communist Party was asked what

263
he wanted in South Africa—Was it the gold?—he replied, very sensibly, that he would trade all the gold mines in South Africa for Cape Point. Need we say any more? Apart from throwing away £400 million worth of valuable trade, that is the policy which our Government has been following in relation to the protection of our trade routes.
Let me pass on from the rather hasty abandonment of Aden to the Persian Gulf and on to Malaysia. There is the same story of retreat, conducted with a loss of political honour and respect. These questions have been gone into in detail by the speakers, but may I say a final word about Malaysia? I spent 25 years of my life in Malaysia and I have an intimate knowledge of the constituent States and their peoples. Many noble Lords here share with me an affectionate respect for them all and we know how high has been their regard for the British connection, ripening over the years from tutelage and friendship to independence and alliance. And the premature severing of an alliance in this area not only undermines friendship, and appears untrue to friends, but breaks pledges. Moreover, as has been pointed out already by recent speakers, instability in that area may easily cost us more than any defence cuts can possibly save.
My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, does he not rather carelessly ignore this? We are told that our military presence is not necessary and so forth, and that it is so easy, in modern conditions, to get there by air when necessary. But is that not overlooking the fact that an immense amount of our trade, which represents a great deal of
264
our invisible earnings, is safeguarded by a relatively small military presence, and that a sudden departure of help from this country is no substitute for a permanent visible presence there? As Lee Kuan Yew told us the other day, he only asks for time. He is straining every nerve to make his country independent of outside help as quickly as he possibly can. But it is no good, as I realise, for me to press these remarks.
May I conclude by turning to one other thing? I regret the apparent tendency in this country towards what I might call centralised inefficiency, and I regret what apparently is the escalating inability to govern properly. Even that we can—I was going to say tolerate; but it is our Government until we elect another one. What I feel is being given insufficient regard is our international reputation, the matter of national honour which is concerned in some of these recent decisions. I cannot, perhaps, do better than remind your Lordships of what our national poet wrote. He is not yet out of favour, and your Lordships will remember what he said about a good name:
"Good name in man or woman, dear my Lord
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash, 'tis something; nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his and has been slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."
That, my Lords, is what I feel, and I implore Her Majesty's Government to remember that they can do a great deal more damage than ostensibly appears by allowing that to happen.
10.14 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said at the beginning of his speech, Britain's difficulties are not due to our country being a poor country, for potentially we are a rich country. But at the moment our image is unflattering on the human side, dealing with human beings, because we have an army of unemployed of over 600,000 men and on the economic side our economy is stagnant. Unfortunately, both Tory Governments and our present Labour Government have created this unemployment and stagnation because they believe that, somehow, this is essential in order to increase our exports.
The causes of our difficulties are not due to wages being too high or going up too fast. In other countries on the Continent, and in the West, wages are going up even faster; and they are just as high. It is not because social services in this country are too generous. Our social services, at the moment, are no better than those in many countries in Western Europe. I think the causes are, first, that we have for too long tried to be a world colonial Power; secondly, our enormous military expenditure in the past; and, thirdly, the continual flow of capital from this country abroad, where pockets are far bigger, instead of its being invested in British industry where it would bring our industry up to date. I am sure that nobody really believes that the reducing of the health services, education and other social services is going to increase exports. On the contrary, does not this slashing of Government expenditure increase unemployment? Moreover, devaluation and rising prices, as they are rising today, are deliberately pushing down the purchasing power of the people. Surely that will mean that industry will contract still more.
I welcome the military cuts and our withdrawal from the Far East. I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was very heartening and full of vision. Many of us in another place and in the trade union movement throughout the country have for years been demanding the cutting down of military expenditure and withdrawal from the Far East, and it is thrilling suddenly to find that we have been proved right. Only a few week; ago we were condemned for putting forward these demands, but
266
today the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has told us that we are right. If that had been done before, our difficulties now would have been much less I believe that all our problems in the Far East and in other parts of the world can be solved only by the people themselves in those parts of the world and not by a British police force. I also welcome the cancellation of the F.111. I wonder whether we could not look round to see where we can cut still more. I gather that we are still putting in for American aircraft worth £700 million. And we should think again about the Polaris submarines, which may soon be out of date.
The package deal proposed in another place is like a pill. The sugar coating is the cut in arms, but inside is a bitter pill indeed—the cuts in the social services. The first will undoubtedly help our balance of payments enormously, but I am sure that the cut in the social services will not help our balance of payments at all and has no economic justification whatever. It is against two of the Election pledges of our Government, not to cut down the Health Service and to raise the school leaving age to 16 in 1970/71. So far as I can learn, the excuse is that the social service cats are to maintain confidence. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said: Whose confidence? It is those people who are now publicly known as the "Gnomes". These people are perpetual enemies of any Labour Government or any Socialist movement. They will never vote Labour; in fact, very few of them are British, and they are not even on the British electoral register. We were told that devaluation would bring about a chance to escape such people. Unfortunately, it looks as though we are rejecting he chance and are now appeasing them with the cuts in social services.
I have often asked the same question that Mr. Wilson asked when he was in Opposition in the other place. Mr. Wilson asked: If the Government are in an economic mess, why is if always the patient and others in great need who have to bear the cost? I ask the question again. How can cuts on the social services help exports? How does maintaining unemployment and reducing the purchasing power of people help industry to expand? Cuts in home consumption surely do not lead to industry naturally

267
turning to exports. Nor does this naturally mean that industry will automatically succeed in breaking into foreign markets. We have seen in the past that this does not necessarily happen. We have had crisis after crisis, with the same remedies, and we have seen that this is not a solution.
I believe that what is urgently needed today is that industry should be expanded to its full and unemployment should be banished in this country. The reduction in home demand surely means more contraction of industry, more unemployment, and, as many a columnist is now pointing out, may in the long run raise the cost of exports. This is why the wages front is so important today. Unless wages and the purchasing power of the people rise, unemployment will increase, and we shall be in the vicious position of the 'thirties, when industry stagnated. There was no home demand because of the large army of unemployed, and we know what happened.
Rents are soaring; prices are going up and will go up still more. We are told that we are to have many more indirect taxes, and that wages are to be held down. Do the Government really think that they will have a peaceful time? Already there is frustration, disillusion and anger. I speak frequently to various youth organisations and, as has already been said in this debate, there is cynicism and a political feeling: "A plague on your political houses! You are right outside what life should really mean." I can well understand that. Only better management, where necessary forced and supervised by the Government, and modern equipping of our industries will increase productivity and exports.
I thought the noble Earl, Lord Longford, made a most moving plea on the question of the postponement of the school-leaving age. It is a very shortsighted policy. In 1964 we saw the Prime Minister on television giving us a real vision of the future; a wonderful picture of the new technological age, automation and so forth. And it was thrilling. To carry that out we needed a highly educated younger generation. A really highly educated younger generation is the most terrific capital asset to any country,
268
and it is needed in our country as soon as possible. What are we doing? We are throwing it away for two years, at least. In fact, the cut lowering the school-leaving age is dislocating the whole education machinery of this country. The comprehensive schools are absolutely bewildered. They have plans for 1970–71, and the whole thing has thrown them in confusion. And what about the lowering of the students' grants? Is this not a most vicious movement? Is it not actually discriminating against those students who are not so well off?
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked for constructive alternatives. The points I am putting forward are not just my own; they have been raised in another place, and at trade union meetings, political meetings, up and down the country. I think it is admitted that the speculators are one of our chief enemies. So could we not block the speculators by reintroducing strict exchange control? Could we not also have strict reduction in export of capital abroad, and also have temporary selective imports control? Would it not be fair to the people of this country to freeze rents and prices of essentials, and not wages? And should we not do all we can, against attacks from certain quarters, to protect democratic rights and freedom of the trade unions?
On the question of incomes, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and many other speakers opposite have said, "No. Incomes must not rise". Of course, I suspect that they are talking about incomes of workers and not about the incomes of the rich. But for this reason I think we should put forward also an increased profits tax, introduce a comprehensive capital gains tax and a wealth tax on personal fortunes. I think that in that way we should get real equality of punishment—well, equality of whatever it is on both sides of the House, among all the sections of the people. I think these steps are far more important, and much more likely to have results in helping our economy, than attacks on teeth, health, education and housing.
10.29 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before turning to the main burden of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, which I support, I should like to turn for one moment to a small technical

269
matter in connection with the proposal to impose prescription charges. I see from paragraph 40 of the White Paper that it is proposed, in order to have exceptions properly planned, that conversations should take place between the Government and the medical profession. I mention this because I know that, from the pharmacists' point of view, they are probably delighted that their name is not mentioned in this paragraph, and presumably they will not be consulted. I only hope that that means that the pharmacist will not be expected, as indeed he should not be expected, to have any say, or any judgment left to him, as to who should be an exception and who shall not. I mention this point only because I think that in these conversations with the medical profession and in drafting the rules in regard to the exceptions it should be borne in mind, and the position as to who should be an exception and who should not must be made by the National Health authorities and set out in terms which are perfectly clear and beyond a doubt in that respect.
To turn to the main burthen of the Amendment, I must say that Lord Chalfont's intervention at that time was something I had not expected—perhaps I missed something there. I am sorry that he is not here, but when he made due acknowledgment to his debt to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for letting him speak in front of him, I felt that some others might have had the same treatment, because it alters the pattern of one's thinking in regard to a debate of this nature when one has sat through listening to almost every speech.
But, my Lords, it was a powerful speech. Although he denied it, it was full of polemics; it was so powerful that I did not at one moment call out, "What about Mauritius?". It showed absolute lack of understanding of the main contention of people like myself that it is the policies of this Government, nationalisation, the removal of all incentive to profit, and of the incentive to work, restrictive practices and casting aside our invisible exports, the extraordinary policy regarding Rhodesia and South Africa which have knocked the bottom out of our economy. So, of course, this disaster is now upon us.
270
Having spent my prime of life East of Suez, I cannot restrain a cry of agonised dismay at the pouring out of this country's resources in "pie in the sky" policies. These policies are leading to a breach of faith with our friends and allies. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was right when he mentioned not crying over spilt milk: we should not do that. But why was the milk spilt? It was wasted, as I have said, in being poured over the "pie in the sky." If the Government are to go on, I ask them: please do not spill any more. I say that quite deliberately, thinking of, shall we say, the Transport Holdings Bill, the Industrial Expansion Bill and all these very costly proposals which are on the table. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really intend to go ahead with this sort of thing? Will he not recognise the need for honesty in facing the facts of the situation in a pragmatic way? Otherwise, the Government will lose the sympathy of the whole nation. They have already lost mine.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said far better than I can what I feel about the Far East, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who has just spoken, also p at it to the House in a far better way than I can. I simply cannot believe that we need have become bound to leave a vacuum in the Indian Ocean, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said. Perhaps I am a little bitter, because I was in India during the transitional years of 1947 to 1949, and at that time had my first taste of the dogmatic and arrogant disregard of experience and established principle which I think characterises the full-blooded theoretical Socialist.
My Lords, the disaster which confronts us—and it is a disaster, a defeat, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton said, and as Alistair Cooke said on Sunday—is bad for Britain, bad for the U.S.A. and bad for the world. In my view it is the final victory of the Axis propaganda machine: "Lord Haw-Haw" and "Tokyo Rose". It induced the U.S.A. and the Radicals here to scorn what they called colonialism; it taught people to sneer at the British way of life. The Socialist propagandists have carried on the campaign with sneers at private enterprise, at the public school tradition of fair play, at the "bosses", at your Lordships' House,

271
at British management. They call nationalisation "bringing into public ownership", which of course is not the real background of the whole thing at all. They take an oath of loyalty with one breath and sing the "Red Flag" with the next. They have scorned material success; they have sneered at profit. Loyalty to anything traditional is at a discount. Some intellectuals pour doubt on the value of the family; others doubt faith itself. Is it any wonder that the people are bewildered and mesmerised? As the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, in his splendid maiden speech has said, politics itself is on trial.
I feel that I must repeat what an owner-driver taxi-man said to me a year or so ago when he bewailed the condition of the background and the feeling of people in the country: "Couldn't care less", "Over to you", "Why should I?" "It isn't my job", "Take it or leave it". This, my Lords, is what I believe to be the spiritual malaise to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred. Now we have this disaster. As I see it, the canker of out-dated Socialism is eating away the heart of the old, gnarled, storm-wracked, almost limbless but still erect and hitherto respected British oak, and looks like bringing it crashing to the ground—an oak tree under whose branches once sheltered peace and justice and fair play and prosperity, such as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, referred to in his splendid speech. But some of its acorns have sprouted into new growth, and there is no wonder in my mind that emigration from this country is turning to a flood.
Of course my sincere sympathy goes out to the many upright and dedicated Socialists to whom the present situation must be a bitter blow. What I believe we must look and strive for is an end to cynicism, a return to respect for moral principles, and a regard for absolute integrity. As I see it, this is the prime requirement for recovering a properly balanced national purpose, so vividly described and so passionately desired by the noble Lord, Lord Franks, in his maiden speech this afternoon.
10.38 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of a large part of the
272
business community. From time to time Her Majesty's Government have tried to lay the blame for their failings on the City, and we were even told that we were unpatriotic and that we were undermining the efforts of the Government. This I cannot accept, when the Government themselves have used our export trade to forward their political aims abroad. They have been prepared, irrespective of cost, to impose sanctions and restrictions, and have even prohibited Lloyd's and the insurance companies from meeting legitimate claims. They have doled out hard-earned foreign currency to all and sundry, and in my travels about the world I find countries who consider our financial assistance as their right and that no thanks or consideration is necessary.
The United Kingdom is a trading nation whose survival depends on its trade in goods, banking and insurance, and we can no longer afford to adopt policies which adversely affect these trading interests. I have been privileged to lead three trade missions of the London Chamber of Commerce during the last 12 months, and each time I have learned a little more about the problems we in this country have to face in the export markets. The last mission was to the West Indies, a comparatively small market, but the members of the team worked hard in obtaining business against strong competition from both the U.S.A. and Canada. We arrived back in London with some millions of pounds worth of orders to find a dock strike of five weeks duration.
The measures we are discussing today do not tackle the roots of the problem. What we commercial people require is a Government we can trust and one that will give us financial and economic stability; a Government that will tackle the problems of unofficial strikes and bring back the sanctity of contracts between labour and management. I seriously believe that the trade union movement would welcome legislation that would bring to an end the chaotic state of industrial relations that we are suffering today.
We have created a Welfare State with which I mainly agree, but you cannot have a Welfare State and no incentive. Without incentive you have apathy. In

273
fact, why should people work? How can you run an export trade when goods are held up on the railways, immobilised at the docks and, finally, when the ships themselves are held up with a seaman's strike? All these problems have had to be faced by exporters during the past eighteen months. It is no use our politicians blaming trade and industry for our financial deficits. We are suffering from mismanagement by Government, behaviour which in the private sector would mean bankruptcy or at least dismissal of the management.
We buy American F.111s for some £800 million, and by doing so we strike a serious blow to our aircraft industry and lose our scientists and technical experts. We also sacrifice a most valuable export business, the British aviation industry, trade which once lost is almost impossible to regain, and at the same time we are building up our main competitor in this field. Make no mistake, my Lords, exploration and development of military aircraft are vital to the development of our civil aviation industry. We were told that part of this dollar purchase was to be offset by the sale of special parts and equipment to the U.S.A. How long would that have lasted once American had cornered the world aviation market? Now I understand that the order for F.111s is to be cancelled, with a substantial penalty clause. The net result is irreparable damage to our aircraft industry, loss of our technical experts, a substantial claim in dollars for cancellation and, lastly, no aircraft.
Next, we throw away on political grounds some £500 million worth of military equipment for South Africa, equipment which would be quite useless for dealing with internal strife. The sum of £500 million has been gladly gathered up by France and Germany and other European countries. With this mistaken principle we achieve nothing, except the loss of valuable export business. Unfortunately, it does not stop there. Because of our attitude towards South Africa, during the next three years further purchases of heavy equipment and plant valued at around £250 million have been awarded to these same European countries.
I maintain that we cannot allow or afford this type of policy. For this Government
274
to say that principle is a reason for their action is impossible to accept, and I am sure that there are a great many other people in this country who do not understand our Government's principles, when in practically every other field principles appear to be of no concern.
I should have thought that the Prime Minister's Economic Statement contravenes practically every principle of the Labour Party, yet it has been accepted with
only one resignation from the Cabinet, and that by the noble and honourable Earl, Lord Longford. What a loss a man of this character will be to the Cabinet! The action most people want from the Government is, first, unofficial strikes to be made illegal; no National Assistance to be paid to the dependents of those on unofficial strike, and no tax refunds during these unofficial strikes—drastic action, I know, but it would mean no more paralysing unofficial strikes; secondly, the Prime Minister to be given the same powers as the President of the United States to intervene in official strikes, so that when national interests are at stake he could delay proposed strikes for a cooling off period of 90 days; thirdly, the creation of industrial courts where disputes between management and unions can be fairly resolved. This system works in other countries, and I do not see why it should not work here. The last action that people want is the revision of the whole tax structure, to recreate incentive to work in all sections and at all levels of the community.
I agree with what the noble Baroness said in her maiden speech, when she so ably reminded us that we are a great country. I believe we still have the finance, the brains and ability to regain our rightful place in the world, and I have every confidence in the commerce of our country harnessing these resources, provided that we are helped in our task and not stilled and bled by Party politics.
10.50 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I shall be brief and direct. There are two specific points to which I wish to refer and a general conclusion to which I wish to come. First of all, I want to refer to two of the notable maiden speeches which we have had

275
during the course of this debate. There was first the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Franks, who brought out the necessity for a theme and a leadership which would command the support of the British nation. I believe that that sentiment found a great deal of support in this House. I think that your Lordships were also impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, with all of which I agree, except his concluding sentences; and for this reason; that under the present Government we can never get the theme or the leadership for which Lord Franks so rightly called.
I now turn to the two specific points to which I wish to refer. There is first of all the immense damage to our balance of payments which is being caused by the Government's ban on the export of arms to South Africa. South Africa is our third (I am not sure it is not our second) largest customer. The origin of this arms ban is a resolution of the United Nations—passed, as I well know, with the support of the Tory Government—which bans the export of arms to South Africa. I believe that it was a great mistake that we supported that resolution. But at the time we supported it our representative at the United Nations was given instructions to make it perfectly clear that we should not interpret that resolution as preventing our exporting arms to South Africa for the defence of that country. That was the policy which was pursued, until the present Government abolished the export of all arms.
This decision is leading to a direct loss of some £200 million in various orders for arms, and if this policy goes on it will mean an incalculable indirect loss. One must take into account the question of renewals, and the annoyance—indeed the anger—of the South African Government at being thus treated. The Government are pursuing this policy at a time when they are exhorting exporters to do all they can to export. It does not make their exhortations sound sincere when they are pursuing this policy in regard to the export of arms to South Africa.
Let me illustrate the hypocrisy lying behind this decision. Perhaps your
276
Lordships do not know that we have recently done a deal with France under which we jointly produce aircraft, missiles and helicopters, some with British engines and French parts, and vice versa; but they are joint productions combining British work and French work in the finished product. There is nothing to prevent France exporting any of those items to South Africa, items which are banned by the present Government as exports from this country to South Africa. I do not know whether steps are being taken to bring to an end these contracts with France, or whether France is being pressed not to supply any of them to South Africa. But that seems to me to be a pretty hypocritical position. I notice that it causes amusement on the Government Front Bench, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, that was not what I was laughing at.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: Let us for a moment exercise a little imagination. Supposing there is a riot in South Africa
which is put down by the missiles or helicopters or submarines jointly produced by France and Britain. The police are then conveyed to the scene of the riot in station wagons exported from the United Kingdom. Then, if you please, the rioters will be clapped into gaol—handcuffed with handcuffs which this Government have gone out of their way to try to export to South Africa. Can you have such utter hypocrisy; and we are losing millions of export trade for this reason: that there is a great principle in refusing defensive weapons for a sea route which is vital to us, as I repeat again, is sheer hypocrisy. It is sheer prejudice on the part of the present Government against South Africa, and it is costing this country dearly. I am delighted that representatives of the C.B.I. and certain Tory Members, including Sir Alec Douglas-Home, are visiting South Africa. I hope they will see to it that it is known there that this policy will be reversed as soon as this Government can be got rid of; and for that reason one hopes that South Africa will not tie herself up too much with orders that will prevent us from ever getting them back again.

277
Now I turn for one moment to Rhodesia. According to the last estimate of the Prime Minister, I think sanctions there are costing us something like £40 million a year. The amount will go up. But what is the object of the exercise? Are the Government still expecting to bring the Smith régime to their knees and to force NIBMAR? I do not know, but they have given a pledge to the Commonwealth that they will never grant independence except with majority African rule. Paradoxically, I suppose that is a pledge which one imagines they will break if they ever get into negotiation with Smith again.
There are still other speakers to come, and I shall bring my remarks to a close. The pledges and prognostications of this Government are scattered around like broken crockery. The Government are dishonoured and discredited. I have been in politics for a long time, but I do not think I ever heard such a dishonest broadcast as that made by the Prime Minister immediately after devaluation. I am glad to note what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said today, which was certainly never said by the Prime Minister. Last night we were treated to a
performance on "Panorama" by the Minister of Defence. He told us then (I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw that broadcast) that pledges had to be broken because devaluation came—as if it just came out of the blue. Of course he never said that devaluation was brought about by the policies of the present Government in the last three years.
Of course, too, with one exception, no one resigns. Instead, the world is being treated to the spectacle of British policy being formed by package deals within the Labour Party designed to maintain their majority in the House of Commons, the whole thing being dressed up as the new vision of a British Government with the guts to do the right thing. That is what the world is being treated to. Can one wonder that, up and down the country, on television, in the Press, in pub and in club, the question forming on people's lips and in people's minds is: How long can this ghastly farce go on? How can this Government be got rid of? That is one of the things which is causing a sort of scepticism about our institutions. They
278
cannot be got rid of because they do not play by the rules, which are unwritten As Ministers are determined to cling to office, one cannot see how this Government can be got rid of. That is the only answer one can give to people who pose this question.
However, I derive some comfort from a dictum of the great philosopher, Francis Bacon, who said:
"They are ill discoverers who think there s no land because presently they can only see the sea".
I have the feeling, my Lords, that despite the attitude of Ministers, landfall, in the shape of a change of Government, may come about in less time than we can at present see. That, my Lords, is the hope and prayer of many, many people in this country.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My, Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I just ask him on what he bases his assumption that the country is moving further and further away from the Government, when in fact the latest Gallup Poll, published by a Conservative newspaper since devaluation was announced, shows a massive swing towards the Labour Party of 12 per cent.?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I would hardly call it a massive swing towards the Labour Party, but Gallup Polls are, I quite agree, an indication of the way sentiment is going. But I think it ought not to be forgotten that the last Gallup Poll was taken, I think, before the present package deal was officially announced.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Yes, my Lords, but it was taken after the announcement of devaluation and when the provisions that were announced by the Prime Minister were well known, or well foreseen or well anticipated, by those who were answering the questions put.
LORD GRIMSTON: I do not know about Gallup Polls, but I adhere to my opinion, and time will show.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that I think the Gallup Poll still showed a 5½, per cent. lead by the Conservative Party over the Government Party.
11.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I find it rather amusing that when a Socialist Government are in trouble they say—and we have heard this once or twice to-day—"Ah!, but we are a rich nation". That is true, we are rich nation, but we are not nearly as rich as we used to be, and we are not a rich nation because of Socialism. Far from it: through Socialism we are becoming poorer and poorer.
My Lords, I do not want to rub salt into the wounds too much, because the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whom I congratulate most heartily on his new appointment, made, I thought, a rather mild speech, and he also admitted that the Government had been wrong. So as I say, I do not want to rub the salt into the wounds. But he also rather implied, I thought, that perhaps all of us were in some way to blame for the economic troubles of the country. I really cannot allow that to go by without objecting to it, because there are quite a few Members of this House, including myself, who for many years have been criticising the great increase in Government expenditure; and also, of course, I personally have often criticised the accursed habit of professional politicians of promising the people more and more for doing less and less. To put it in its most simple, basic terms, to a great extent that is really the cause of our troubles.
If I may I should like to quote a few figures about these cuts. I do not quarrel with the cuts themselves, apart from those affecting defence, which I find extremely worrying. Apart from those on defence I quite agree with the cuts, but my chief quarrel is that they are quite inadequate. If I may take as an example the present year, 1968, the cuts will produce a saving of £300 million. That is a saving of 2 per cent. in Government expenditure. We have just had passed through Parliament Supplementary Estimates of £120 million, so one has to deduct that sum from the £300 million.
I do not blame the Government for the whole £120 million of the Supplementary Estimates. Quite a lot of that, of course, has to be for compensation for the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.
280
But we also heard the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, speaking about the cancellation of, and the penalty clause for, the F.111. I do not know how much that will be. But if you deduct that, too, then we really get down to a very low figure, which is really chicken-feed. If we now take the next year, 1968–69, it is true that that year's savings will be something between £400 million and £500 million. Public expenditure in that period is already estimated to be an extra £825 million, perhaps even £1,000 million. Therefore the cuts for 1969, like those for 1968, appear to be swallowed up by increase in Government expenditure.
While bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, I should like to see the cuts nearer £2.000 million. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that if we want greater cuts we ought to say how they can be accomplished. I should like to point out certain parts of the economy where I think there could be greater cuts which would be of great benefit to the nation. Several speakers have drawn attention to the Civil Service; and I agree that it is a popular whipping horse. But I have great respect for its members; they are very worthy people. In the last three years, the Civil Service has grown by 52,000, and its cost—I am talking about the white-collared workers—is now £740 million a year. I am not counting the Post Office workers in that figure. With the best will in the world one cannot say that the Civil Service is productive. It is not their fault but certainly the majority is non-productive.
But far worse than this, Civil Service expenditure is completely dwarfed by the budgets of the local councils. For the current year it is an estimated £5,400 million—nearly three times what we spend on defence. Council expenditure has risen more than 9 per cent. a year over the past ten years, double the growth rate of the gross national product, even allowing for inflation. If I may quote further figures, compared to ten years ago, projects paid for out of rates and Government grants for the councils have more than doubled to £3,670 million. In these ten years, council staffs have grown to 789,000. If we add to this figure the Civil Service staff, we get an army of white-collared workers, of the Civil Service and of the councils, of nearly

281
1½ million. This is where we need to make the cuts. I am quite convinced that here one could make cuts of up to £600 million or £700 million.
The trouble is that the majority of the people control of the spending of these
thousands of millions of pounds have never in their lives had to earn a pound competitively, and it is so easy to spend other people's money. I am convinced that vast sums are wasted by the Civil Service and local councils through
inefficiency. I should like a Royal Commission or some such body to inquire into the possibility of cutting down this spending and the paring down of staffs.
I am not too happy about the cuts in the education programme with the postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age. I sympathise with the views of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in that respect. But it may not be so disastrous, because I believe that even under the existing system children are able to stay on longer at school if they show aptitude and wish to do so, though I agree that the late developer may be at a disadvantage. This postponement might have been avoided if we could have put an extra 4d. on school meals, which would have brought in something over £30 million.
The other cut I should like to mention relates to motorways. I do not think it is wise to cut the motorway programme. Why should we not charge tolls on the motorways as has often been mentioned in your Lordships' House? That would save a great deal of money. And why not cut back on minor roads expenditure? It is extraordinary that £83 million of the local councils' road budget goes on minor roads too small to be classified; on cutting grass verges and doing the hedges. Surely a great deal of money could be saved on that. I have always thought this a gross extravagance. Before these cuts the Government were to spend £75 million on motorways.
I am also pleased about the slight saving on council houses. The specifications for most council houses are far too high.
Though it is very nice to see the "Back Britain" campaign, which is an
282
encouraging sign, the only people who can really get us cut of this mess is the Government. They have the power and the means. If they do not do it, no "Back Britain" campaign will help us. Some speakers on the opposite side have said that the spending spree was only over Christmas, but I do not think that that is so. The Chancellor's problem is not to raise more revenue, but to control consumer spending. Everybody seems convinced that the Chancellor, in the Budget, is going to put exorbitant taxes on consumer goods. But that will not stop the wage-earner spending. If he wants something he will buy it irrespective of price, up to a certain limit. Why cannot we have some form of compulsory saving for the wage-earner? For instance, he could have a stamp on his National Insurance card by means of which the employer could deduct so much—perhaps 5 or 10 per cent., or more—from his wages every week. If that were done, it could take a lot of the heat out of the economy and there would not have to be exorbitant taxes on consumer goods. I put forward this view seriously because I think that there is something in it. Allowance would no doubt have to be made for further inflation in respect of such savings.
I should like to say a few words to back up what one or two speakers have said about the Persian Gulf. I think also that our premature withdrawal from Singapore is deplorable. We appear to have broken our word, and from the point of view of world opinion this is much more serious than the actual withdrawal. I understand that our presence in the Persian Gulf costs £15 million a year and we have assets of £2,000 million in the oilfields there. It has been said in this debate that we do not require a military presence to protect trade interests or to trade. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that Norway and Sweden do not have any bases abroad. But we cannot really compare those countries with Great Britain: they are extremely small countries which do not have world-wide interests.
I have always understood that the great point of the presence in the Persian Gulf is the stability that it gives to the States there. This expenditure represents only £15 million a year. It is a flea-bite. If you cut down the road grants to

283
councils for cutting the verges of minor roads, and if they were cut only once, instead of twice, in the summer this would save enough money to keep the presence in the Persian Gulf. It seems criminal to do away with this. My noble friend behind talked about the sanctions on Rhodesia costing £40 or £50 million. If these sanctions were stopped this would more than enable us to continue a presence in the Persian Gulf. This could also be achieved by selling submarines or frigates to South Africa. It seems to me to be crazy, and, to tell the truth, I just do not understand it. Then, why fix a date? What is the point of fixing a date? We saw what happened in Aden. It is quite unnecessary to fix a date for withdrawal. It is far better to keep the world guessing. Russia will be in Aden soon, anyway.
It is the same old story. It is useless for me to say to a Socialist Government—and this does not apply only to the present Government—that they should do what the German Government did and allow national free play of economic forces, with incentives and all that. If this had been done we should have been a much more prosperous nation to-day. All that has happened is that we have been hedged in by taxes, restrictions and a vast Civil
Service or bureaucracy. This has really been the cause of our trouble. I only hope that we are not witnessing the last days of Rome.
Talking of that, I should like, before I end, to urge the Government not to go ahead with these new nationalisation plans for nationalising buses and garages. I understand that if they do that an extra £75 million will be drawn into the economy. And the Government say that they want to take the heat out of it. These plans are crazy. The same applies to buying up shares in private industry. All this must be stopped. It is like the Gadarene swine.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, as I may have to reply to-morrow, would he make clear whether his suggestion for compulsory saving of wages, as he expressed it, applies only to wages and not to salaries, or to himself?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should be quite prepared to apply it to salaries and to myself: it would probably be very good for me. But the real spending in the country is done by the wage-earner. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will know, if he has employed men in industry, that they are paid on Friday and some come back on Monday and want a loan. It is extraordinary how they spend their wages. I cannot think what they spend them on, but they certainly spend them very quickly.
11.25 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, on such a brilliant speech and also because he did not use notes, which I admire very much in public speaking. I would not be on my feet were it not that I was asked to get something into this speech about the Isle of Man. I shall slip it in so that your Lordships will not notice it, I trust. I have been in and out of the Chamber the whole day, and I am a great sportsman, and I feel somehow it was all rather a shame: there were so many people with not only guns loaded with ammunition but bandoliers of ammunition, all shooting at the Government and the Government had no real ammunition to shoot back. I felt very sorry for the Government. As a Cross-Bencher, I can feel sorry for either side.
I have had three years of listening to all these wonderful talks on ideology, which have ended up with us in such a mess that it is very difficult to know how it can be disentangled. I must admit, when I talk about shooting, that I am throwing a hand-grenade into the Government, but I am throwing it very politely and I am not pulling out the pin. About the second year, I think it was, in all these debates about the ideologies of the country, I found out that I did not really know what ideology was. I thought I did, but I did not really know what it was. I did not like to tell anybody, because I am ignorant enough anyway, and usually talk round things I do not know. I did not know what an ideology was so I got down to studying, it, and the whole room at home was filled with piles of books with matches and paper and old envelopes

285
stuck into them; and finally I got down to what ideology was and its history for 500 years.
Ideology obeys only three rules. First, you have to get a group of people, or somebody, who catch an ideology. First catch your ideology. Once you have it you add a bit here and a bit there, so that it is suitable for everybody. Then you become dedicated to it—so dedicated that you intend never to give it up "until death us do part"—or, as they say in the service, until debt do us part. And so you have this ideology. Phase 2: you have to get power. You must have power to put your ideology over. Phase 3: you have to suppress any opposition to your ideology or it will peter out. Those are the three rules which have run all the ideologies in the 500 years about which I have searched, not year by year, but gap by gap, on the history of ideology.
I know that some of your Lordships rather doubt what I am saying, but it is true. I am going to speak for only eight and a half minutes, and I would just take the history of one ideology to show your Lordships what I mean. For this I am taking the Reformation, which was considered one of the greatest miracles of ideology there has ever been in this country, and it is within my time span of 500 years. The Reformation was really started with a small group—Cranmer, Ridley and Hugh Latimer, who was the grand old man of the party. They were all intellectuals, all highly educated, all charming; all the sort of chaps you like to meet at the Athenæum after dinner. In his education Hugh Latimer went from Cambridge to the Sorbonne in Paris and flushed up at Louvain, and there he got mixed up with a Flemish reformer—all this and Martin Luther, too—and learned a lot of funny stuff on reforms. He brought it home and Cranmer "took up with it". Hugh Latimer was "caught up", and they got this idée fixe that you must have this dedication to the ideal. They all got worked up with it.
The next thing was to get power, and that they obtained, because for Henry VIII they obtained a divorce. Then they obtained a marriage to Anne Boleyn, and obtained her execution for him. So he was quite satisfied with his sort of servants. With power—and
286
your Lordships will understand the meaning of the present crisis in this—you must suppress opposition. You cannot take any other ideas; you must have all your own. I cannot give you all the instances I should like to give, because I am limiting myself and yourselves to time, but they suppressed anything that came up. There was a young lady called. Miss Joan Bosher, who did a little lay preaching on the sly. She came up before Bishop Ridley, was quickly tied to the stake and burnt alive. That stopped her. There was a Dr. Paris. He started a spot of lay teaching and he was flamed. There was a girl in the southern counties. This girl about adolescent age started to have visions, and started prophesying. Some of this was against the ideology and against the State. She came before Archbishop Cranmer, and he very properly had her burnt alive at Smithfield Market. There are many more cases. They dealt with any opposition to ideology.
As luck would have it, as your Lordship's know there was a change of Government and a new ideology came in. Very soon after, Bishop Cranmer was executed. Bishop Ridley found himself in flames at Smithfield Market. It happened that burning next to him was his old friend Hugh Latimer, who was 85 years old at the time. It was he who said the sentence which is famous in English history:
"We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out".
Small boys attribute this to Walter Raleigh, lighting his first cigar, but I believe the other stories were correct. It certainly did light a candle in England. People put themselves and other people in stocks. There was a long series of civil wars. They really do set the pace for ideology.
You will notice the three phases: you have to be dedicated; you have to get power, to put it over and you have to suppress any other form of ideology. I have listened to all this with great interest, brilliantly spoken in your Lordships' House by a great number of brilliant speakers. But I have to smile. Take the case of Rhodesia, which has cost us an enormous amount of money—one of the things which brought us

287
to the present ruin. An innocent thing like Rhodesia. You have the two ideologies: our ideology, that Rhodesians must have democracy, and the African ideology which was pretty well expressed by an African ideologist who was over here last year. He said:
"We do not want 'one man one vote', we want 'one man one machine gun', to kill all the whites".
Anybody who saw the very good film done by the Italians will have seen that they carry out their ideology when they get a chance to do it. From a helicopter there were shots of Zanzibar with people being nicely massacred in the streets. There was one shot of the sea white with the bodies of people who had been massacred. They are people who carry out their ideology. So you get businessmen in the middle between two ideologies. This ideology has cost us, and will cost us, a lot of money.
Many people have spoken today, and I will not rub it in, about the ideology that we cannot supply arms to people because we are against it. We have had the League of Nations and the United Nations and they have not stopped war. You cannot stop war, because territory is our biggest instinct. You can stop war in this way: by having a very powerful army people may not attack you. What the South Africans want to do is buy arms to defend themselves, but of course our ideology prevents our selling them, so we lose enormous sums of money over it.
This is a rather tragic point that I want to bring out, but I must do so. One thinks of men like Archbishop Cranmer and Ridley and old Hugh Latimer, who was 85 when he was burned at the stake—a charming man—but when it came to the point Archbishop Cranmer "ratted". He agreed to alter, to give up his ideology, and I rather think that Bishop Ridley did, too. The actual quotation attributed to Hugh Latimer, which I think he said at the stake, was
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley; play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
Play the man! That is the point. It seems to me that two of them "ratted" on their own ideology which they had
288
made up themselves, coupled with the name of Martin Luther and a few others. The only man who stood up for his ideology was old Hugh Latimer, who burned pleasantly, believing in the ideology that he had given his life to serve.
I know this stuff is a grenade, but it has to be said. Unfortunately we have today the parallel that the noble Earl, whom I admire personally very much, is the only one who stuck to his ideology and resigned. All the others who are responsible for our ruin, responsible for these ideologies which have cost us so much money, have stayed put. They have "ratted" on their own ideology, but the noble Earl has resigned. His ideology is not one of those fancy things about "two men, two votes"; "one man, one vote or anything like that. It is the normal procedure of the Welfare State, which has got people properly fed, properly clothed. The Government want to have them fully educated, and we are giving up two years of that education, which is odd. It means that the product we have spent all this money to produce will be lost to us for two years. We shall have two years blank in the higher education. I have enormous admiration for the noble Earl, the only one with an ideology that means anything to me or to anybody else, who stuck to it, and if any of these other people who have not resigned come up with any other form of ideology I shall roar with laughter, because I shall not believe they are ever sincere again.
I feel very much for members on the Government Benches, because I know they will have to vote against this Amendment and I know that many of them in their heart of hearts agree with every word I have said. I feel especially sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whom I, as a member of the Cross Benches, welcomed most heartily to this House, for he has to try to sail as stormy a voyage as his celebrated father sailed from Elephant Island, and I wish him all luck with his voyage. As a footnote—I nearly said "footnight", and that would probably have been more appropriate—I would remind your Lordships that the Byzantine Empire did not come to an end because of the Barbarians and the French; it came to an end because the centre was rotten with ideologists arguing together.
11.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I propose to tell you a story. It is very short, and in fact the story itself may not give you any particular pleasure but I think your Lordships may well be obliged to me for its brevity. It may have some particular appeal to my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury. It is a story about a tempter who said to one of his agents, "I have a job for you. You have heard of a thing called the British military presence East of Suez?" "Certainly," said the agent. "Well," said the tempter, "certain friends of mine are anxious to see this withdrawn rather more suddenly than has been expected so far, and I have agreed to help. You go to London, see the Government—it is a Labour Government, but I am not saying that that makes it harder or easier—and you tempt them into bringing this presence home, say by the end of 1970 or 1971. They will have their price you will find."
But the agent shook his head. "That is bribery," he said. "You cannot bribe British Governments, especially not this one." "What is so special about this one?" said the tempter. "Several things," said the agent. "To begin with, it is hardly any time since they were accused of 'ratting' on some of their agreements by their closest friends, the Australians and the New Zealanders. The British decided they were going to pull out in the mid-'seventies and that upset a lot of people, but they promised they would not do it until others were ready to take over. That is certainly a promise they are not going to break." "Ah," said the tempter, "but they are hard up; they have had to devalue the pound. They will listen to any reasonable offer. "I doubt it," said the agent. "You have forgotten about the arms for South Africa." "Oh yes," said the tempter. "Do you know, I never really got the hang of that. I wish you would explain it."
"It is a bit difficult to explain," replied the other. "I can tell you what happened. When this Labour Government came into power three years ago there was in force a resolution of the United. Nations Security Council requiring its members not to sell arms to South Africa". "Not any kind of arms?",
290
asked the tempter. "No," said the agent. "But the previous Government—that is, the Tory Government—had not agreed with the whole of the resolution, which was non-mandatory anyway; they had agreed to forbid the export of only military equipment and weapons such as could be used for internal security, small arms and so on; that is to say, for use against the blacks. They were quite ready to go on selling armaments used only for defence against external enemies." "Very fair," said the tempter. "So the Tories thought," said the agent. "The Security Council agreed. But when the Labour Government came into power they extended the British embargo to cover the whole thing, external defence and all." "Do you mean they stopped all trade with South Africa?" "Not at all, just external defence; they went on trading in everything else like mad."
"I do not get it", said the tempter. "No more do I", said the agent. "It is something to do with apartheid, and that is where the difficulty comes in, because I cannot see what it has got to do with apartheid. I think it must be some kind of gesture. The odd thing is that it has obviously no effect at all, because the South Africans simply go to somebody else—the French—and buy what they want. Just recently a good deal of pressure has been put on the Government to rescind the external defence part of their embargo. They would not do it for anything, and they still will not".
"Wait a minute", said the tempter. "They will not sell aeroplanes and submarines for the South Africans to defend themselves. That cannot be because they do not approve of them, because they are prepared to sell them anything else. It cannot be in order to make them defenceless, because that would be practically criminal, and anyway they would go next door. It has no effect on the South Africans except to annoy them, and it cannot possibly do any good for the blacks. So what is the idea? It must cost a great many people a pray penny". "£200 million, I believe", said the agent, "and perhaps the Simonstown base. That is the point. All the Government are being asked to do is to change their mind. There is no question of any bilateral agreement being involved, no question of national honour or letting

291
anybody down. So you can see what high-principled people they are. They have such a high moral principle that it forbids them changing their mind, even for £200 million, and now you are asking me to try to tempt them not merely into a harmless change of mind but into breaking faith with nations who are their friends and allies, going back on their agreements, cancelling their assurances which they have given, only a few months ago, remember, and leaving them in the lurch. I have not a chance; they will not listen to me".
But they did listen to him. They fought, and begged him quite a good deal, but after a bit he was able to return to the tempter and report complete success. "And what was the price?", asked the tempter. "Between £320 million and £370 million, calculated at 1964 prices, the first instalment payable in 1968, 1969, 1970". "Is that all they asked?", said the tempter, incredulously. "That is all", said the agent "—that, and the survival of the Labour Party."
11.46 p.m.
LORD DIGBY: My Lords, I come to speak here tonight because I am ashamed—yes, ashamed—when I think of our allies in Australia and America, who supported us through the last two wars, and now, when their soldiers are being killed in defence against Communism, we are leaving their southern flank unguarded. The Government tell us that we must face up to realities. But the reality is that we are the only Power to have had a successful Far Eastern policy since the war, and we should be boasting about it, not scuttling. We have eliminated the Communist emergency in Malaya, and we now have a peaceful Malaya. We stood firm against Indonesian confrontation and we triumphed; and even in Hong Kong, in an impossible situation, the firmness of the authorities has won the respect of the inhabitants and is producing the confidence so necessary for prosperity.
Yes, my Lords, I think we can be justly proud of our stability. But I have spent long enough in that part of the world to know that racial tensions are not far below the surface, and as soon as the word goes round that Britain is deserting her friends our enemies will begin to
292
appear—a riot here, and a murder there. Surely the Government must have learned from Aden. The mere announcement of withdrawal acts as a catalyst to all subversive elements. The self interest of safeguarding our vast assets East of Suez, and the moral duty of standing by our friends impel us to reject these policies.
Now may I turn to the domestic policies. I should like to high-light and support one particular pledge in the Prime Minister's Statement, that there will be
"no further net increase in the number of civil servants as a whole".
I do not think I am alone in welcoming that pledge. But I am trying to look behind it, to see where the catch lies. I have one question to ask the Government. The Statement announces that the civilian manpower in the Defence
services will be reduced by 80,000. Can the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government assure the House that no part of this 80,000 reduction will be used to justify an increase elsewhere in the Civil Service? Are these Service civilians part of the Civil Service? Without this assurance what we gain on the swings of the Admiralty civilians, we will lose on the Home Office roundabouts.
This issue of Civil Service expansion is fundamental to the whole of this debate. The salaries alone of the extra civil servants employed since 1964 would be more than the saving we are to have in the next two years from postponing the raising of the school leaving age. But the cost alone is not the only reason; there is also the shortage of trained and educated brains. Logical, educated and
trained minds are snapped up by the Civil Service. These are the people required in the administration of industry to ensure that customers' requirements are met. There is a shortage of men and women skilled in administration who should be used where they are most productive.
Finally, fiscal measures are still to come, and we are warned to expect increased taxation. So be it. But I implore the Government: no new taxes, or complication of taxes. Every new tax involves industry in millions of man hours consulting with accountants and lawyers; hours which may be productive in saving tax, but which certainly add nothing

293
to the efficiency of the country. No small part of our present troubles stems from the Alice Through the Looking Glass effect of the tax changes enacted by the Government. Add corporation tax, take away profits tax: add investment grants, take away investment allowances: add S.E.T., take away nothing: add capital gains tax, take away the incentive to earn and save. These changes, whether good or bad in the long term, have undoubtedly hindered productivity in the short term. So I urge the Government not only to contain but to reduce the Civil Service, and let us get on with our job without having to worry about changing taxation. Above all, let us consolidate our success in the Far East before withdrawal.
11.52 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as runs scored on a sticky wicket. At this hour the run-stealers are beginning to flicker somewhat, and I will be brief in the extreme. In company with many other noble Lords I have received encouragement and consideration from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, while he was Leader of the House. I regret deeply that last week the noble Earl felt impelled to resign from the Government. The two-year deferment of the raising of the school-leaving age contains aspects typical of many of the Government's other proposals.
First there are persuasive arguments in favour. Only ten days ago, 21 members of the Plowden Committee reminded the Government of the continuing plight of primary schools in educational priority areas. Then it is argued that many recommendations of the Newsom Report, upon which a 16-year-old school-leaving age was dependent, would not possibly be achieved by 1971. But, as with other cuts, points of principle are involved. One of the ideas, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred, behind the raising of the school-leaving age was the buoyant hope of improving the training capacity of school leavers. Poised upon the springboard of devaluation, the Government have seen fit to cast this item of buoyancy aside. And, as with other cuts, the effect will remain, so that in 1973 the prize may again elude our grasp. Instead of this proposal it would
294
have been possible to increase the price of school meals. And let us not forget that, contrary to what has been said elsewhere, hardship is alleviated in this sphere by the exemptions system run by local education authorities. Although it is not the province of the Department of Education and Science, is there not a case now for postponing plans for the University of the Air?
One more point on education, a point which I do not think has been mentioned to-day. Recently there was a Burnham award to teachers, and subsequently the Government announced that part of teachers' salary increases in direct grant schools would not on this occasion be met by adding to capitation grants. This has invariably been Government policy since the 1944 Education Act. Now, paragraph 34 of the White Paper declares a reduction in capitation grants to direct grant schools, and I believ3 that this is to be £20 per pupil per annum. Thus out of a general capitation grant of £52 per pupil per annum, the direct grant schools are now to bear a cut of £20 and have lost the normally automatic contribution towards the recent Burnham award, which I am advised could have been expected to be in the region of £5 or £6. It is a far heavier blow than any other sector of education must suffer. There are not wanting those who accuse this Government of subversion of the direct grant schools. I trust this is not true, but only a few weeks ago the Minister asked the Public Schools Commission to advise him upon the future of the direct grant schools. On the evidence, is it possible to believe that the Government have not already pre-judged this issue?
I view with the deepest suspicion those who immediately greeted the defence cuts with applause. This has been gone over again and again today, and I shall be only a few seconds. If such people do so because, after studying the facts, they believe it makes neither economic nor military sense to remain in a given area, or to use particular equipment, then such an opinion is sincere. But if the defence cuts are welcomed from thoughtless prejudice, this is dangerous wickedness. Distinct from the ideal of pacifism of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, which I can only say I admire, there are those who

295
say, "We are a small island. We cannot defend ourselves alone. Therefore, let us throw all our arms away." But, as many of your Lordships know far better than I, Great Britain has never sought security by standing alone. Always this country's policy has been to forge alliances, to maintain power balances.
It is not nostalgic hankering after Empire to point out, as so many noble Lords have done so ably today, that our trade and our security depend upon our alliances, upon our agreements and upon our bases. The vital point which has been made today on this subject is that made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe: that what we must scrutinise most carefully in the future is what is being left behind. Let us bear in mind also that, because of Vietnam, we may be leaving the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and the Far East at a time when, to quote a phrase of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, the international weather is at its dirtiest.
In another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained that the impossibility of reducing expenditure on defence before the year after next must ensure a rise in public expenditure next year. What if confidence, both at home and abroad, refuses to wait so long? Her Majesty's Government are lavish with exhortation, but Ministers seem incapable either of making up their own minds or of tightening their own belts. Why, for instance, is the Chancellor waiting until March before tackling private consumer spending? I followed most carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the spending spree over Christmas probably levelling off and going down, but all I can say, speaking from personal experience, is that I am moving house at the moment and have certain necessary items of expenditure to face, and, like the rest of the country, I am deciding to spend now, not later.
Mr. Jenkins has affirmed that the Government cannot make what he calls absolute cuts within Ministries. Why on earth not? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord who will be winding-up the debate tomorrow will explain what the Land Commission has done to justify expendi-
296
ture, though, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, if there is an answer I doubt whether it will be particularly palatable. The White Paper states that there will be no increase in Civil Service numbers in 1968–69, but I wonder. If the Chancellor devises new forms of taxation in the March Budget, as he has every right to do, the Inland Revenue may be in a position where they will simply have to appeal for recruits. The tragedy is that, again and again, the absurd figure of an extra 57,000 civil servants since 1964 is pointed to in derision. That is a wonderful total. It was 45,000. A few weeks after that figure was given in the House, I attended a political meeting at which I thought it would be right to add on another 5,000 because I believed that that was probably what it would rise to; and, sure enough, a couple of days later I found that the figure was in fact 50,000. Mr. Macleod, in another place, gave it last Wednesday as 52,000, and to-day we are up to 57,000. It is to the shame of the Government that the good name of the Civil Service has been devalued in this way.
May I beg: let not Ministers disregard the value of setting an example by economising within their own Departments. With such a touch of leadership, and with incentives, such as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, referred to, where the abolition of the present S.E.T. must stand in the forefront, I believe the Government might be amazed at a general response to the unpleasant truth which we are all finding so hard to face: that, owing to devaluation, the standard of living of each one of us must fall.
Finally, my Lords, for ten days preceding the Government Statement there were daily newspaper reports of agonising Cabinet meetings. "Sacred cows" were being slaughtered; Ministers were wrestling with their consciences and with the Labour conscience—and to my knowledge those reports were not denied. The noble Lord, Lord Franks, spoke of a national purpose and theme. At this grave juncture, Ministers have one responsibility only: the future of our country and of our people.
"The Queen poor; the realm exhausted; the nobility poor and decayed; all things dear; division among ourselves; steadfast enemies but no steadfast friends".

297
No, my Lords, that does not come from one of last Sunday's newspapers. It was a contemporary account of the state of England at the accession of Elizabeth I. That Queen met her crisis by swearing in her Principal Secretary, Sir William Cecil, with words which I find strangely comforting:
"This judgment I have of you, that you will not be corrupted with any manner of gift, and that you will be faithful to the State, and that without respect of my private will you will give me that counsel that you think best".
They were wonderful words. Only a Government without prejudices, without sectional interests and with the good of this country at the top of their list of priorities will lead us safely through to better days ahead.
12.3 a.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, at just a few minutes past midnight we come to the end of the half-way stage in this long debate. I do not regret its length, although I think we should remember the strain on the officials of the House, and the Official Reporters in particular, in a debate of this length. But your Lordships' House seldom meets very late in the evening, and today we have heard many speeches which, in their authority and their wisdom, have accurately reflected, and indeed illuminated, the significance of our national situation.
It has also been an unusual debate because of four most notable speeches from Members addressing your Lordships' House for the first time. I have not been in the House for very long, but I have never known in one day four speeches which so caught the attention and admiration of the House as those of the noble Lords, Lord Thorneycroft, Lord Carron and Lord Franks, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies. There was also the speech by the former Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It would be inappropriate to try to make Party capital out of his resignation, and I am pleased that nobody sought to do so. The noble Earl did what he did as a matter of principle, and explained why in a speech marked both by reason and by great personal dignity.
My Lords, this debate is much more than just another debate on public expenditure. It is, as the Leader of the
298
Opposition remarked in the House of Commons last week,
"really about the future of Britain after devaluation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 18/1/1968, col. 1956.]
Many of the speeches in your Lordships' House this afternoon have reflected this. Of course it is possible to list the cuts in a piecemeal way, and to speak of them in the aggregate as a "package". The measures have to be individually justified by the Government, and it is right that each of them should now be examined and argued over in terms of relative priorities. But the danger in all this is that a Government—hard-pressed to keep ahead of events—may lose sight of their own objectives. What are the Government trying to do today? Have they got a clear-cut picture of the sort of society they want to achieve in Britain? And if they have, do they have the confidence that they will be able to achieve it? These are the fundamental questions which we should keep in mind as we debate these economies in public expenditure. Let us look, then, in this context at Mr. Wilson's "package" proposals. The first point to note is that the reductions are, in a sense, unreal since the total volume of public expenditure for 1968–69 and 1969–70 will be an increase on the current year. The figures tabled by the Prime Minister after his Statement in the House of Commons last Tuesday, and reprinted in the White Paper, show public expenditure for 1967–68 at £14,387 million, with the revised totals (after the cuts) of £15,078 million for 1968–69, and £15,212 million for 1969–70—all at constant prices, that is, 1967 Survey prices.
It is true that because of continuing commitments, particularly in defence, it is difficult to make immediate savings in public expenditure. Therefore the full impact of a number of the measures will not be seen until some distance in the future. Nevertheless, the fact remains that overall Government expenditure has not been reduced in the next three years: all that has happened is that the very steep planned rate of increase has been cut back. Noble Lords may have seen and noted the Economist's comment last week that the most important implication of the Prime Minister's Statement was:
"how completely the Treasury, under Mr. Callaghan's stewardship, had lost control over the course of public expenditure."

299
Had it not been for the cuts which have just been announced it was apparently proposed that next year total expenditure by central and local government would have risen by nearly £1,000 million. Even now, with the cuts, the increase will be of the order of £700 million. This simple fact, so easily overlooked in the heat of debate on such crucial matters as who will or will not be allowed to attend meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party, goes to the heart of Britain's national problem.
Overseas opinion, my Lords, as we know, has doubts about the effectiveness of the present Government to control the economic destinies of Britain. I regret this, but it is inevitable when faced with evidence of this kind that bankers will wonder whether their loans are in good hands. What have the Government been doing this last year? Noble Lords opposite will remember that in April, 1967, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, introduced a Motion in this House calling attention to the growth of public expenditure. There was a long debate, in the course of which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and myself, itemised some of the management techniques, including those of cost reduction, which are now widely used in industry and are available to the Government.
In reply, the then Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that the Government were fully alive to the need to make use of all modern management techniques, and listed a number which he described as being under consideration or already introduced. Later he confessed himself, with remarkable candour, to be somewhat surprised by the number that were in use in Departments of Government. There had, he said, been a great stirring of minds on this matter. Well, my Lords, now we are faced with the results. A planned increase of £1,000 million, cut back with the maximum of publicity and political discord, to an increase of £700 million.
What has become of the cost reduction programme? Was it ever considered? In the debate last April I mentioned the United States Bureau of the Budget Circular A44, a crucial document, and handed a copy of it to the Leader of the House after the debate. That Circular, known possibly to some noble Lords opposite, summarises the
300
details of the American cost-reduction programmes under which each Department or Agency Head is required to report projected savings targets personally to the President. This is the key factor, it has to be a personal responsibility to the centre. It is for this reason that the Leader of the Opposition in another place has proposed there should be a cost-effectiveness unit attached to the Prime Minister's office.
All the indications are of very weak financial management of the economy at the top. Contrary to popular belief, it is not easy to control public spending. All the techniques of modern management will not help unless they are applied firmly and with a sense of priority. This is where the Government have been so vulnerable in the past year. It has already been pointed out, with great
eloquence, by the noble Lord, Lord Franks, that priorities can be determined only by reference to values. The traditional values of the Party opposite have been so eroded by the events of the last three years that only one remains unchallenged. That one is expediency. There is nothing wrong with expediency. All Governments have to keep their heads above water; but the difficulty arises when expediency becomes the sole criterion for determining priorities. This was also the theme of the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
Let us imagine, my Lords, a dialogue in the Prime Minister's mind. Question: Should prescription charges be introduced? Answer: Yes, 2s. 6d. would do. Question: Why? Answer: Because it is timely. We have to make cuts somewhere and most people can afford it. Question: But won't the Left object? Answer: Yes, but we must all make sacrifices. The point here, my Lords, is that this decision may be the right decision or the wrong decision, but the only grounds on which it is defended is that, although it is undesirable, it is expedient. So the first main criticism of the Government is that there is no evidence of an overall plan, presented in a coherent framework, backed with the authority and persuasive force of coherent vision.
The second main criticism is of ineffective management. I have already

301
referred to the need for a firm grip at the top at the spending Departments in central and local government. This must come from the political leadership. Here there are indications of real weakness. In his Statement last week the Prime Minister, in my view, accepted far too readily the difficulties involved in cutting back projects which were already well advanced, and which could show an immediate reduction. Hence the projecting forward of those items which would show a saving later on. This inability to stop things completely at a late stage is a familiar bugbear of many large organisations. But it has to be done. The prize example, which has been mentioned already in the debate, is the extension of the Transport Holding Company to take into public ownership additional bus and road haulage undertakings to the value of up to £70 million, more than double the anticipated income from prescription charges. It is true that these arrangements were well advanced, but it is also true that the Bill did not receive a Second Reading in another place until January 16, the actual date of the Prime Minister's Statement. Since Parliamentary approval had not been given, we must assume that no irrevocable commitments had been entered into. So here is one measure that could, and should, be stopped in its tracks.
Another example is school meals. The Government have preferred—may I have the attention of noble Lords opposite? I know that it is quarter past twelve, but these are points of some importance to the noble Lord who will be replying to-morrow.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I apologise? I was only trying to sort out one of the points the noble Lord has just made in order that I could answer it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Let us look at school meals in relation to the decision to defer the raising of the school-leaving age. One of the reasons given is that it is administratively cumbersome to alter the price of school meals, particularly since a 6d. increase—from 1s. to 1s. 6d.—has only recenty been decided, and will take effect in April. So, rather than insisting that these administrative difficulties should be overcome,
302
and increasing the charge to the point where it coincides with the real cost, which is 2s. 7d. per meal, while retaining remissions in cases of hardship, the Government have chosen instead to postpone the raising of the school-leaving age.
This is a decision not only highly regrettable in itself, for the reasons given so eloquently by the former Leader of the House in his speech earlier to-day, but it is also one which has been received with regret overseas. I do net know whether noble Lords have seen the statement by Professor Walter Heller, for example, the former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the United States Government. This is precisely the sort of structural fundamental I reform which is essential to get Britain out of her present plight. If there was any overall plan for national regeneration, raising the school-leaving age would surely be in it. The fact that it is not, once again shows the Government's lack of a coherent set of values.
We cannot hope to achieve a more dynamic industrial society without more technological skills. The prerequisite of a more skilled society is a more educated society, particularly in the 15 to 16-year-old group. At the moment, these are exactly the young people who are receiving a level of education that may well prevent many of them from reaching their own individual potential in their working lives. But, of course, it is much more than just technological skills that are needed to realise Britain's economic recovery. It is the attitude of mind, even more than the training of the mind, that is crucial.
I believe that in this country we have over the years become too attached to the virtues of stability. Too often precedent and order count for more than initiative and risk-taking. Overmanning and restrictive practices on the shop floor; time-honoured and timid method; of management in the board room; a tax structure that allows little opportunity for the accumulation of capital—these are the things that are holding Britain back to-day. If it does nothing else, devaluation and the measures brought with it will be justified if they provide the jolt that gets this country out

303
of the rut we have been in for far too long.
Your Lordships may have seen the recent series of articles in The Times entitled "What Britain Needs". Contributor after contributor, including such non-Party men as the Chief Rabbi and Professor Fred Hoyle, called for more competition and a greater urge to work. I do not believe that this Government are capable of producing the necessary pre-conditions for the emergence of a new society. Their deep-rooted suspicion of profit as a motive for human conduct; their historical associations with a restrictionist trade union movement—these are the things, as well as others mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Caccia and Lord Franks, that make them unable to provide the innovation, the opportunities, and the example that are needed. They should make way for the Party that knows where it is going, for a Party that has a consistent vision of the future, and which can provide once again the sort of leadership which the country deserves.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dundee, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until this afternoon.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: debate adjourned accordingly.

ALL SAINTS, STREATHAM BILL [H.L.]
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
CHRIST CHURCH WITH SAINT ANDREW AND SAINT MICHAEL, EAST GREENWICH BILL [H.L.]
CROSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
DURBAN NAVIGATION COLLIERIES BILL [H.L.]
ELY OUSE—ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.]
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (VAUXHALL CROSS IMPROVEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
HOUNSLOW CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/WALLASEY) BILL [H.L.]
MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BILL [H.L.]
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
SALVATION ARMY BILL [H.L.]
SAINT JAMES, SAINT MARGARET AND SAINT PAUL, PLUMSTEAD BILL [H.L.]
SAINT MARY, SUMMERSTOWN BILL [H.L.]
SCOTTISH LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past midnight.