Sitting of 25 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  CROSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  Standing Order 208 (Notice of consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended; Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly and agreed to.

  LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL
  Standing Order 208 (Notice of consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended; Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly and agreed to.

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS
  Address for Return,
  "of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1967."—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST OFFICE

    Franking Machines (Decimal Currency)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to ensure that postage franking machines are convertible to decimal currency with the minimum of disruption and inconvenience to users.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): We have arranged that the companies who supply the machines now sell models which print the postage in pence only instead of shillings and pence. They have also begun a programme to convert or exchange the 74,000 machines already in use to the pence only system before February, 1971. This early start will minimise conversion difficulties and reduce the actual change required at decimalisation to one of accounting only.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend accept that the users will greatly welcome these early steps to minimise difficulties? Can he give us an estimate of the total cost of these conversions?
    Mr. Slater: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the early steps that have been taken. The cost is a matter for the suppliers and users of the machines, and it will vary according to the type of machine. So far as I am aware, no estimate of the total cost is available at this stage.

    Postcode System
    Sir. R. Russellasked the Postmaster-General if he intends to extend the postcode system to other cities; and what will be the saving of manpower and of cost as a result.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): Yes, Sir. Postcodes have been introduced in London, W.1 and 21 provincial towns. We will complete the coding of London and 70 large provincial towns by 1970. Postcodes enable mail to be sorted by machines. We cannot yet be precise about the manpower saving but the investment will be well worthwhile.
    Sir R. Russell: Is not the Postmaster-General aware that these postcodes are about as difficult to remember as the all-figure telephone numbers? Will he not take that disadvantage into account to be set against any saving?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I believe that in time people will get used to the numbers, however complicated they may appear to be at the outset.
    Mr. English: Contrary to the view expressed in the last question, does not my hon Friend think it a little strange that the Post Office are to introduce letters and numbers in these codes at the same time as they are trying to get rid of letters for telephone numbers?
    Mr. Stonehouse: No. The same considerations do not apply. With telephones we have to bear in mind the need for international dialling when the instruments abroad are not the same as they are in this country.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that those of us who have been to Norwich have been impressed by the experiment in mechanisation taking place there? But is he aware that I found the Post Office workers rather depressed at the slow speed at which this work was developing and spreading to other telephones?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am glad that the hon. Member and his colleagues have had a chance to see that development, which I hope soon to see for myself, but I am not aware that the staff have expressed any doubts about it.

    London Airport (Mail Bag Security)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for improving the security of mail bags, especially those containing registered mail, while they are in transit at London Airport.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The safe passage of mail through Heathrow Airport is a matter which receives constant attention jointly from the Post Office and the air carriers. I am sure the House would not expect me to divulge any information about either our present security arrangements or our plans for improving them.
    Sir R. Russell: While appreciating the last part of the reply, may I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there have been a number of thefts, particularly of registered bags, which apparently are separately marked and easy to find? Will he look into that aspect of the problem?
    Mr. Slater: The loss of mail is a matter of great concern to my right hon. Friend and myself and we have plans for improving our security arrangements, but I emphasise that none of the losses which have received such wide publicity over the last year or so occurred while the mail was in Post Office custody.

    Telex Service
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied with the efficiency of the telex service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The inland service is generally good, but I am certainly not satisfied with the overseas service, where there are deficiencies due to shortages of equipment and staff. In the context of greatly increasing demand, we are doing all we can to put this right.
    Mr. Gilmour: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the overseas service has now become so bad that not only the customers but even the operators are writing to hon. Members complaining about it?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir. I have gone into the matter with great care. The service is not as good as it should be, but I hope that it will be improved.

    Rhodesian Mails
    Mr. Wallasked the Postmaster-General how many parcels, packets and letters from Rhodesia have been opened since 14th June.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Existing Regulations require the Post Office to open any postal packet coming in from abroad at the request of H.M. Customs. Since the coming into operation of the Rhodesia Sanctions Order all mails received by sea or air from Rhodesia have immediately been made available to the Customs authority for examination.
    Mr. Wall: Does that reply mean that all letters from Rhodesia are now being

    955
    opened, or can be opened, by the Customs in order to extract information? While the Government deny censorship, is not this expressly that?
    Mr. Slater: The simple answer is that all mails arriving from Rhodesia are immediately made available to Her Majesty's Customs for examination.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much additional cost this will be over a year?
    Mr. Slater: Additional cost to whom?
    Sir Knox Cunningham: The taxpayer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A Minister does not ask questions; he answers them.

    Newspaper Advertisement
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Postmaster-General what was the cost of the Post Office advertisement in the Sunday Times Magazine for 14th July; and for what purpose it was intended.
    Mr. Stonehouse: No Post Office advertisement appeared in the Sunday Times Magazine for 14th July. Perhaps the hon. Member has in mind the advertisement which appeared in the Observer on that day: the cost was £1,887.
    Mr. Kitson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the advertisement has been run in a number of Sunday magazines, that it does not advertise any of the services of the Post Office or any of its activities, except to say that the Post Office exists? As most people recognise that the Post Office exists, very few people can understand what useful purpose this advertising serves.
    Mr. Stonehouse: As with other large organisations, it is to the benefit of the Post Office to promote its very good image, and it is very good for staff morale to see this advertisement appearing. Considering the amount of money involved, it is very good value.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is accepted on both sides of the House that the performance of the staff is outstanding, a view which is shared by the public, but that the public cannot understand the need for this excessive expenditure on advertisements in the national Press of services which the Post
    956
    Office staffs advertise better than any advertisement?
    Mr. Stonehouse: As the Post Office has a turnover of £800 million a year, this is a very small amount to spend on promoting the image which we project. I think that generally the staff is very pleased to have this opportunity of promoting itself to the public.

    New Postal Arrangements
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Postmaster-General what is the estimated capital cost of the new postal arrangements in the autumn; and what is the estimated increased annual cost.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I do not expect any increase in net costs.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am absolutely fed up with the re-organisation, that we pay more and more and get less and less?
    Mr. Stonehouse: That is quite untrue. The service of the Post Office is being improved considerably as a result of the new equipment which we are introducing.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    B.B.C. Programmes (Cost)
    Mr. Danceasked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange that in future the annual report and accounts of the British Broadcasting Corporation will include information on the cost of programmes which are produced but not screened.
    Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dance: Is the Minister aware that, in the near future, the public will be called upon to pay more in licence fees? Surely they should be told how that money is squandered?
    Mr. Stonehouse: It would be most unwise for me to interfere into the day-today running of the affairs of the B.B.C, and certainly it would be unwise to discourage it from producing venturesome programmes.
    Mr. English: Is it not true that the total cost of programmes per hour is known and, of course, that this cost includes the cost of scrapped programmes?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes.

    Mid-Anglia (Reception)
    Mr. Laneasked the Postmaster-General what steps have been taken to improve the reception of television programmes in mid-Anglia.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Measures to improve the reception of television programmes are a matter for the B.B.C. and I.T.A. in the first place. They tell me that reception of B.B.C.1 and Independent Television is generally satisfactory in Cambridgeshire.
    Mr. Lane: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, contrary to that, a great many viewers in the area are dissatisfied with the reception of B.B.C. programmes, and, particularly now that the Postmaster-General has authorised an increase in licence fees, will he please ask the B.B.C. to take further steps to improve it?
    Mr. Slater: It may be that reception is not as good as one would like to see it for people resident in that area, but it must be taken into consideration that there are certain atmospheric conditions in which interference in the area is caused by foreign stations a considerable distance away, and, in the same way, our transmissions interfere with theirs. The House will be interested to know that the B.B.C. has built a large number of low-powered relay stations, including one at Cambridge, which, by providing a stronger signal, reduce the interference problem, and some viewers may also be able to help themselves by consulting a radio dealer about their aerials.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

    Local Radio Stations (Scotland)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Postmaster General what consideration he is now giving to the development of local radio stations in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Postmaster-General how many local radio stations are now working; and what proposals he has received from local authorities in Scotland in this field.
    Mr. Stonehouse: All eight of the B.B.C.'s experimental stations are now broadcasting. Any plans for further
    958
    stations must await the review of this experiment. I have received no further proposals from local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that probably one of the reasons for the lack of enthusiasm for local radio is the fact that since the B.B.C. have become pop-punchers, traditional radio programmes have been adversely affected? Will he try to improve the service and thus encourage local authorities, especially in the central belt, to proceed with local radio stations?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not aware that the quality of B.B.C. programmes as a whole has deteriorated as a result of the experiment, but I will certainly look very kindly at my hon. Friend's suggestion when we review the experiment in about a year's time.
    Mr. Hamilton: What representations have been received or what initiatives have been taken by which local authorities in Scotland? Does any initiative rest with my right hon. Friend to encourage them to set about this imaginative scheme?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not in a position to say which authorities have been in touch with us, but I will certainly take initiative next year if, in the light of the conclusions of this experimental run, we think that that will be a wise thing to do.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the Postmaster-General in a position to answer the Question put to him last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan)—how much has the B.B.C. spent to date on the running costs of these experimental stations?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is about local radio stations in Scotland.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the first part of Question No. 14 deals with the general point and it is only the second part which relates to Scotland.
    Mr. Speaker: I agree. The Minister will answer the supplementary question.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I will obtain the information and write to the hon. Member.

    Broadcasting Licence Fee
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will now extend the viewing hours of television;

    959
    (2) if he will now make a statement about the future of the broadcasting licence fee.
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General if he will undertake not to sanction an increase in the British Broadcasting Corporation licence fee until he has been informed that a report on the organisation has been received from the management consultants.
    Mr. Englishasked the Postmaster-General what alteration he proposes to make in the number of hours during which television broadcasts are permitted; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Postmaster-General whether it was with his authority that the Press were officially informed on Firday, 19th July, of the Government's intention to make an announcement on Thursday, 25th July, of a 20 per cent. increase in the annual television licence fee; why, in view of the Government's prices and incomes policy he has agreed to this increase; whether he will refer the proposed increase to the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and whether he will make a statement.
    Dr. Grayasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now make a statement about the British Broadcasting Corporation's licence fee.
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Postmaster-General how he proposes to finance an increase in the television broadcasting hours of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I would refer hon. Members to my statement of 23rd July.— [Vol. 769, c. 276–84.]
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the public anger that is felt over the 20 per cent. increase in the licence fee and over his very unconvincing explanation for short circuiting the Prices and Incomes Board? Have any studies been made into the possibility of employing other methods to raise revenue for the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Stonehouse: To answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am not aware of any great anger because I believe that the public recognise that they are getting
    960
    value for money. The cost of having a black and white T.V. is only about 4d. a day and the service received for that is very good indeed.
    To answer the second part, about referring the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board, the question is not really comparable as additional services are being provided. There is no question here of a charge being increased for a similar service.
    Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people in the United Kingdom will welcome his proposal to increase television hours? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Is he aware that most people would wish to have more than an average of an extra half-an-hour a week? Is he further aware that, like hon. Gentlemen opposite, many hon. Members on this side of the House would be prepared to consider other means of raising finance?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the statement I made. It is not an extra half-an-hour a week but an extra half-an-hour a day.
    Mr. English: It was a mis-statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: As for investigating further ways of financing the Corporation, we will in due course have to consider this subject.
    Dr. Gray: Would my right hon. Friend consider introducing the principle of selectivity in charging, as with medical prescription charges, particularly for the deaf, disabled, chronic sick and old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I said on Tuesday that it would be very difficult indeed to introduce the principle of a benefit in kind. If my hon. Friend will write to me with any reasonable suggestions, I will, of course, consider them; but I see great problems in trying to do what has been suggested.
    Mr. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on Tuesday the House rightly poured scorn on that part of his statement in which he said that a reference to the P.I.B. would have been, to use his word, "inappropriate"? Will he now explain what he meant by that word? Did he mean impossible, inconvenient or what?
    Mr. Stonehouse: This is not a charge in the normal sense—[Interruption.] It will cover additional expenses on the part of the B.B.C., something which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends a few years ago supported when they were in power. That being so, it is ridiculous for them to agree to an extension of the services, the switching to 625 lines, the building of new stations and the improvement of broadcasting facilities and at the same time complain in this way. It would be inappropriate to refer an increase in a fee which is related to extra services and improved broadcasting facilities to the P.I.B. As I say, we are not increasing a charge for a similar service. The service is being improved.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions. Mr. Yates.
    Mr. Victor Yates: Since the House does not appear to have much control over the activities of the broadcasting organisations, would my right hon. Friend try to arrange for more frequent reports on the subject to be presented to Parliament so that hon. Members may thoroughly examine the activities of these organisations?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am satisfied that the degree of control which we have is sufficient. If my hon. Friend will suggest to the Leader of the House that we have a debate on the subject, I would support that.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than lengthen the hours of television, it might be better to have better quality programmes and fewer old films? Will he set his mind against the prejudice on the benches opposite about advertising so that extra revenue may be available for better programmes?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I would personally favour the development of more live programmes and more up-to-date films. Both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are paying attention to this point.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the great public interest that exists in any price increase? Usually the Government are blamed for these increases. Since the great communicators now have an opportunity,
    962
    to do something really constructive, if my right hon. Friend cannot instruct them, will he at least arrange for the B.B.C. and the other lot to give ample viewing time for all the problems associated with the increase to be explained?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will have taken note of that comment.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he has talked with the Minister of Social Security to arrange for this extra £1 licence fee to be taken into account in assessing admissibility for sup-plentary pensions for elderly and needy persons?
    Mr. Stonehouse: That is an excellent point. I have not yet done what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I will certainly discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Americans only wish that they had an advertisement-free broadcasting system like we have? Will he consider subsidising the cost of the B.B.C. with some of the very large profits made by the independent television companies so that, for example, disabled people may be given free licences?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not particularly attracted by that suggestion.

    Television Advertising
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General how much money he intends to spend on television advertising this year.
    Mr. Stonehouse: About £260,000. Over £100,000 of this will be spent on behalf of the Treasury as part of the "Small Saver" campaign. Of the balance, £60,000 will be spent on lauching the new Giro service.
    Mr. Gilmour: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the television advertisements will not have the same trivial naivety as the Press advertisements currently running in the Financial Times and other newspapers?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's criticism. I believe that both the television and Press advertising being promoted by my Department is extremely good.
    Mr. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that advertisements such as the one I am holding up for hon. Members to see and which appeared in the Financial Times at a cost of over £900 will result in a commercial return?
    Mr. Storehouse: There is a later Question down about this form of advertising.

    Pay Television
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on pay television.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not yet ready to make an announcement, but I hope to do so very shortly.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor had already made up his mind and we thought that we were to receive it at any moment.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I saw this on my desk as soon as I arrived in office and I have been giving it very careful consideration. There are several factors which I have to consider and I am hoping to reach my conclusions shortly.

    Wharfedale
    Sir M. Stoddart-Scottasked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to provide B.B.C. 2 programmes and colour television to those parts of Wharfedale between Harewood and Ilkley; and if he will now arrange for a reduction in the television licence fees to all receivers who are unable to obtain B.B.C. 2 programmes.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The B.B.C. tells me that it hopes to open the Bilsdale U.H.F. station, radiating B.B.C. 2 with its colour content, and which will serve the Harewood area, during the winter of 1968–69. Towards the end of 1969, a satellite station will be opened to relay the service to Wharfedale as far as Ilkley.
    The Answer to the second part of the Question is: "No, Sir ".
    Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: Is it not absolutely disgusting that the Postmaster-General should condone the charging of a fee for services which the B.B.C. does not provide?
    Mr. Slater: I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I dealt with that and with television reception and even the charges in an Adjournment debate on 22nd March.

    Programmes (Sub Judice Items)
    Mr. John Leeasked the Postmaster-General if he will seek to amend the Television Act so as to prohibit references in all programmes other than news programmes to sub judice matters, in the light of the observations of the learned judge in the Court of Appeal in relation to the Savundra case.
    Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir. The law of contempt already applies to broadcasting. Amendments of the kind in question are unnecessary.
    Mr. Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been a number of serious offences of this kind? Has he drawn the attention of both the Chairman of the B.B.C. and the Chairman of the Independent Television Authority to the seriousness of these breaches? It may well be that some future offenders will not be so lucky with their judges as have been those in more recent cases.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I agree. There have been serious examples of trial by T.V. and I am sure that the Chairman of the B.B.C. and the Chairman of the I.T.A. share my view and are to do something about it.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the learned judge paid tribute to the work which the broadcasting authorities and the newspapers had done in exposing fraud and other crime? Is he aware that he is quite right to say that the law of contempt is adequate to deal with this sort of thing and that we should have the minimum interference with the freedom of expression?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am satisfied that we can leave this serious subject to the Chairmen of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.

  TELEPHONE SERVICES

    Hull Telephone Exchange
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General when he intends to pay a visit to the telephone exchange in Hull.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have no plans at present to visit Hull.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Does not the Postmaster-General think that that would be very worthwhile, because he could then discover why we have to pay ever-increasing charges for our telephone services whereas in Hull the charge is 3d. per call and the charge for the private subscriber is £25 a year, with as many free calls as he likes?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am always willing to learn from anybody else. If Hull has anything to teach the G.P.O., we are only too pleased to learn it. But I believe that they have more to learn from us than we have to learn from them. The charges are comparable.
    Mr. James Johnson: We welcome the Postmaster-General's magnificent offer of exchange, but will my right hon. Friend take it from me and from my colleagues representing the other Hull constituencies that we do not welcome the help of any other Member of the House, least of all a Member from East Anglia? Nevertheless, we accept what is said about the excellence of our telephone exchange and our facilities and of the service for the people of Hull.
    Mr. Stonehouse: In view of that delightful comment from my hon. Friend, I will seek an opportunity to visit Hull.
    Mr. Bryan: The Postmaster-General has not given a very good explanation why the service is cheaper. Perhaps he would have another look at that and at the same time tell us why it is better.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not satisfied that the service is better when we consider the responsibilities of the G.P.O. for the country as a whole compared with the position in Hull, where they are dealing with a fairly restricted area and where they do not have the costs and complications experienced by the G.P.O. in providing a service for the United Kingdom as a whole.

    Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Local Calls)
    Mr. Harold Boardmanasked the Postmaster-General what is the average cost of local calls under the subscriber trunk dialling system; and what is the
    966
    percentage increase over fixed charge local calls.
    Mr. Stonehouse: S.T.D. calls are charged in twopenny units, according to their duration. Customers with S.T.D. pay, on average, 2·3d. for a local call; this is about 20 per cent. cheaper than the average payment by customers without S.T.D.
    Mr. Boardman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many calls to business houses are costing three or four times the cost of the former fixed charge calls and that that is in no way due to the fault of the caller? Will he look at that problem and, while doing so, bear in mind that at this time when the Government are pleading for price stability here is a chance for the Government to show an example?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. My hon. Friend raises a point which concerns the ability of a firm called on S.T.D. to put the call quickly through to the individual concerned. I very much hope that firms will co-operate in improving their techniques in this respect.

    Saffron Walden
    Mr. Kirkasked the Postmaster-General why a mobile telephone exchange cannot be delivered until the end of the year at Saffron Walden, in view of the estimates originally given and the large number of applicants awaiting telephone installation.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: I am pleased to say that a mobile exchange has now been made available for Saffron Walden and most people who are waiting will be given service by the late summer.
    Mr. Kirk: I am most grateful to the Minister. May I assure him that it is about time, too.

    Push-Button Telephones
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General when push-button telephone facilities will become available to the general public; and what research his Department is carrying out into the development of telephone-computer pushbutton linkages which will enable private telephone subscribers and business firms to pay bills with ready-punched cards over the telephone.
    Mr. Storehouse: We are re-examining our plans for providing push-button telephones. Until the review is complete I am unable to estimate when they will be generally available. Research is being conducted into all forms of data transmission by telephone, but it is too early to say whether this development will be economically justified.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend accept that in striking a balance between short-term needs and long-term research there is always a danger that long-term research may be neglected? Does he not feel that unless more money is spent in the long-term, by the mid-1970s our telephone apparatus generally will compare unfavourably with some operating in other countries?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am satisfied that the long-term research being done both by the Post Office and by industry in this country is extremely good and that it has created a situation in which we are well in advance of many other parts of the world.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the Postmaster-General aware that all this talk about technological advance cuts very little ice with the residents of rural Leamington Spa, some of whom have been waiting for over six months for telephones? As a new broom in his Department, would he please do something about it?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I very much hope that things can be improved.

    Connection Charges
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Postmaster-General (1) what are the current telephone installation charges; what these charges were on 1st January, 1965; and by what stages the increase was made;
    (2) what instructions were given, and on what date, by the National Board for Prices and Incomes with regard to telephone installation charges.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The National Board for Prices and Incomes which reported on 11th March recommended that the normal maximum connection charge for an exchange line should be increased to £20 with corresponding increases in other parts of the scale, to take effect
    968
    from October 1968. My predecessor accepted the recommendation as regards the charge, but brought it into effect on 16th April, 1968. The current charges are double those of 1st January, 1965.
    Mr. Macmillan: But does not the Postmaster-General realise that because of the long delay, because of the time it takes to get a telephone installed, most of the charges have risen very steeply between the time of the application and the time of installation through no fault of the customers? Can he do anything to relieve their position?
    Mr. Stonehouse: It must be borne in mind that the cost of connection on average is £150 so that the maximum charge of £20 is still very reasonable. I hope that the delay in making these connections will be reduced.
    Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the charges bear heavily on the old and the disabled? Will he give some consideration to this matter, particularly when a telephone must be transferred? Will he arrange for some easement of the charges for those two groups of people?
    Mr. Stonehouse: When there is a transfer of a telephone connection to a subscriber, there is usually no special charge. I believe that it would be unwise for us to start giving benefits in kind. We would probably find ourselves bogged down if we started doing that.

    London Telephone Directories
    Mr. Moyleasked the Postmaster-General what consultations he is proposing to have with outside bodies before reaching his decision on the form of the London Telephone Directories.
    Mr. Stonehouse: As there had been so much public interest in this subject I decided to meet the G.L.C. and Borough Councils and a wide range of organisations and a representative group of telephone subscribers to hear their views at first hand. The meeting starts at 4 p.m. today.
    Mr. Moyle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that many people in London will probably require all 35 directories? Will he therefore consider a proposal for assimilating them into an easily handle-able form?
    Mr. Stonehouse: That is exactly what I am considering. I have an open mind on this; subject until I have heard all the views which may be expressed to me. If anybody still wants to have all the directories or a new A-Z directory, which will be many inches high, we will provide it.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall be glad to hear it if he really has an open mind, because, although we had great explanations about it, we were still very unhappy about it, especially with what was said about the American experience which had not been gone into sufficiently?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Addresses in America are far shorter than are addresses in Britain and so ours cannot be condensed to the same extent, but I want to do what is best in the interests of the subscribers as well as the G.P.O.

    All Figure Dialling (Greater London Area)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the number of recent representations made to him, he will now reconsider the decision to introduce all figure dialling in the Greater London Area.
    Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the introduction of all-figure dialling will coincide with the proposed fragmentation of the London telephone directory and that this combination of events will lead to massive inconvenience to the general public?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not satisfied that that will be the case, but we are proposing to have maps in the telephone directories to show the location of the numbers which will give subscribers the opportunity to identify the location of the exchanges they are 'phoning.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    School Children (Public Transport)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will review the mileage which children are required to walk to schools before public transport is provided.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No, Sir. Under the existing law, local education authorities have adequate discretionary powers.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the local education authority says that the Minister refuses to provide grants for a mileage beyond two miles and that the closing of village schools, which is happening throughout the country, is becoming a major problem, and that, with the change of time which is to take place next year, it will be even worse for children in the winter?
    Miss Bacon: The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. There is no specific grant for this purpose. It comes out of the general grant to local authorities and the local education authority has the discretionary power.

    New Comprehensive School, Bristol
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider his decision to withdraw the proposal for a new comprehensive school at Daventry Road, Bristol, from the 1968–69 building programme, in view of the urgent educational needs of this part of the city of Bristol.
    Miss Bacon: The local education authority did not plan to start work on this school until March 1969 and deferment until 1969–70 need have little effect on the date of completion.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this part of Bristol is isolated from the general comprehensive development, which is a great handicap to the children living there?
    Miss Bacon: I fully understand that, but the year for school building runs from 1st April to 31st March, and as this project was not ready to start until March 1969, with our limited resources, it was better to put in a school from some other area which was ready to start and to look at this for the 1969–70 programme.

    School Building
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give an assurance that the new system of determining school building priorities detailed in his Circular

    971
    13/68 will not affect the priorities already accepted by him for the 1968–69 programme.
    Miss Bacon: Yes, provided of course that the projects in the revised 1968–69 programme start during that year.
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give an assurance that the two school building projects at Shrewsbury Underdale County Primary School and Shrewsbury St. Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School, which were in the list of projects to be proceeded with in 1968–69 and which have now been excluded by him, will be included in the 1969–70 programme.
    Miss Bacon: I cannot anticipate what Salop's programme of school building starts will be for 1969–70. I shall have to judge the Authority's proposals in the light of the resources available.
    Sir John Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Lady aware that if she is engaged in a policy of chopping and changing as between one year and another, she will destroy any continuity which she is trying to achieve?
    Miss Bacon: It was done this year because of the need to take out of the building programme the money which had already been allocated for the raising of the school-leaving age. I was able to authorise four schools from the authority's list and the Underdale school was fifth while St. Mary's was eighth.

    Kingston-upon-Thames
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why he has now withdrawn his approval for the urgent work previously authorised at St. Paul's Church of England School, Beverley Boys' School and Bonner Hill Secondary Girls' School in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames; and what account he took of the disagreement over secondary school reorganisation in making these decisions.
    Miss Bacon: These projects have not found places in the reconstructed school building programme for 1968–69. My decision had nothing to do with secondary reorganisation since the schools were originally submitted prior to the circular on secondary reorganisation and included in a programme.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Lady aware that work on these schools is most urgently needed and the local authority concerned was given an indication that they would be improved in the second part of this year? What is the reason for putting back the provision of desperately needed educational buildings of this kind?
    Miss Bacon: We had a debate on this matter this morning. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we had to take out of this year's school building programme allocations which had been already made towards raising the school leaving age. This is the reason why some projects had to be postponed.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Gaming Board (Chairman)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. KITSON: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will announce the name of the Chairman of the Gaming Board.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kitson. Question No. 59.
    Hon. Members: Where is the Minister?
    Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not disgraceful [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order. Sir Knox Cunningham.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, is it not a disgrace that the Government have not got any Minister present to answer Questions in the House? What are the Whips doing about it? Why are they not here in their place?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A further point of order. Mr. William Hamilton.
    Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. Is it not also a disgrace that so many Conservative hon. Members are absent, including the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members can read the Order Paper.
    Mr. Moonman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if the first point of order which was raised could

    973
    be repeated because we were at somewhat of a disadvantage in not having been able to hear it on this side of the House.
    Hon. Members: Where are they?
    Mr. William Hamilton: Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order. Mr. Kenneth Lewis.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. Can we suspend the sitting of the House until such time as the Minister arrives and restart Questions at a quarter to four when he is available?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I answer the hon. Member. We cannot suspend the House; it is in a state of suspense at the moment. We cannot begin Questions again at a quarter to four. I have answered the hon. Member's two points.
    Earl of Dalkeith: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is supposed to be responsible for everything, could he not answer these Questions?
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Could the Prime Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order. Mr. Hugh Jenkins.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Could not some arrangement be made whereby the occasional hiatus, which is very largely due, not to any fault of the Government— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but to the absence of hon. Members, could be avoided?
    Dame Irene Ward: I was about to ask whether the Prime Minister could arrange for the Leader of the House to come to deal with these Questions.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions to the Prime Minister.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. Will the Questions which have been omitted be answered after the Prime Minister has finished answering Questions?
    Mr. Speaker: I have arranged that previously, but I do not know what will happen this time.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Ql. Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister whether, following recent developments in France, he will issue an invitation to the President of France to
    974
    visit the United Kingdom so that a discussion may take place about the British application to join the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would yet again refer the hon. and learned Member to the Answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) on 2nd April—[Vol. 762, c. 74.]
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Since the President, having held an election, has now had the overwhelming support of the people, would it not be prudent for the Prime Minister to find out his present view of the British application? Is the Prime Minister aware that in France this is called Labour's sacred cow turned dead duck?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that when he has had a holiday the hon. Member will be able to do better than that. With regard to relations with the Government of France, of course we have adequate relations to discuss these matters with the French Government. I would not rule out at the proper time a discussion with the President when I think the time is most helpful.
    Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy to seek entry to the E.E.C. at the earliest possible date? Will my right hon. Friend say what initiative he intends to take now?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of that Question is, "Yes, Sir". My hon. Friend will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said about following up the Benelux proposals and, of course, other initiatives. At present the Common Market has been a little absorbed inevitably with internal problems and has not had much time to come to some of the initiatives to which my hon. Friend referred.

    NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (CHAIRMEN AND BOARD MEMBERS)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that no chairman or other full-time member of the board of a nationalised industry is appointed chairman of other important public institutions.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In making appointments all relevant considerations are taken into account, but a rule of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend would unnecessarily restrict the field of choice.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend think that a full-time chairman of a nationalised board has the time or should have the time to act as the chairman of another very important public institution? Is the amount of ability available in the country so thin on the ground that we have to have recourse to this kind of appointment? Would it not be better to spread the opportunity for public service rather wider than we do now?
    The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what particular case my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Hamilton: Lord Robens.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has confirmed what I thought. I think we are well aware that in very many cases busy full-time persons, be they chairmen of public corporations or private firms, or otherwise engaged, do very often provide the best chairmen on a part-time basis. I do not think we should have any rule, but obviously in making an appointment one should see whether there is adequate time for doing the job.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does the Prime Minister recognise that there would be no limitation of choice as to suitably qualified people if he conducted an overhaul of the totally deranged state of the remuneration paid to heads of nationalised boards which are now quite removed from reality in the times in which we live?
    The Prime Minister: This raises an entirely different question and does not affect in any way the Chairman of the Coal Board as being chairman of a great teaching hospital. It has nothing to do with salary at all.

    BIOLOGICAL WARFARE RESEARCH (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. John Leeasked the Prime Minister if, in view of recent scientific developments, he will transfer responsibility for the biological warfare research
    976
    unit from the Ministry of Defence to the Ministry of Health.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 18th July to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).—[Vol. 768, c. 1660–1.]
    Mr. Lee: Since the ostensible purpose of this institution is preventive against warfare conducted by other people, would it not be more appropriate for it to be transferred to the Ministry of Health which has, among its responsibilities, public health considerations of all kinds?
    The Prime Minister: I have answered a great number of questions on this. I have said that the matter is continuously under review. I do not rule out a decision to change it at the appropriate time, but no such decision has been taken yet.
    Mr. Hogg: If this ever did come about, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the claims of one of the research councils in preference to one of the executive Ministries?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that it would certainly be the case that, if there were to be a change it would be to the Medical Research Council rather than the executive Department. But I do not want to tie myself in any way at the moment. No such decision has been taken.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As the Prime Minister has said that he will keep the matter under review, can he give an assurance that before any change is made he will at least give an opportunity for a Minister to appear before the Select Committee on Science and Technology to discuss the matter, because we are discussing this research establishment among others?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will certainly consider that suggestion and discuss the matter with my right hon. Friends concerned. I would not want the House to get the idea that any change was imminent. I just said that we keep the matter under review and there could be a change one day.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (COST)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Prime Minister if he will take action to coordinate the collection and analysis of information from the appropriate Ministries of the national and particular industrial costs of disputes as well as a study of the costs arising from lost exports.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know the difficulties of attributing the costs of individual disputes, but in each case the best possible estimate is made.
    Mr. Moonman: As the estimates of the cost of industrial disputes last year range from about £10 million to £35 million, does not my right hon. Friend agree that there might be some merit in more clearly defined criteria so that both management and trade unions could see the more practical sense, importance and value of good industrial relations?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's approach, though he will be aware of the great difficulties of getting any really accurate measure. I do not think that anyone on either side, for example, in the docks strikes last year was in any sense unaware of the very grave damage that was brought about by those dock strikes, damage perhaps going far beyond what could have been calculated on a purely statistical estimation.

    SECOND SECRETARY OF STATE
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will now nominate a Cabinet Minister as Second Secretary of State.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Marten: As the first Secretary of State is having such great difficulty in raising the level of employment, should she not be reinforced by a Second Secretary of State dealing exclusively with unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I think that is highly ingenious on the part of the hon. Gentleman. If he goes on like that, he will be coming on. As my right hon. Friend's title is "Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity", I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman
    978
    would have paid tribute to the fact that in the first few months of this year productivity has been running at a rate some 6 per cent. above the same period last year.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend agree to appoint a Minister of Fact so that the true record of this Government can be made known to the people?

    TRADE BALANCES
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister in view of the continuing adverse trade balances, what further measures of co-ordination and strengthening of policies of increased exports, imports substitution, and productive investment he now proposes for the immediate future; and whether he will make a statement on these matters before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
    The Prime Minister: All of these matters are kept under review, Sir. No doubt a fuller and totally satisfactory statement would have been made by my right hon. Friends if the Opposition had not at the last minute run away from the economic debate they had projected for this week, and which I know the hon. Gentleman himself, with his unique influence, was pressing for.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the disabilities habitually placed on me by the Chair and other sources—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as a private Member of this House, and the boundless opportunities available to the Prime Minister by comparison—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is oozing away.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Very boring—would not the Prime Minister recognise that the balance of payments for six months to the end of May was in atrocious deficit and that for only one month, June, has there been any improvement, and can he not give the nation some encouragement before our eleven weeks of Recess?
    The Prime Minister: With the hon. Gentleman I am myself one of the small minority who regrets that we do not hear the hon. Gentleman more. However, I feel that the hon. Gentleman, in his rare interventions, should get his facts right.

    979
    There have in fact been no published figures for the balance of payments since the end of March. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] They are always published on a quarterly basis, rather earlier now than was the case. We have managed to speed them up compared with the figures published by right hon. Members opposite when they were in power; but it is still a little late, I agree. So the hon. Gentleman was wrong about that. He might have been referring to the balance of trade, but I am sure that he would like to stimulate his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to claim credit for the improvement in our export position.
    Sir D. Renton: Bearing in mind the hard slogging which lies ahead, would the Prime Minister allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a quiet word with him before making any more supernatural prophecies about the economy?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, too, I am afraid, has got it wrong. There were no supernatural prophecies. I was quoting an impartial overseas observer who in The Times newspaper referred the fact that the industrial restructuring had reached a point where this country was facing the prospect of an economic miracle because of what has happened in industry. Only hon. Gentlemen who take a delight in selling the country short will laugh at that. Even Northern Ireland is doing better under this Government. I certainly agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, that we have some very great difficulties to overcome and that there is a period of hard slog for some time ahead. Do not let any hon. Member under-rate what has been achieved in the restructuring of industry.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that many in the country are just beginning to realise that the Government's brave economic policies are beginning to pay off, and as the prospects for Britain improve the consequence rage of the Tories will increase?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I thought I read him saying something very similar in a Press article a few days ago, which I very much welcome because of its quality and, indeed, its rarity. What I think my
    980
    hon. Friend will particularly have noted was the great fanfare of trumpets before the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who was going to put the worst possible construction on the nation's economy but who, having done that, did not even have the guts to repeat these arguments in the House, where he would have been answered.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ian Lloyd.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Would the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called an hon. Gentleman. Mr. Ian Lloyd.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to hazard a definition in advance of the boundary line in the balance of payments which would mark the recovery from a complete disaster and the beginning of a real national recovery?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on this in his Budget speech and again in the debate on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, which I think was on 4th July.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) have something to do with the dismissal of Mr. Cecil King?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is the last colleague I would ever want to give advice to in the matter of searching for motives. All I think I would say is that there is more rejoicing in the kingdoms of the front bench over one lost sheep that returns than over 99 just men who have never caused any trouble anyway.

    POSTMASTER-GENERAL
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to abolish the office of Postmaster-General.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is concerned with the situation which will arise when the Post Office is reorganised I would ask him to await the legislation which will be brought before the House in due course.
    Mr. Evelyn King: As there have been three Postmasters-General in 23 months and one lasted only three months has not the Prime Minister some personal responsibility for this and will he consider obtaining responsible management for this great Department rather than using the post as a political prize?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will, of course, be aware of the circumstances in which it became necessary to move my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Power, but surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the very long period we had up to 1964, under a then Postmaster-General whom the Conservatives since then have tried with some success to forget, was better than what has happened under this Government, and still less would justify the dozen Defence Ministers in 13 years.

    GIBRALTAR
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper—
    Sir F. BENNETT: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the Gibraltar Constitutional Conference.
    Mr. WALL: TO ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the constitutional talks in Gibraltar.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): with permission I will answer Questions Nos. 77 and 78 together.
    I am glad to inform the House that the constitutional talks which my noble friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs has been conducting in Gibraltar ended yesterday evening in full agreement. All delegates to the Conference recorded their deep satisfaction at the outcome, both on the question of the link with Britain and with regard to the changes in the internal constitutional arrangements. A lengthy communiqué was issued regarding the details of the agreed new arrangements. I have arranged for copies of the communiqué to be placed in the Library of the House.
    Sir F. Bennett: While we are naturally delighted that this conference should have
    982
    ended as well as it did, even though it may have been a little overdue in the opinion of some, nevertheless I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, having got political security of tenure, we want to think now more in economic terms, and can he give an indication today what steps will soon be taken so that we can get rid of the present excessive dependency on Spanish labour, and when he thinks the Services will be able to release land they agree they do not want and on which negotiations will not take a long while to complete?
    Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, and since at the end of the Session compliments seem to be in order I should like to pay a tribute to the constructive role which the hon. Gentleman played as adviser to one of the parties in the constitutional talks. Nevertheless I think I ought to rest on the constitutional advance today and not go into economic changes, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Lord Beeching accepted my invitation to go out to Gibraltar to study the carrying out of manpower economies and I am sure we all wish him well in that work.
    Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government propose to introduce the Order in Council bringing into effect the main recommendations of the conference, and could he say whether administrative arrangements are being made to allow Gibraltarians free entry into this country?
    Mr. Thomson: On the question of entry into this country I made certain announcements when I was in Gibraltar recently and these are working well and I think they have proved very satisfactory. On the timetable for these constitutional arrangements one of the agreements was to have an electoral inquiry. This, I think, will need to take place first, before the Order in Council can be tabled, because it will need to take account of that. What we have in mind are elections under the new constitution in the spring of next year.
    Mr. Braine: May I join in the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman has paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett)? Bearing in mind that the people of Gibraltar have now been under intolerable pressures for some

    983
    time past would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is now necessary to implement the agreement with the minimum of delay? Can he say, therefore, first of all when the manpower mission is due to report? Can he also be a little more precise about the Order in Council? Is there any reason why this cannot be laid fairly soon so that we can come to agreement on it at the beginning of next Session?
    Mr. Thomson: Lord Beeching is going to Gibraltar very shortly and will tackle this job with a maximum sense of urgency. On the Order in Council, there was general agreement at the conference that there was need for an electoral survey. The Order in Council, in this context, may well have to take account of some of the findings of the survey. That is the reason for the timetable which I announced.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House of Standing Order No. 8(3):
    "No questions shall be taken after half-past three of the clock, except questions which have not been answered in consequence of the absence of the Minister to whom they are addressed".
    There is nothing new under the sun. Mr. Kitson. Question No. 59.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Gaming Board (Chairman)
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the name of the Chairman of the Gaming Board.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I want to express an apology to the hon. Gentleman and to the House for the absence of Home Office Ministers at the time when this Question was reached. The following is the answer to the Question.
    My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Kitson: Would the hon. Member suggest to his right hon. Friend that before he makes up his mind he should not overlook the claims of the right hon.
    984
    Gentleman the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood)?
    Mr. Ennals: I will bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman's considerations, but I can assure him, he has the matter very well in mind.
    Mr. Hogg: Passing over that supplementary, could the hon. Gentleman pass on to his right hon. Friend that this matter is becoming increasingly urgent? He will have seen the reports of cases in the courts today and yesterday. The situation is rapidly becoming intolerable.
    Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of making an announcement. As I said in my original reply, he hopes it will be soon.
    Mr. Murray: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a great deal of discussion on the Chairmanship of this Board in Committee on the Bill? Could he give further information to the House as to what sort of person my right hon. Friend is looking for for this job? Is he thinking of a judge or someone from the gaming world?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.
    Mr. Murray: Is my hon. Friend aware of the possibility of appointing a Member of Parliament who would then be disqualified from sitting in the House? Is he aware that there are half a dozen names I could give him?

    Dangerous Drugs Act (Yachts)
    Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to amend the Dangerous Drugs Act to permit the owners of registered sea-going yachts to carry a maximum of two Omnipon ampules for first aid purposes on application to a physician, without payment of a licensing duty.
    Mr. Ennals: No. Sir, but I am prepared to consider on their merits applications from owners of registered seagoing yachts for licences to carry supplies of Omnipon for first aid purposes.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does not the Minister think that the present rate of charge for these licences is so great as to discourage owners of such vessels from taking reasonable first aid precautions? Does he not consider this intolerable?
    Mr. Ennals: It is necessary for there to be licences. It is customary for fees to be charged to cover the administrative costs of considering applications for licences. The hon. Member's suggestion has, of course, been noted, and will be considered in future.

Wrongly Charged Persons (Compensation)
Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his review of the policy in regard to compensation to persons wrongly charged with offences of which another person is subsequently convicted; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Ennals: Under present practice ex gratia payments from public funds are not normally made to persons acquitted by the courts unless there has been some negligence or misconduct on the part of the police or some other public authority or official. While I am very conscious of the hardship caused to innocent persons wrongly charged, I think it would be wrong to attempt to discriminate otherwise between acquitted defendants. I regret therefore that, after careful consideration, I do not feel able to modify existing practice.
Mr. Lyons: Does this not mean that people who, through no fault of their own, have been convicted, and who have spent a substantial time in prison, have no remedy whatever? Is this not a denial of natural justice? Cannot the matter be reconsidered?
Mr. Ennals: I will bring my hon. Friend's observation to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Thorpe: If monetary compensation is not to be given, is it not none the less outrageous that a totally innocent man should be accorded, at the best, a free pardon, which term implies he had some guilt attaching? Could not this at least be looked into?
Mr. Ennals: As I said in my original reply, my right hon. Friend is conscious of the hardship to innocent persons who are wrongly charged. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's observation to my right hon. Friend's attention.

MUNICIPAL BUSMEN (DISPUTE)
Mr. Lomas Mr. Lomas (by Private Notice) asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the breakdown of talks in the present dispute concerning municipal busmen.
The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): As the House will know, the Minister of Transport and I have been in close touch with both sides in this dispute and have made strenuous efforts to help them reach a solution in accordance with the Government's productivity prices and incomes policy.
Yesterday, the two sides put further proposals to the Minister of Transport and myself, one feature of which was that the 10s. bonus payable for acceptance of one-man operation should be back-dated to 14th December last year. Since the resolution accepting the principle of one-man operation was not passed by the National Joint Industrial Council for the industry until 13th June this year the proposal to back-date it would clearly be inconsistent with the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board.
Both sides were accordingly informed that the Government could not approve the implementation of an agreement including this provision. However, we made clear that the Government were prepared to accept the other features of the proposals and to approve a settlement which would give the municipal busmen covered by the agreement an immediate increase of £1 in return for agreement to accept one-man operation and to draw up productivity guidelines at national level as recommended by the Prices and Incomes Board. Ten shillings of the £ would be on the basic rate payable from last December and the second 10s. would be in the form of a bonus payable from 13th June this year, to be consolidated by the end of the year. In addition, the settlement would provide for increases in the premia paid to drivers of one-man buses to the levels recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
The Government believe that an agreement on these lines would be fair to the busmen and their employers, while protecting the interests of the travelling

987
public by paving the way to more efficient use of manpower in the industry. I deeply regret that the unions have not yet seen their way to accept it.
Mr. Lomas: May I assure my right hon. Friend that her statement will be received in many quarters of the House with a great deal of satisfaction? I hope that as much publicity as possible will be given to it.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend two questions. Do I understand from the statement that the £1 a week increase can be paid at once to all municipal busmen covered by the agreement as soon as a settlement is reached? Secondly, will she give a very firm assurance that if an agreement is reached on the lines which have been mentioned the standstill will lapse?
Mrs. Castle: It is true, as I explained in my statement, that it is possible for the municipal busmen covered by the agreement to have the £1 a week increase immediately on the lines I have outlined. And it is certainly true that if we were still able to reach agreement on these lines the standstill would lapse.
Mr. Holland: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, certainly in Nottingham, the constant delays in payment of the award are causing a serious staff shortage necessitating very considerable overtime, which is not good for the busmen? Has this factor been taken into account in all the efforts made to reach a solution?
Mrs. Castle: The agreement of last December reached between the two sides was condemned by the Prices and Incomes Board in Report No. 63 because it had no productivity offset and did not conform to the criteria. But the Report pointed out that increases in pay could be linked to productivity. These are the lines which we have been pursuing in our recent discussions. A settlement is open to the busmen, and I still hope that the unions will see their way to accepting it.
Mr. Park: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is the third time in two years that a standstill order has been applied against the municipal busmen? Is she aware that the agreement last December with the employers was for an increase of £1 on the basic rate and was a quite separate question from
988
single manning and other productivity criteria? Does she not think that it is time that the Government ceased to make the major victims of their policy people whose basic rates are less than £13 a week and who, only by working long hours and overtime, are able to secure decent take-home pay?
Mrs. Castle: The settlement which was reached last December contained no association with productivity whatsoever. We must have regard to the interests of the travelling public. There must be a limit to the spiral between wage increases and fares increases and ways were open to break the spiral by linking this increase with productivity. It is just because the Government did not and do not wish to victimise them that my right hon. Friend and I have spent so much time in working out a basis of settlement which will be fair to the busmen, will give them their £1 and yet safeguard the travelling public. We found that basis, and I still plead with the unions to accept it in the interests of their own members and the public.
Mr. R. Carr: Would the right hon. Lady distinguish between the settlements allowed to go through for the London and, particularly, for the Liverpool busmen and her refusal to allow these settlements to go through? Is she aware of the need to maintain the belief in fairness in these matters and the general impression that her attitude and that of her right hon. Friend is more flexible in some cases, notably concerning railwaymen and Ford workers, than in this case?
Mrs. Castle: I totally reject the right hon. Gentleman's last statement. It is just because we have had to bear in mind the inter-relationship between one settlement and another that we have had to engage in these protracted discussions. The £1 increase paid to the London busmen, for example, was aquid pro quo for productivity, and it is very much with the London increase in mind that we have been discussing the possibility of getting links with productivity. In the London agreement, for instance, there is a 10s. bonus for one-man operation which was not in the 14th December settlement that the busmen reached. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the increase for the Liverpool busmen was

989
authorised by my Department only in the light of the Prices and Incomes Board's Report.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend talked of fares chasing wages and vice versa. Has her attention been drawn to the fact that in North Wales municipal busmen have been refused an increase but that the fares have been allowed to go up, so to help her in her policy they will refuse to collect the extra fares? Does my right hon. Friend support this?
Mrs. Castle: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that fares increases are subject to the scrutiny of the statutory authorises, the traffic commissioners, who must take all factors into account and who are very thorough in examining the basis for the demand for fare increases before they allow any of them. But there is no doubt that unless we can move towards a better productivity base for the increase in busmen's pay we shall have an ever-accelerating fares spiral.
Mr. Bessell: Is the Secretary of State aware that within the restrictions imposed upon her by the Government's prices and incomes policy she has made a phenomenal effort to reach a settlement? In view of the hardship which might be caused to the travelling public, does she agree that the unions will forfeit a great deal of sympathy if they do not accept her offer?
Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his understanding remarks. It is very nice to have a bit of appreciation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I have worker extremely hard over a number of weeks to try to find an acceptable basis. The executive council of the Transport and General Workers' Union is meeting this afternoon. We can only hope and pray that out of its meeting will come an understanding of what there is in this for busmen and for the public.
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House feel that she and her colleagues have become hypnotised with the term "productivity"? Is she further aware that it is not possible to relate all workers' wages to increased productivity at all times? As a result of the Liverpool bus strike, we now have a diminished bus service in Liverpool which
990
is basically the responsibility of the Government for holding up the settlement for so long.
Mrs. Castle: I make no apology to the House for attaching very great importance to the development of productivity settlements. Of course, they are not appropriate in the same form in every industry, but it is perfectly clear that there is a basis for agreement—one-man operation. The union accepts that there is this basis. We have been trying to integrate this into the settlement in terms which, I repeat, will be fair to the public as well as to the busmen.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Has my right hon. Friend been made aware during her discussions with trade union leaders that, if the Government are excessively obstinate on this matter, the introduction of single-manning on buses may be delayed and also made considerably more expensive when it comes?
Mrs. Castle: that kind of argument can always be used in any discussion of a wage settlement. We have to look at the overall picture of the long-term developments in the country. I think that there is no doubt that, as a result of the reports of the Incomes and Prices Board, not only the transport unions but unions generally are now aware that in putting forward wage claims they must look for a productivity return so that the Government can approve those increases within the policy. I repeat, I make no apology to the House, or to the country, for the emphasis which we are putting on this.

BARCLAYS, LLOYDS AND MARTINS BANKS (MERGER)
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the proposed mergers between Barclays, Lloyds and Martins Banks.
I announced on 9th July that I received the Report of the Monopolies Commission on these proposals, and that the Commission had found against them by a majority of six to four.
The Government have now received representations from the banks, and, in the light of these and other comments and representations, have studied carefully both the conclusions of the majority and the note of dissent by the minority.

991
The Government accept the conclusion of the majority. The consider that the proposed mergers between Barclays and Lloyds, or between Barclays and Lloyds and Martins together, would be contrary to the public interest, and therefore, should not proceed. The Government see no objection, however, to Martins joining with another bank.
The Government believe it essential to maintain a sufficient number of sources of finance for small and medium-sized businesses, including, in particular, the fast-growing innovating companies, and they consider that the structure of banking which would result if the mergers went through would lead to a less satisfactory competitive situation.
These disadvantages outweigh, in the Government's view, the cost savings to be expected from the merger, especially in the light of the majority's doubts about the likely size and speed of these savings in a less competitive situation.
Moreover, there is a danger that the mergers might lead to pressure for still further concentration and hence eventually to a two-bank system. The Government believe that this pressure would be stronger than the Commission suggests, and they share the view, expressed both by the majority and minority, that a two-bank system would be clearly undesirable.
The Government have noted the criticism, expressed by both majority and minority, of the agreements between the banks on deposit and lending rates. In the light of this criticism, we shall again review the arguments which have hitherto led to the conclusion that these agreements are not, on balance, against the public interest.
The Government have communicated their views on the proposed mergers to the banks concerned, and I am glad to announce that they have informed the Governor of the Bank of England that in these circumstances they do not intend to proceed with the mergers.
Sir K. Joseph: What have the Government decided on the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission that there should be publication of accounts?
Mr. Crosland: The position on disclosure, as the right hon. Gentleman
992
will know, is that the Companies Act, 1967 gave the Board of Trade power to withdraw the exemption from disclosure that had traditionally been granted to the banks and the discount houses. After considering the position, the Government decided not to move direct to full disclosure, but, as I announced to the House on 20th December last year, to require the banks and the discount companies to submit to the Bank of England for transmission to the Board of Trade their full accounts, including their allocations to hidden reserves. We said that we would review these over a period before deciding whether full disclosure would or would not be desirable.
Mr. Macdonald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be received with incredulous astonishment and dismay? Does he regard with equanimity the way in which the banks follow one another in opening branches simply because another bank has opened a branch in a particular area, giving the appearance of spurious competition? Does he pay no regard to the potential savings which could have been effected by this merger?
Mr. Crosland: That was an unexpectedly robust contribution from my hon. Friend. I do not detect from the Press comment generally that this announcement will be greeted with either incredulity or dismay.
As to competition, the Report made it clear, as did the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, that there was an element of wasteful competition in the opening of new branches, but the Commission and the Government regard that element of waste as infinitely less important to the country than the principle of maintaining a sufficient number of independent and competing sources of credit.
Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this detail will not in any way inhibit the introduction of integrated data processing systems by the banks? Will he also say what further steps he thinks it is necessary to take to stimulate competition by the banks, which do not appear to be indulging in it very successfully at the moment?
Mr. Crosland: The question of stimulating more competition is covered by

993
what I said about the Government being prepared to review the considerations that have led successive Governments to approve what has been called the interest rate cartel. As I said in my answer to the previous question on disclosure, if the arguments appear to point to speeding up the timetable that I announced on 20th December, I would be very ready to consider them.
Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out that there is very little competition between these banks and other banks, and that a change in the arrangements might have led to an increase in competition? Will he press further the question of disclosure? The privileged position of the banks about disclosure is something which we cannot accept for much longer. Will he also say what outline he has given to the banks as to the kind of mergers he would be prepared to accept?
Mr. Crosland: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, the only thing that has been made clear is that the Government, as I have announced, have no objection to Martins joining with another bank.
Mr. Sheldon: What about the others?
Mr. Crosland: They have made no indication. I am making a statement on a particular Monopolies Commission Report on a particular proposed merger, and I am not called upon to give my opinion on any hypothetical actions that might take place.
In reply to the question on disclosure, my hon. Friend will know the details of my announcement of 20th December last. I repeat what I have said in answer to another hon. Member that, if it became clear that it was desirable to remove the exemption from any particular class of banks before the review of all the bank accounts had been completed, I would certainly be willing to consider it.
Mr. Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be disappointment that he has not taken the opportunity to deal with the more serious criticism in the Monopolies Commission's Report and in the Report on bank charges on the question of genuine competition in the matter of charges, interest rates and deposits and
994
on other matters, in which the banks are evading the real issue of competition?
Mr. Crosland: I do not want to repeat myself. I have already replied to questions on the two main items involved, the question of interest rates, on the one hand, and full disclosure of profits, on the other.
Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has rejected this merger on the ground that it represents an over-concentration of financial power, am I to understand that the idea of nationalising the banks now disappears from our programme?
Mr. Crosland: As far as I know, it is about 30 years since nationalisation of the banks actually appeared in our programme.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very much less than 30 years ago, it being almost 14 years ago, when we reaffirmed our policy in favour of bank nationalisation? Does he agree that the degree of concentration of banking has reached a point when it cannot go much further without public ownership coming into consideration?
Mr. Crosland: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I am prepared to stand by the Labour election manifesto of 1966.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Richard Marsh. Statement.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, HIXON (REPORT OF INQUIRY)
4.0 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I will now make a statement.
I have today laid before Parliament the Report made to me by Mr. E. Brian Gibbens, Q.C., following his inquiry into the tragic accident at Hixon, Staffordshire, on 6th January, 1968, in which an express passenger train collided at speed with a heavy transporter carrying a transformer over a level crossing fitted with automatic half-barriers. Copies of the Report are available in the Vote Office.

995
In setting up the inquiry, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, when she was Minister of Transport, asked Mr. Gibbens not only to investigate the causes and circumstances of the accident, but also to inquire into the general safety of automatic half-barriers and to make recommendations.
Mr. Gibbens finds that the immediate cause of the accident was the failure of the driver of the transporter to comply with the railway notice requiring him to telephone the signalman before crossing, but that a measure of responsibility also falls upon other parties, including the driver's employers, the police, the British Railways Board, and the Ministry of Transport.
I fully accept the Ministry's share of this responsibility: as was freely acknowledged during the public hearings of the inquiry, the Ministry had not sufficiently appreciated the hazard involved in the use of automatic crossings by an abnormal slow-moving vehicle, and insufficient steps had been taken to consider the special provisions necessary.
Officials of the Ministry, in collaboration with British Railways, gave, in the words of the Report,
"the most conscientious and careful thought to all questions of safety at these new level crossings, and it is, therefore, tragic that the proper way of dealing with and eliminating the comparatively infrequent hazard of the slow-moving abnormal vehicle escaped them."
On the general question of the safety of automatic half-barriers at level crossings, Mr. Gibbens finds that they are
"a valuable answer to the needs of modern transport",
and are reasonably safe, but their safety can be much improved by certain modifications. He does not recommend a system of full or partial protection linked to the railway signalling. A full protection system would not only be extremely costly, but would also involve the loss of almost all the benefits for road traffic flow achieved by automatic crossings.
I accept all Mr. Gibbens' main recommendations. There are a few points of detail which will require further study, in consultation as necessary with the Railways Board, local authority associations and other interested bodies. In particular, Mr. Gibbens suggests a number of ways in which severer penalties can be pro-
996
vided for motorists who endanger both themselves and others by disobeying the traffic signs at automatic level crossings. I accept entirely that stringent penalties are necessary, but the particular suggestions made by Mr. Gibbens for further legislation clearly need more detailed consideration than has so far been possible.
I must also make it clear that many of the additional safeguards proposed involved a great deal of complicated technical work, most of which will fall on the Railways Board. Consultations between my officials and the Board have already started, and the improvements will be emplemented as a matter of urgency, particularly in the case of the modification of the second train time-cycle.
I am sure that the House would wish me to express to Mr. Gibbens and his two assessors our keen appreciation of the work that has gone into this very thorough and penetrating Report.
Mr. Peter Walker: Will the Minister tell us what steps will be taken with regard to existing crossings prior to the proposed modifications? Can he guarantee that no further crossings will be installed without the new modifications? Finally, is he aware that the public will not be satisfied with a system which is described as "reasonably safe"? They want it to be very safe, and presumably it will be after the modifications.
Mr. Marsh: Yes. The hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate that in any crossing system there is an element of danger. It is certainly intended that we shall proceed with the production of half-barrier crossings, but the Report urges a rapid programme of conversion to secure greater public familiarity, which is one of the big problems with these crossings.
As for the modifications, on the major points, leaving aside some marginal differences, it is intended to proceed with these as early as possible.
Mr. Loveys: While appreciating that all the facts seem to confirm the safety of this type of crossing, particularly now that modifications are to take place for their operation, the trouble is that they look so dangerous to the public. Does the Minister not consider that there is still a need to take further steps to remove the natural public anxiety which

997
arises every time such a crossing is proposed in any area, particularly in the case of parents of young children who happen to live in the vicinity?
Mr. Marsh: The question of familiarity with this type of crossing is very important One of the biggest fears running through all this is the danger of zig-zagging by motorists, who not only endanger themselves but may give rise to serious threats to others. It is the intention to ensure that people are made fully aware of the dangers. Precisely because this is such a very comprehensive and detailed Report, it will go a long way towards removing some people's fears.
Mr. Gardner: Whatever may be the general conclusions of the Report about the operation of these crossings in rural areas, does my right hon. Friend agree that in urban areas the only real answer to the problem is the complete separation of road and rail? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when we shall have an opportunity to debate the Report?
Mr. Marsh: The question of any debate on the Report is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. There are no recommendations in the Report about refraining from installing such crossings in built-up areas. On the contrary, it suggests that this familiarity would add to the safety factor. Each site is considered in great detail by the Railways Board and the Ministry. There are important considerations, in terms of other traffic dangers, which would flow from anything which impeded traffic progress in these built-up areas.
Mr. Bessell: Is the Minister aware, though I regret having to say it, that his statement will not allay public anxiety? Will he undertake that, until the modifications to the half-gate automatic crossings have been made, these crossings will be manned whenever there are trains using the line? This appears to me to be the only way in which safety can be ensured and public disquiet silenced.
Mr. Marsh: Attendants will remain on these crossings, where they are at present, until the modifications of the second train time-cycle have been effected. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on that.
Mr. Moyle: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? First, can he say whether Mr. Gibbens made any comparison between the safety factors involved in manned crossings and those in automatic ones? Second, would he not agree that the resources of his Department have been so used up by this inquiry as severely to delay other inquiries also involving responsibility for life and limb, such as the Hither Green disaster? Could he look at the possibility of increasing the resources of his Department with a view to producing speedier results on them?
Mr. Marsh: It is always difficult to choose between the delay which is inevitable in a comprehensive inquiry and the natural desire of people to get an answer quickly. This inquiry took six months, and 63 witnesses were heard. The Report is 120 pages long, with 25 appendices. Though I understand that people want to know the results urgently, the important feature in a matter of this sort is to get the most thorough inquiry possible.
On my hon. Friend's first question about conventional manned crossings, this is proof of the point that I made earlier, when I said that any form of crossing has in it an element of danger. Paragraphs 245 and 246 of the Report point out that an average of about eight people a year have been killed in about 130 accidents on manned crossings; so it is important to keep this new development in perspective.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Will the Minister agree that the public has accepted as perfectly safe road crossings in towns protected only by traffic lights? Is there any reason why people should not accept this new form of railway crossing, once they become familiar with the rules?
Mr. Marsh: I do not think that there is any reason why not. But it is a relatively new development in this country. There has been a very serious and tragic accident. It is understandable that people should be worried about it. However, as people get more used to using them, and in the knowledge that the Report has gone exhaustively into methods of making them safe, it is my hope that they will come to regard them as being as acceptable in Britain as they are on the Continent.
Mr. Lane: Following up the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys), may we have an assurance that the consultations between the Ministry and the Railways Board will pay particular attention to the dangers in built-up areas, because it is not the behaviour of vehicles but the behaviour of children which is causing so much anxiety?
Mr. Marsh: In my recollection, the behaviour of children has, fortunately, not been a problem. The problem dealt with here was that of an abnormal load on a very heavy lorry. That was the problem with which the inquiry was concerned. Every site where these crossings are installed will, rightly in my view, be considered in detail by the Board and my Ministry and this will, of course, involve consultations with the local authorities.

ASSOCIATED STATES (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY)
Mr. Frank Tomney: Mr. Speaker, I have to report to you that the delegation given leave of absence by this House on 25th June to visit the Associated States of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia and Grenada for the purpose of presenting a Parliamentary Library to their Assemblies has conducted and discharged its duty.
The delegation comprised the hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), a Deputy Principal Clerk of the House, Mr. David Pring, and myself. On their behalf and my own, I want to thank the House for giving us the opportunity to visit what is a very delightful part of the world.
We were well received with great hospitality in every island. The difficulty of visiting islands of this nature when one is not as young as one would wish is that one is too short of wind to do all the things one would like to do.
Dame Irene Ward: Do tell us.
Mr. Tomney: Nevertheless, I had with me two very delightful companions from the House. Indeed, Mr. Pring, once we got him away from the rigidity of
1000
his department, proved to have a very remarkable turn of philosophy.
There were two innovations which I should report for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, and which you might want to put into practice in this House. At St. Lucia, there was an innovation for the Commonwealth in that the House had a lady Clerk—a very attractive lady with dark, velvety eyes, whose manner in approving or reproving Mr. Speaker was just to turn in her chair and look at him. I am not sure whether he was bewitched, bewildered, or just bothered. Certainly, he did not come up with answers to her.
The other innovation was in Grenada, which has a lady Governor of the island. She, too, proved to be a very remarkable and charming person. She provided every facility for us where possible, even to the provision of a steel band.
On behalf of the delegation, therefore, I can assure you that if there are any further trips to this area the three of us will be very happy to volunteer.
Mr. Speaker: The House will wish me to thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) and the other hon. Members of the delegation for a mission well and truly performed. I would add that I have received, since the return of the delegation, warm personal messages from each of the Speakers and that they have asked me to convey their greetings to this honourable House.

PRAYER BOOK (FURTHER PROVISIONS) MEASURE
Mr. Speaker: I want to make a Ruling which may help any hon. Member who is interested in item No. 17 on today's Order Paper.
The House will remember that on Thursday, 18th July, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) submitted that the Ecclesiastical Committee's Report upon the Prayer Book (Further Provisions) Measure, 1968, which was presented to this House on Wednesday, 17th July, was never laid in draft before the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly and that, in consequence, an important step in the legislative process by which such Measures are submitted

1001
for the. Royal Assent, after being approved by both Houses, had been omitted.
Last Thursday, I declined to reply in advance on the matter, but the Motion is now before the House among the effective Orders for today, and I must, therefore, give the Ruling which I promised last Thursday.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West has submitted, in support of his contention, a letter, signed by the Secretary of the Church Assembly, which states,inter alia:
"No meeting of the Legislative Committee did in fact take place between the meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the presentation of the Measure and the Report to both Houses …"
In these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman's submission that a preliminary step in the legislative process has been omitted cannot be ignored by the Chair. In consequence, it would not seem right to propose the Motion to the House until such time as the Report which accompanies it has met the formal requirements of the Statute. I therefore propose not to put item No. 17 to the House.
Mr. Bishop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member who was to have moved the Motion if it came before the House tonight, may I ask whether you are aware that, on 27th June, the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly passed a Resolution which included inter alia the fact that, in the event of the draft report of the Ecclesiastical Committee being favourable, the Secretary was authorised to signify the desire of the Legislative Committee that the Measure be presented to Parliament? Are you also aware that I understand that this has been the procedure for perhaps 20 or 40 years? Have you had regard to this fact and to whether you are not creating a precedent?
Mr. Speaker: The simple answer is that Mr. Speaker is guided by the Statute. The provisions of the Statute are formal. Whatever arrangements the hon. Gentleman refers to have been suggested, if a matter involving a breach of the Statute is brought to Mr. Speaker's notice, he has no alternative but to act as he has. The hon. Gentleman must seek further advice as to what he can do about his Motion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89 (Consolidated Fund Bills),and agreed to.

  DEFENCE
  4.20 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1968, contained in Command Paper No. 3701.
  When the Government took office—
  Mr. Eric Heffer: On a point of order. I am sorry to intervene, but it is a very important point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper—
  'leave out from 'House' to end and add 'warmly welcomes the Government decision to end the major United Kingdom military commitments east of Suez by 1971 and the consequential reductions in service manpower and facilities; deplores the increase in the numbers and cost of British forces assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which must prejudice a decision on Great Britain's future participation in the alliance after 1969; regrets the failure to make significant cuts in military research and development; and calls upon the Government to announce its willingness to initiate the phasing out of the British Army of the Rhine as a contribution to mutual force reductions and a European political settlement, and to reduce defence expenditure overall to not more than the average being spent by comparable West European countries by 1971, by ending expenditure on the nuclear deterrent and by making drastic cuts in defence research'."
  —and I would like to know whether the Chair has agreed to call it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Mr. Speaker has authorised me to say that he has not selected the Amendment.
  Mr. Healey: When the Government took office, four years ago, they set themselves a basic aim—to bring our defence expenditure down to a level consistent with our economic capabilities. They planned to achieve this aim, partly by

  1003
  getting better value for money and partly by reducing our commitments so as to permit whatever reduction in arms and men was required in addition to achieve the necessary savings.
  As Secretary of State for Defence, I had a further aim—to reduce the dangerous degree of "overstretch" which had been created in the forces by the previous Government's readiness to accept commitments in excess of our military capability. At that time manning levels in most of the Service units required for these widely scattered tasks were far short of their establishment.
  The White Paper we are debating today shows that within the next five years we shall have achieved all these objectives. We shall, in consequence, have made a historic change in Britain's military rôle in the world—a change which I know is still controversial on both sides of the House. A change of this magnitude in our foreign and defence policy is bound to arouse anxieties.
  But at the end of the day the Government's decisions will be judged in large part by the answer to two questions: will the long-term stability of the areas from which we are withdrawing our forces be greater or less than if we had left them there? And, the acid test: when the rundown is complete shall we be able to afford the forces which remain and will they be capable of carrying out their tasks in support of the nation's foreign policy without undue strain?
  It is on these questions that I want to concentrate this afternoon. Let me deal, first, with the financial consequences of the decisions we took last January. Their main aim was to produce substantial savings in defence expenditure as a whole and in the foreign exchange cost of defence.
  I notice that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), no doubt recalling his own experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer, told a B.B.C. interviewer the other day that he had never known economies in fact to be realised. That was true enough when he was in office. But the plain fact is that over the last four years the Ministry of Defence has met every target of financial saving set it by the Government, although the target for saving has frequently been increased at very short notice.
  1004
  As a result, during our first five years in office, the Government will have spent £1,200 million less on defence than the Treasury, under the right hon. Member, envisaged spending when it got Mr. Thorneycroft's long-term costings in 1964. Against this background of solid achievement, Parliament can be satisfied that during the next five years the savings on Conservative plans will reach their target of £3,000 million.
  When our withdrawal is complete, in about 3½ year's time, our defence expenditure will be running at more than £250 million a year below the current level. Assuming that our G.N.P. continues to grow about 3 per cent, a year as it is now, we shall be spending about 5 per cent. of our G.N.P. on defence. The previous Government announced their plans to spend 7 per cent. of our G.N.P. —nearly half as much again.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his figures take account of the fact that we have set up economic aid, that we are now to give a further £75 million to Malaysia as a result of our withdrawal, and we are handing over assets built up with the taxpayers' money? In addition, does it take into account the fact that we have incurred debts to the United States and others for the purchase of foreign aircraft, as we have never done before?
  Mr. Healey: My figures, of course, take account of all the relevant facts, and represent a record of solid achievement which was never sought, never mind achieved, by the previous Government.
  Some of my hon. Friends are asking me to make sure that by 1971 we shall not be spending more than the average spent in comparable West European countries. On N.A.T.O. definitions of defence expenditure, we have already got down to an expenditure of £43 per head of population—midway between France, which is spending £6 per head more, and Germany which, including £4 per head on Berlin, is spending £5 per head less. We shall be down to the present German level of £38 per head ourselves in 1972–73.
  In spite of the fact that devaluation has increased the foreign exchange cost of defence, our local defence expenditure outside Germany will be cut by a

  1005
  third by 1970–71, and by a further third in 1972–73.
  Mr. Frank Allaun rose—
  Mr. Healey: I will give way regularly, but I must be allowed to make my speech my own way, or there may not be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to make a speech at all.
  The key to these massive reductions, from which the taxpayer and the economy as a whole will benefit so greatly, is the concentration of our defence policy in Europe, made possible by a substantial cut in our military commitments in other parts of the world.
  We must do all we can during the period before we complete our withdrawal from South-East Asia and the Persian Gulf to help the countries in the areas concerned to develop an alternative basis for stability. Here, the White Paper is able to report a degree of progress which, political life being what it is, seems to have provoked chagrin rather than congratulations among Members opposite, who predicted catastrophe as a result of the January decisions.
  In the Far East our obligations to S.E.A.T.O. have been drastically revised already. After 1971 we shall make no force declarations to S.E.A.T.O. contingency plans. As I have already reported to the House, the Kuala Lumpur conference, at which the Commonwealth Secretary and I met Ministers from the four Commonwealth Governments concerned with our withdrawal from Malaysia and Singapore, was most encouraging.
  As important as the political progress made in Kuala Lumpur towards an alternative basis for peace and security in South-East Asia are the plans being made by the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore to meet the economic problems posed by our withdrawal—plans to whose success, I am glad to say, aid from Britain will make an important contribution. Both countries remain enviably strong in their financial and economic posture.
  One example of the very rapid progress in adjusting to our withdrawal is the fact that by the end of this year the naval dockyard will already be working for the Singapore Government as a civilian con-
  1006
  cern under management by the British firm, Swan Hunter.
  There has been steady progress in the Gulf as well. We have reached agreement with the Kuwaiti Government for the future termination of our defence obligations to Kuwait. The other Gulf States to which we have responsibilities have already begun to organise arrangements for their future co-operation when they emerge into unqualified independence.
  A second successful meeting of the States concerned was held a few weeks ago, in Abu Dhabi. While I believe that it would be wrong for us to bring any pressure to bear on them to decide the direction in which they move, I imagine that the whole House will welcome the progress in their negotiations. The House will have seen a report in the Financial Times, that the first President of the Temporary Federal Council has expressed confidence that the Federation will be able to fill the defence gap left by Britain's departure.
  Meanwhile, a detailed programme for the withdrawal from Malaysia and Singapore has already been drawn up and communicated to those concerned. Since the physical problems of withdrawing from the Gulf are so much simpler, we shall not finalise our programme of withdrawals there until the evolution of new political arrangements has proceeded further.
  As I have explained, on several occasions during the last 12 months, total withdrawal from our bases in the Persian Gulf and Malaysia-Singapore is a necessary condition for the reduction in Service and civilian manpower, on which our economic savings critically depend.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration will be dealing in more detail this evening with some of the practical problems involved in the reductions. I would like to concentrate on their implications for our defence policy as a whole.
  As a result of the accelerated withdrawal from east of Suez, we shall now achieve our target savings of 75,000 United Kingdom personnel and 80,000 civilian personnel in 1973–74, with a further 1,000 or so in the following year. Taken with the reduction in the Gurkhas, this means that the manpower working in

  1007
  or for the forces will be cut by something under a quarter of the current levels and something over a quarter of the manpower levels obtaining in 1964; although the reduction in United Kingdom uniformed manpower will be only just under a fifth of the 423,000 in the Services in April, 1964.
  But because we are cutting our commitments more drastically still when the rundown is complete, the Services will be better able to sustain their commitments than they are today, and with less strain on the men and women in individual units. Provided that we can overcome the present sag in recruiting, of which I shall speak in a moment, for the first time in about 15 years we shall finally have solved the problem of over-stretch.
  Let me now give the House some figures on how the contraction of our forces is improving their manning levels. In April, 1964, the Army was 5·1 per cent. below strength; in April, this year, it was only 2·8 per cent. below strength. Within the Army the infantry was 7·3 per cent. under strength in June, 1964, and it was only 2·9 per cent. under strength in June this year. I remind the House that, in 1964, 13 battalions of the Army had only two companies. Now every battalion in the Army has three companies. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) is sniggering. If he had been present in the House in 1964 and earlier years, he would remember how earnestly some of his hon. Friends urged the then Government to do something about this problem of overstretch, which meant that the country was failing to fulfil its obligations to our allies in Germany and was subjecting Servicemen and women in units to a quite intolerable strain.
  The shortfall in the Royal Air Force has been reduced in the four years following April, 1964, from 4 per cent. to 21 per cent.
  The shortfall today in the Royal Navy is overall broadly comparable with the positions in the Army and the R.A.F., and the paying off of "Victorious" has helped to improve the manning levels of ratings. While the position in the Fleet Air Arm is expected to improve in 1970 when the next carrier pays off, there will be a continued shortfall in the rest of the Royal Navy, because of the commitments
  1008
  associated with withdrawal from South-East Asia and the Persian Gulf and the continuation of the Beira patrol.
  This shortfall should be corrected in 1972 when the remaining carriers phase out. The important thing if we want to achieve efficiency, and I think that every hon. Member who has served in the forces or in the Ministry of Defence will recognise this, is not to have units and equipment for which we are not able to provide the men. It is just as important to bring units and equipment into balance with men as to bring commitments into balance with one's total military capability.
  The figures I have just given the House on manning levels relate to other ranks. The picture, taking officers alone is still better—indeed, the Air Force and Army are now slightly over-strength in officers. Re-engagement in the Services has remained generally steady over the last 12 months and this reflects the high morale of the forces themselves and the confidence of the men and women actually serving in the Army, Navy and Air Force that they can look forward to a worthwhile career.
  But there is a cloud on the horizon. Recruitment has fallen heavily during the last 12 months. In 1967–68 it was only 33,000 male other ranks as against the steady level of 35,000 we shall require when the rundown is complete if we are to have the right balance of ages and trades inside the forces. The figures in the current year are so far even less encouraging. Recruitment of officers, however, has held up comparatively well, although there are some areas for concern.
  To some extent, the disappointing recruiting figures during the last 12 months reflect certain long-term factors which no Government can control—the fall in the birthrate after 1947, the tendency for boys to stay longer at school and to marry younger, and the growing competition from industry. My right hon. Friend will deal with some of the measures the Government will take to deal with these problems in his speech this evening. But there is no doubt that the main reason for the fall off in recruiting is the general image of the Services among the civilian population.
  With great respect to those hon. Members who sincerely hold the opposite

  1009
  view, this cannot be attributed to the changes in the regimental system of the infantry which have been introduced over the last two years or, indeed, the last 10 years. In the first place, the decline is general, affecting the Navy and Air Force as much as the Army. In the second place, 80 per cent. of the men who call at a recruiting office to join the Army express no preference even as between the infantry and the gunners or any other arm, still less as between one regiment of the infantry and another; and there is no evidence that recruiting has dropped in any area particularly identified with a regiment which has been disbanded, which is revelant to last week's debate.
  For this reason, the strength against establishment of a particular regiment in the infantry bears no necessary relationship with its popularity among recruits, but rather with the priority it has been accorded within the Army for uncommitted recruits, who, as I have said, comprise the vast majority.
  Mr. George Younger: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not attempting to deny that there has been a slump in recruiting in Lanarkshire since he axed the Cameronians? Can he give us figures?
  Mr. Healey: I cannot give those figures but it may help the hon. Gentleman, who said the other day that the trouble with the Army was the end of the regimental system as it had existed in the past, if I read the words of a very distinguished serving regimental officer who said:
  "It is folly to live the lie that the present organisation of infantry is good enough for the wars of tomorrow or that it is attracting sufficient recruits of the required calibre."
  He added:
  "It is imperative that we should do some hard thinking and drive through a programme of reorganisation as brutal and dynamic as the times in which we live."
  That article was written, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, just after the new divisional organisation of the infantry was introduced, and it was written by Colonel Colin Mitchell.
  Mr. James Ramsden: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that a vital factor in the success of a unit in getting recruits is not the energy and efficiency of its regimental recruiting teams and its officers in seeking
  1010
  to produce the right climate to attract them.
  Mr. Healey: That is an important factor, but, as I have pointed out, although I attach great importance to the many aspects of the regimental tradition and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we intend to maintain many features of the regimental system in the new divisions of infantry, it is not possible to argue—and I have given the reasons which the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to dispute later—that it is the key to the slump in recruiting, which is general and affects not only all arms of the Army, but the Air Force and Navy.
  I think there is no doubt that one major reason for the worrying fall in recruiting over the last 12 months or so is the impression current among large sections of the civilian population that there is no future for the Services. The fact that this is a totally false impression is best demonstrated by the high rate of re-engagement among those actually in the Services who know the problem best.
  I do not deny that the progressive modifications of defence policy imposed on the Government by economic circumstances in the last two years are at the root of the difficulty; but I am afraid that the significance of these changes has been grossly exaggerated and distorted by some sections of the Press and television. I only hope that no hon. or right hon. Member has involuntarily given colour to these false impressions by exaggerating in the heat of party passion the real significance of what has happened.
  I know that I can rely on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet as the new spokesman of the Opposition on defence to temper party polemic with patriotism, as he has already done in his statements on the national economy.
  The fact is that when the rundown of our forces is complete, Britain's overall defence effort will be second to that of no other West European Power in capability and quality—not to speak of the exceptional background of recent fighting experience gained by our all professional Services in so many parts of the world. Let me give some details.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles rose—
  Mr. Healey: First, the Royal Navy, to please the hon. and gallant Gentleman. From September next year the third of our four Polaris submarines will become operational and we shall be the only European nuclear Power which is committing this awesome capability exclusively to the service of the alliance. By the time the carriers phase out there will be seven nuclear fleet submarines in service, and others building, to provide our main capability for dealing with enemy surface ships or submarines.
  We will be the only European Navy to operate these powerful warships in significant numbers. The total Leander force in the fleet will number 26 hulls. The designs of the new frigate and of the Sea Dart destroyers are now at an advanced stage. In the 1970s these and a further development of the new frigate will join the fleet in increasing numbers and greatly strengthen the capability of our general purpose force.
  A contribution which I know the alliance will value particularly is the amphibious force of two commando ships, two assault ships and the associated Royal Marine Commandos which are being earmarked for assignment to SACEUR this year. As is fitting for an island Power, we shall have by far the strongest West European navy. I think that hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, should be proud of this fact and not pretend that the reductions that the Government have made in defence expenditure have destroyed the Royal Navy, as they have so often pretended and sometimes said.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: We think that these surface warships will be indefensible against Russian surface-to-surface missiles, unless we have fixed-wing aircraft to protect them.
  Mr. Healey: That is totally untrue. Concerning attack by Soviet missile-firing patrol boats, the Komar type—
  Mr. Wall: Destroyers.
  Mr. Healey: If it is a question of attack by destroyers, we have both the nuclear fleet submarines and a large variety, to which I shall be coming, of land-based aircraft with stand off weapons. On top of that, we shall have helicopter-borne air to surface weapons which will be carried on every ship in
  1012
  the fleet above frigate size which will be protected from attack by surface-to-air missiles. There is no doubt—and this can easily be confirmed by the hon. Gentleman—that this will give our surface fleet a power of protection against any known missiles fired by a Soviet patrol boat.
  When the rundown is complete we shall have a regular Army, superbly trained and equipped, of over 166,000— that is 152,000 adult males. This is without counting the remaining Gurkhas who would be serving in Hong Kong. We plan to keep 46 infantry battalions, 27 artillery regiments and 18 regiments in the Royal Armoured Corps. The British Army of the Rhine, with its six brigades —one of them stationed in the United Kingdom—will remain second to none in its professionalism and equipment. Our light air defence units will be equipped with Rapier, a new low-level air defence system. Our armoured units will be fully equipped with Chieftain, the best main battle tank in the world, and with the Swing Fire anti-tank guided weapons.
  Together with our infantry mounted in armoured personnel carriers and supported with self-propelled artillery—the Abbott is superior in range, mobility, and rate of fire to any other field gun—we shall have a flexible hard hitting force with no superior on the Continent.
  I wish that the right hon. Member for Barnet would listen to these facts, because he was obviously unaware of them when he made some speeches recently.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: I was just trying to make sure that all the weapons to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring were developed by the previous Conservative Government.
  Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Rapier, for example, was largely developed and produced by this Government. I am not claiming that every weapon in the Services today was produced by this Government. The vast majority were ordered by the previous Conservative Government. I am trying to get the right hon. Gentleman and, even more, his hon. Friends, to accept that the Services today are second to none in Europe and that they offer a career to men of ability and dedication second to none offered by any profession in Britain.

  1013
  If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would stop knocking the Services which they themselves have helped to arm, a great deal of the difficulty we have in recruiting would disappear.
  At home in Britain, we shall have a mobile force made up of three Divisions and of 16 Parachute Brigades, less one battalion, forming a task force which can be deployed anywhere in the N.A.T.O. area from the North Cape to the Eastern Mediterranean.
  The Royal Air Force will be comparable in size and quality to the air forces of France or Germany. As the Canberras phase out, Strike Command Vulcans will take over the tactical strike rôle, supported by several squadrons of Buccaneers. The Phantom enters operational service next year for close support of our ground forces, together with the first operational V/STOL aircraft in the world—the all-British Harrier. Nimrods, Phantoms and Buccaneers will also provide support for the Navy at sea. I would like to draw special attention to the enormous improvement we have made in the helicopter capability of all three Services since 1964.
  The major problem remaining for the R.A.F. is to introduce a new combat aircraft for service in the middle or late 1970s when V-bombers and Bucaneers are no longer adequate for the task. The Government are determined, if possible, to produce such an aircraft in collaboration with partners in Western Europe. This would be very much cheaper than producing an aircraft on our own and technologically preferable to collaboration with the U.S. or, still more, to a purchase from the U.S. The House will have noted, I hope with approval, that last week we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Germany, Italy and Holland to explore the possibilities of collaborating on such an aircraft. The first stage will be the preparation of studies on the most cost-effective mix of performance characteristics to meet the requirements of the participating countries at a price they can afford. This phase, in which British industry will be playing a major rôle, should be completed by the end of this year. I hope that we shall then be able to proceed in agreement on a project study.
  Broadly speaking—and I have sketched only the salient features of our forces in
  1014
  the 1970s—all this adds up to a formidable capability, and I do wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not continually denigrate it. As we made clear in January, we shall be able to draw on this capability for operations outside Europe if the Government of the day finds it is in our interest or duty to do so, where necessary after normal consultation with our N.A.T.O. allies. What, in fact, we might decide to make available overseas would be determined by the nature of the operation and the circumstances at the time. But that the capability is a reality we intend to demonstrate in the proposed five-Power Commonwealth exercise in the Far East in 1970. We have given some examples in the White Paper of what such forces could include.
  In any case, we shall maintain our permanent garrison in Hong Kong— slightly strengthened to take account of the reinforcement time from Britain—and we shall continue to send units of all three Services for regular training overseas. For example, in two months' time we shall be sending a battalion to train in Ghana and receiving a Ghanaian battalion for simultaneous training in the United Kingdom.
  But the essence of our new defence posture is that our forces will be concentrated in Europe with the security of Europe by land, sea and air as their primary rôle. The substantial increases in the availability of our forces to N.A.T.O., which we announced in Brussels and in the White Paper, are the first fruit of this new concentration in Europe.
  The increases we have offered in our commitment to N.A.T.O. were carefully designed, after consultation with our allies, to fill gaps in the capability of the alliance which have long been recognised to exist—in particular, its shortage of mobile reserves. The particular value of the Mobile Task Force and the amphibious force is that they would enable us to help in reinforcing countries anywhere from the Arctic Circle to the Near East in an emergency.
  Rapid reinforcement by allied troops would be particularly important on the flanks, since an enemy might otherwise gamble that the political solidarity of the Western Alliance might not hold firm. The increases in British naval and air

  1015
  strength in the Mediterranean have been especially welcomed by our allies, who have been watching the increased activity of the Soviet Navy and Air Force in this area with some concern.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The right hon. Gentleman is laying great emphasis on our strength in Europe. Does he not admit that during the next 10 years the threat in the Far East from China, which is growing far more menacing, is far greater than any threat in Europe or the Middle East? Would not he agree that we have a duty to protect Commonwealth citizens in India, Australia and New Zealand, as well as in Malaysia and Singapore?
  Mr. Healey: With respect, that sort of question has been asked many times, but it reflects a failure to have read the newspapers during the last week or two.
  The right hon. Member for Barnet asked me some questions the other day about some remarks in Mr. McNamara's annual statement this year, claiming, in effect, that there is now a rough balance in conventional forces between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Powers. He thought it called into question the whole of the present N.A.T.O. strategy, and it may be convenient if I expand a little on the answers I then gave.
  Only a few years ago—I daresay the right hon. Gentleman will recall this— N.A.T.O. tended to calculate the relative capabilities of N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Powers by totting up the number of divisions on each side. It took years of argument, largely by representatives of the British Government of the day, to convince the alliance that since the effective fighting power of a Warsaw Pact division was substantially lower than that of a N.A.T.O. division, a divisional count very much exaggerated the superiority of the Warsaw Powers.
  In our view, and that of N.A.T.O. as a whole, the deductions encouraged by Mr. McNamara's statement this year fall into the opposite error, although it is only fair to add that Mr. McNamara admitted that
  "manpower comparisons alone are not conclusive measures of military strength".
  In fact, a count of manpower alone is as misleading as a count of divisions,
  1016
  since it ignores such factors as the teeth to tail ratio, fighting capabilities and effectiveness, deployment, logistic support and lines of communication, reinforcement capability, and relative states of training of weapon and counter-weapon effectiveness and of mobility.
  To take just one major factor at random—and I mentioned this to the right hon. Gentleman last week—the Warsaw Powers have a two-to-one superiority in tanks over the immediately confronting N.A.T.O. force in Central Europe. In 15 days they could increase this superiority to three-to-one, and, given 30 days, to almost four-to-one.
  The most important disadvantage of simply counting heads, however, is that it ignores the advantage which the enemy could hope to gain in a surprise attack by a rapid concentration of force. All the exercises carried out with British participation by N.A.T.O.'s Northern Army Group suggest that by exploiting the initiative the Warsaw Powers could expect to make very rapid advances into N.A.T.O. territory. That is why N.A.T.O. has always assumed that a massive attack by the Warsaw Powers would involve the use of nuclear weapons at an early stage; and that the alliance must be able to make up in nuclear deterrence what it lacks in conventional defence.
  The alliance is now engaged in a more detailed study of some of the points raised by Mr. McNamara. If I may express a personal view, I believe that a true measure of relative capabilities will be somewhere in the middle between a crude count of divisions and a crude count of heads.
  Of course the alliance should do everything possible with the forces available to it to prolong the period of conventional resistance should aggression take place, and, partly as a result of British urging, it has recently accepted this objective. But the idea that a purely conventional strategy would be politically or economically acceptable to the alliance as a whole is contrary to all the evidence. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Russians would accept it. They have always said that if there were war in Europe it would involve the use of nuclear weapons and of chemical and biological weapons as well. That, incidentally, is why Porton exists, to provide us with defence against such weapons.

  1017
  So when the alliance talks today of maximising its conventional capability it does not mean planning for prolonged and largescale conventional war in case of large-scale attack. It means prolonging conventional resistance by days or even hours. Let me add another point. It would be quite dishonest for any British Government to propose a wholly conventional strategy for N.A.T.O. unless they had first reintroduced conscription—a point which, I am glad to say, was made clear in the Sunday Telegraph last week. However much some hon. Members, like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) may want a purely conventional strategy, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) rejects it. Instead, he has reverted to a purely nuclear strategy of what he calls "a trip wire which trips". Perhaps the right hon. Member for Barnet can mediate between them, because a sensible strategy lies somewhere in the middle.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: A trip wire which trips corresponds with what the right hon. Gentleman was talking about, a trip wire which will gain hours, perhaps days or a week.
  Mr. Healey: If the right hon. Gentleman has ever talked to a poacher, he will know that the function of a trip wire is not to trip, but to kill.
  Some of my hon. Friends have put down an Amendment which attacks the Government from the opposite side. They say that we should not be making any increase in our contribution to N.A.T.O. at all, and appear to suggest that we should consider leaving the alliance in 1969. The alliance does not lapse in 1969 as they appear to imagine. On the contrary, it is of indefinite duration, but after 24th August, 1969 any member can give a year's notice of its intention to withdraw. I am glad to say there is no sign that any member intends to do so.
  If I may say so to my hon. Friends, I could not help feeling that such an Amendment, put down at this moment of tension in Eastern Europe, shows a felicity of timing and relevance of content which can be compared only with that of recent speeches on the nation's economy by the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Nonsense.
  Mr. Healey: The Amendment asks us to say that we are ready to start phasing out the British Army of the Rhine as a contribution to mutual force reductions. We are certainly prepared to do this as part of a firm programme of reciprocal withdrawals. Indeed, one of the main themes of the Government's foreign policy over the last four years— and it was one of Mr. Eden's when he was Prime Minister—has been the case for maintaining security in Europe at a lower level of expenditure through the reduction of arms and forces on both sides of the dividing line.
  I myself have been pressing for this ever since 1956. The Government have taken the initiative in N.A.T.O. to get a series of studies started on various ways of achieving arms control and disarmament in Europe through mutual reductions balanced both in scope and timing. Only a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in the N.A.T.O. Council meeting at Reykjavik issued an appeal to the Warsaw Powers to join them in this work.
  But my hon. Friends must face the fact that there is no chance of achieving reciprocal withdrawals if there are massive unilateral withdrawals on the Western side alone. On the contrary, it is only if the Soviet Government are certain that there is no hope of achieving a comprehensive military superiority over the West in Europe that they may be prepared to settle for a balance at a lower level of forces on both sides. In the nuclear field, it looks as if the Soviet Government may be reaching this conclusion. I believe that all of us, on both sides of the House, must have welcomed the recent contacts between the Soviet and American Governments on the possibility of reducing both their offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.
  Incidentally, this bears witness to the wisdom of the N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers, in May, when they decided that there was no point in Western Europe attempting to develop an anti-ballistic missile system, since such a system could be neutralised for a tiny fraction of the cost of building it. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, who reserved

  1019
  his position on this in the last debate, is at last content with this decision, and if not, that he will tell us why.
  But while there may be signs that the Soviet Government are coming to recognise the senselessness of continuing the nuclear arms race with the United States, hon. Members must have been watching with the greatest anxiety in recent weeks the tensions that have arisen in Eastern Europe.
  The House will probably understand if, in the very delicate situations now obtaining, I resist the temptation to spell out the arguments and underline the lessons. I shall confine myself to repeating what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said last week—that we should not want ourselves or any of our allies to be subject to that sort of tension. It is only the existence of N.A.T.O. which ensures that neither we nor they are so subjected.
  Indeed, we can comfort ourselves that the situation between East and West in Europe today is comparatively stable; it has been so for nearly 20 years. But it has been so because, by binding North America and Western Europe together in a military alliance, N.A.T.O. has removed from Russia any temptation to use force across the Iron Curtain. To argue that because the situation is stable we do not now need N.A.T.O. is like saying that we can destroy the dam because we have not had a flood since it was built. I remember reading of the village mayor who did that—and they found his body 25 miles down the valley.
  We can all speculate on whether, in the long run, current political developments in Eastern Europe will make Russia more or less ready to reach agreement with the West on the reciprocal reduction of forces. There are arguments both ways. But what is certain is that of such negotiations are ever to be successful, the process of mutual reduction must start from a stable balance of forces between the two sides. Thas is why, in helping to remedy some of the gaps in N.A.T.O.'s existing defences, the British Government are helping to create the conditions without which there would be little hope of successful negotiations on reciprocal reductions.
  1020
  In any case, if we look into the next decade—does the right hon. Gentleman wish to make a point?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I did not mean to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Orme: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of the immediate situation in Europe, may I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the majority leader of the Democratic Party— Senator Mansfield—who has called for reductions in American forces in Europe and for a reappraisal of the present situation? We are asking for a reappraisal of the situation, in constructive terms.
  Mr. Healey: Of course—I do not blame my hon. Friend for asking for this—the Government are continually carrying out such a reappraisal. But if he read Senator Mansfield's speech in detail he will know that the main argument used by the Senator for the withdrawal of American forces was that Europe was not pulling its weight. The fact that Britain is now pulling her weight in Europe is doing more than anything else to fortify those who oppose irrational and ill-thought-out reductions of American troops in Europe, which may upset the stability of the Alliance.
  But I say to my hon. Friend that if we look into the next decade we must recognise that the American people may not be prepared indefinitely to maintain their physical contribution to the defence of Western Europe at its present level. No less than America, Europe is now a rich and powerful continent. America is carrying burdens outside Europe which none of her European allies shares. Although I cannot now foresee a situation in which the American Alliance will be unnecessary, Europe in the 1970s will inevitably have to be more self-reliant in defence.
  I ask my hon. Friend this question seriously: if the time comes when American forces are reduced, does he want Western Germany to be the only important military Power among the European members of N.A.T.O.? Does he really believe that our own security or peace in Europe would be better protected in such a situation? I assure him that very few people in Europe take

  1021
  that view—and very few people in Germany.
  In addition to its direct physical contribution to our security, N.A.T.O. has provided an international framework into which Germany can contribute to her own defence without creating fears among her neighbours. But that framework retains its meaning only so long as there is an integrated international force into which the German contribution can be fitted without risk of dominating the whole. To withdraw all British troops from Germany, as some of my hon. Friends suggest, without any guarantee that there would be corresponding reductions among the Warsaw Pact Powers and without adjusting the framework of the Western Alliance so as to avoid its domination by a single Power would be an act of unimaginable folly.
  No—the true direction in which we should be moving is a different one. Whether or not the American presence in Western Europe is reduced, Britain must be prepared to carry her fair share of any burden of defence which falls on Western Europe. What happens in this continent over the next 10 or 20 years will determine what happens to us in Britain not only militarily, but politically and economically. If we want our fair share of influence in the region where influence matters to us most, we must be prepared to carry our fair share of the military burden, too.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Healey: I cannot give way.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Barnet will tell us where his party stands on this issue. What exactly is his position? Does he believe that we have been right to reduce defence expenditure but that we have got our political priorities wrong? Does he believe, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire believes, that we should ask N.A.T.O. to allow us to withdraw forces from Western Europe for use east of Suez—as he said in a speech the other day—and to stay east of Suez for another 15 years? If he believes that he will be in deep conflict with his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, the last Conservative Party spokesman on defence, but I suppose that that
  1022
  will not worry him too much; he is used to it.
  Or does he believe, on the contrary, that we are spending far too little on defence—that is what he appeared to say at other times—and that we should make not only a major contribution to the defence of Europe but also build up our bases in the Persian Gulf and in the Far East again? I gather that he and his right hon. Friends have formally promised to do so—although they add a lot of conditions, if one reads them carefully. They will do so if they get into power, sometime in the 1970s, and if they are still wanted, and if it is still possible. The small print has not gone unnoticed east of Suez.
  But in that case—if that is his policy —where will the money come from? He has promised to cut Government expenditure as a whole. Even if he does no more than restore the cuts which we have made in his own programme, where would he find the £3,000 million that this would require over the next five years? I welcome the pointed questions that the Liberal Party has put to him on that point. If he has a ready answer on these questions I hope that he will share it with the House this afternoon.
  A hundred flowers may still be blossoming on the benches opposite, but the Government have made their choice. The policy outlined in the White Paper which we are debating today will concentrate our defence capability in the area which matters most—Europe—the area where current events have shown all too clearly that peace and stability still depend on setting limits to the temptations created by military power. The Services that we shall have in the 1970s will provide the country with a vital instrument of security and influence.
  They will provide the men and women in them with rewarding careers at a level of professional skill unsurpassed in our society and they will do all this at a cost which the nation can afford. I ask the House to approve the White Paper.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: The Secretary of State has made a formidable speech—certainly in size—in the course of which he managed to offend practically everyone in the House—but he has a felicity for that. But he did not make

  1023
  much reference to the White Paper. This is not altogether surprising, because it is a very flimsy document. We do not know why the White Paper was necessary, if this is all that the Government have to say. It has become a habit of the Government to produce many White Papers, usually at the very last moment in the Parliamentary Session.
  Our objection to the White Paper is not so much its substance as that it is a further, if marginal, addition to a process of which we thoroughly disapprove. We believe that the Government's policy and actions to date have reduced the capability of our defence forces below what the nation should expect. This is the simple difference between the two sides. If the Secretary of State says that that means that we on this side want to spend more money on defence, I am quite prepared to accept his challenge, because we say quite clearly that what the country needs for its security must be found. We do not accept, as I will make clear later, some of the absurd figures bandied around, with the worst of special pleading from the benches opposite, about what is necessary in terms of money to carry out certain policies. We cherish the security of our country and we believe that it must be protected.
  We have had a whole series of White Papers, six in less than four years and four in the last 18 months, and we have no assurance whatever that this will be the final stage. This is one of our complaints against the right hon. Gentleman. Time and time again we have been told that the Government had reached finality or a plateau, or whatever it is called. Each time this is succeeded by further changes and cuts. There can be no doubt at all that this has had a very serious effect upon Service morale and upon recruiting.
  It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to imply, as he did this afternoon, that anyone who criticises the present state of the Forces, or his own policies, is being unpatriotic and is damaging recruiting. This is absolute nonsense. It is our job, as the Opposition, to offer criticism. If the Secretary of State doubts the effect on the Services of
  1024
  all these changes, may I quote this sentence:
  "I think the Services can rightly be very upset at the continuous series of defence reviews which the Government has been forced by economic circumstances, and, it may be, by economic mistakes too, to carry out in the last three years."
  The Secretary of State will recognise his own words. I agree with him entirely.
  There can be no doubt that the complete collapse of confidence in the Secretary of State himself is one of the reasons for the low morale in the Forces and for the low recruiting. I think this is one of the reasons why, rather to my surprise, the other day we saw the Chief of the General Staff appearing on television dealing with these matters, which I think is an innovation, and, frankly, an undesirable innovation. I believe that these things should be left to Ministers to deal with in television interviews with journalists and television statements. The fact is that the Secretary of State has lost the confidence of the Services and, I believe, of the country.
  We have debated this many times before. I will not rehearse the whole list of all the things that the right hon. Gentleman has said and the many times he has contradicted himself in the past few months. It is too easy a game to repeat those quotations. They are all known. In any case, it has no effect on the Secretary of State. He shows no remorse or regret when he has been proved to be talking nonsense. Every time he has been proved to have changed his mind completely, he treats it as further proof of his magnificent versatility. That may be true in political terms, but certainly not in terms of the leader of our Services.
  We believe that the fundamental error of the Government has been to base their defence planning on a fixed financial ceiling and on that alone. This is our fundamental objection to the Government's policy. We have seen this process developing very clearly over the last few years. First, a financial target is fixed; then it is changed. First comes a financial target, on which is based the number of men and women in the Services. On that is based, we suppose, but we are not often told, the number of units, for example, in the Air Force, and on that as a final deduction is based what our Forces

  1025
  can do to meet the country's commitments. This, we believe, is entirely the wrong way to go about it.
  Further evidence of this is clearly to be seen in the White Paper, which states on page 2 that the Government are still
  "producing a more detailed programme for reshaping the organisation and equipment of the forces up to 1972–73 so as to meet the targets for financial and manpower reductions".
  In other words, the Government have accepted and intend to stick to their targets for financial and manpower reductions and they will fit Britain's fighting abilities and defence capacity to these and not to the nation's needs. This is our main criticism.
  Of course, it is not all entirely black and white, as everyone knows. One cannot say that this is all that we can afford in the way of defence, regardless of the risk that the country is carrying. On the other hand, I accept that we cannot say that we will provide the Services with all that they can possibly ask for, regardless of expense. Somewhere between the two, a balance must be struck. It will involve risk. No defence policy for this country can possibly be a safe one. There will always be risks, but these must be determined not by the staffs, who are not politically responsible in the broad sense, but by the Government themselves, who should be striking a balance, whereas this Government are concentrating solely on financial targets and reductions in expenditure on the Forces.
  The Government are certain in their own mind about the money which they intend to spend. They are not certain about the Forces which they intend to produce with this money, and they cannot be certain about the tasks that will have to be carried out by those Forces. They are clearly still working out the size and shape of the Forces. They will not tell us anything about the future strength of the Royal Air Force in terms either of numbers of aircraft or of units. They cannot tell us in practice how recruiting will go and, therefore, they cannot tell us in practice how far they will match up even to their own targets for the size of the Forces as a whole.
  My other criticism of the Government is that they are over-certain about Britain's commitments and they are leaving us no margin to cope with the unex-
  1026
  pected. There are too many examples of this. It was quoted in the television broadcast the other day that out of 66 incidents since the war in which British Forces have been engaged, only six were foreseen and planned for in advance. It is always the unexpected and unpredictable that comes upon our defence forces. They must be prepared and qualified to deal with sudden and surprising emergencies.
  The Government are totally underestimating the danger east of Suez to the broad long-term interest of this country. I know that what is called the domino theory is regarded as unfashionable, but I still hold to it. I believe that an expansion of Communist force across South-East Asia could go very fast indeed if the general Western position were to crumble. I believe that there is more real danger to the interests of British people in that part of the world and in that possibility than in the far more remote possibility of an all-out war in Western Europe.
  I saw an article in the Guardian a day or two ago with which I do not wholly agree, but I certainly agree with what it said about east of Suez:
  "When Britain gets over its current self-misery, it will no longer want to wash its hands entirely of others' troubles."
  That is a fairly profound statement that this country has interests in the troubles and potential troubles of friends and allies east of Suez. Our ability to contribute to that has been sadly undermined by the present Government.
  I believe that the Government are far too confident that they can predict the parameters of danger in Western Europe. They are basing themselves entirely, as the Secretary of State made clear today, on the assumption that a major war would go nuclear within a few hours or days. That might, perhaps, be true, but it is a very big assumption to make. It is one which is being increasingly called into question.
  Mr. Healey: There are, of course, many views on this question, and other views are expressed in this House, but the right hon. Gentleman must accept that the views on which we base our predictions and policy in Europe are shared with our allies in N.A.T.O. [Interruption.] Yes, they are, with respect to the hon. Member for Hendon,

  1027
  North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). I know the facts. He does not, although he took a very different view of the situation when he was Under-Secretary in one of the Defence Departments and we committed ourselves to a far more nuclear strategy than we have today.
  In any event, it is no good Britain having a strategy for N.A.T.O. which is shared by none of her allies. It is essential that we work out the common strategy together, and we believe that the strategy which N.A.T.O. as a whole has is the right one.
  Mr. Mandling: I thought that the British Government had considerable influence on the strategy of the Alliance as a whole. We are concerned today with the view taken by the British Government. I do not think that it is generally known in this country the extent to which the Government are posing their defence plans on the assumption of a very short war indeed before it escalates to a nuclear level. The Secretary of State rightly referred to Mr. McNamara's speech, but he dismissed it a little too easily. After all, Mr. McNamara must have been in a position to know all the facts to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. His judgment may differ from that of the Secretary of State, but I am not sure that I accept that it is an inferior judgment. It is all very well to talk about a certain level of forces and other factors, availability of transport and mobilisation, but all this was known to Mr. McNamara. No doubt, it is right that, for example, the tank forces of the Warsaw Pact are greater than ours. But what about aircraft? I gather that Mr. McNamara considers that in aircraft the forces of N.A.T.O. are noticeably stronger than the forces of the Warsaw Pact. Let us have the position entirely clear. We cannot have a coherent picture of Britain's defence requirements until we are sure exactly what the military assessment is.
  I accept from the right hon. Gentleman that to plan for the fighting of a conventional warà l'outrance in a four or five years' conflict between Eastern and Western Europe is not a feasible way to proceed. But between that and planning only for two or three days of conventional fighting before going nuclear
  1028
  there is a wide gap. All I say is that the Government should not be too certain in their assessment of what will happen, and they should not be too ready to assume that, if a war continues for only a few days, the nuclear weapon is bound to come into play.
  Mr. Healey: I sympathise with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I must remind him, lest he has forgotten, that when his party was in power and he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he and his right hon. Friends were planning on a very much shorter period of conventional fighting than we have now persuaded N.A.T.O. to accept.
  Mr. Maudling: I thought that on a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman was taking credit for having substantially reduced the need for strategic stockpiling in Western Europe on the prognostication of a shorter war, and I understood that he had in fact been cutting it down.
  Mr. Healey: With respect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is an interesting point, and I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. The assumptions regarding stockpiles were previously made on the basis of a very prolonged tactical atomic war, and that is a prospect which nobody now believes to be realistic.
  Mr. Maudling: I shall not tempt the Secretary of State again. Perhaps the Minister who is to wind up will tell us exactly what assumption is being made by the Government about the duration of a possible conventional war in Western Europe and what provision is made by way of stockpiling for that eventuality.
  I was putting that forward as one example of the uncertainties which remain. The second, to which the right hon. Gentleman himself referred, is the developments in Eastern Europe. He rightly said that he had to walk delicately in this delicate situation. Speaking for the Opposition, perhaps I may say a little more. I accept that it is a formidable development. No one can be sure what its outcome will be. Whichever way it goes—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman here—the lesson for us is to strengthen N.A.T.O. and not allow N.A.T.O. to be divided.
  Perhaps the Soviet Union will impose its will on the Czech people. If that

  1029
  were to happen, this House would entirely deplore it. Perhaps it will happen. If it does go that way, the tension between East and West in Europe will be heightened and the possibilities of detente of any kind will be made more remote. This must be taken into account in all our defence planning. If, on the other hand, the Czechs should move away from the Soviet Union and if the Warsaw Pact should crumble, as some people suggest, that would not necessarily be a gain from our point of view. A Europe which is divided into two camps has disadvantages but it has certain advantages from the point of view of maintaining security. A Europe divided into more and more armed nation States might well produce new and serious dangers of a kind which none of us would welcome.
  Therefore, whichever way this sad and sorry affair goes, the lesson for us is once again to appreciate the great scale of the uncertainties which face us and the need to maintain the strength of our alliance in N.A.T.O.
  Mr. Stan Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his attitude and that of his party to the Warsaw Pact? Do we understand that he is in favour of the continued existence of the Warsaw Pact and would view its breakup with alarm?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not have to be for or against the Warsaw Pact. We have no responsibility in this country for it. All I am saying is that, if it should crumble and Europe went back to a system of nation States individually armed and individually operating, the dangers of war might thereby become more serious. That is plain in any analysis of the situation.
  No, east of Suez. Here, we charge the Government with having broken their pledges and changed their attitude, letting down our allies and neglecting the fundamental needs of Britain's defence. The number of pledges broken still cannot be counted. I have previously asked the Prime Minister for a list of the undertakings broken, but I have never yet received it. Perhaps he is still counting them. There are many in the Gulf and the Far East.
  British interests in this area are large indeed, particularly our interests in the Gulf, for example, which are staggering
  1030
  in scale when one considers both the capital investment involved and the current income which we draw from the area. The danger there is the one which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) called some time ago the danger of a power vacuum. The withdrawal of British forces is bringing a new danger of conflict and confusion in the area which, if it were to come to a head, could do great damage not only to British interests but the interests of the whole Western world.
  By withdrawing from East of Suez we are recreating the danger of American isolation. I believe that the Americans have always looked to this country for support East of Suez not so much for the relatively marginal addition to the armed forces involved by our presence there but for the political support which they received from our presence East of Suez alongside them. Our withdrawal there, coupled with some developments in Western Europe, may well drive America back into a new isolationism which in the long run will be a fundamental danger to Western Europe and the Western world. I cannot believe that the Government have properly seen the consequences of their policy in this respect.
  The Government say that what we on this side plan to do will cost hundreds or thousands of millions of pounds. I do not accept that for a moment. Our position has been made perfectly clear. We have said to our friends there that, if we are returned to power at the next election, we shall halt the process of withdrawal from the Gulf and the Far East so long as this is possible. The Secretary of State twitted us for what he called this condition. But, surely, it is an honest and sensible undertaking to give. It is possible that by then the forces would have been so reduced by the present Government that it would no longer be possible to carry it out. But so long as it is possible, so long as our friends and allies want our presence, we shall redeem the pledges which this Government have broken.
  I do not accept the calculations made from time to time of the cost involved. I understand that a new calculation is coming from the Liberal benches, but I have not seen it yet. There are so many other factors. For example, as my hon.

  1031
  Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) said, the cost of aid given in exchange for military expenditure will not appear on the Defence Votes but it is just as much a charge on the British economy and the British taxpayer. The Government spurned at the time, with some rather rude remarks, the offers of financial help from our friends in the area who wished us to remain.
  Nor do I believe that there is any need for the sort of apparatus of defence which the Minister in a previous debate argued we should need to retain any position east of Suez. We do not need all the vast apparatus of new aircraft carriers. [Interruption.] I want to deal with the question of aircraft carriers because it is the right hon. Gentleman's argument that without aircraft carriers we cannot do anything useful East of Suez.
  Mr. Healey: That was the Opposition's argument.
  Mr. Maudling: No. It was the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that without aircraft carriers we cannot usefully remain there. How, then, do the Government propose to have a general capability east of Suez without any aircraft carriers? They cannot have it both ways. We on this side say that the Government are putting up a purely spurious argument when they pretend to retain some capability east of Suez. We do not see how they will have the bases. We do not see how Gan and Masirah can really work in such circumstances. We wonder about their assessment of the future position regarding Simonstown. We wonder about the training and acclimatisation of British forces. We wonder about the problem of bringing heavy equipment out in time. We very much doubt whether the Government will on their plans have any capability east of Suez within a few years. So long as they go on pretending that it is possible, they are deluding themselves, the country and our allies as well.
  I want to come now fairly briefly to some remarks on each of the three Services, beginning with the Royal Navy. The Secretary of State one again chided us for expressing doubts about the equipment of the Royal Navy, but we are
  1032
  entitled to express those doubts. Of course, much of its equipment is superb, and the quality and skill of the men is second to none, but the right hon. Gentleman went a little too lightly over the question of surface-to-surface missiles. We want to know in much greater detail how the Fleet could be protected against a surface-to-surface missile coming from a Russian—I think that it is Kresta type —missile destroyer. Can protection be really provided to the Fleet at any distance from the home base without fixed wing aircraft accompanying it? The Government argue that it can, but we doubt this very much. Perhaps it can in theory, but in practice how can immediate support be made available to a fleet operating at sea several hundreds of miles from the home base, without an enormous number of aircraft to provide continuous cover? Reports we have seen of the recent "Polar Express" exercise in Norway underline this question very much.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that new equipment for the Royal Navy will place our surface ships at the forefront of the technological advance. I am afraid that in this case they might be in the forefront of the Russian technological advance. I do not believe that they would necessarily have adequate protection. Are the Government adamant that there is no case for the economic hard top carrier providing, as an analogy, a landing strip as against a fully equipped airfield? Are they convinced that nothing be done elsewhere on a modest scale of expenditure to ensure operating cover for our fleet units?
  An Hon. Member: What about helicopters?
  Mr. Maudling: Helicopters could not be the answer to modern surface-to-surface missiles. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us a little more on this side of the House on our very genuine anxieties about the Fleet's ability to stand up to attack of this kind.
  We have been told about the manpower cuts in the Royal Air Force. They seem to be greater in proportion than those in the Army or Navy and are very severe. We cannot estimate the effects in fighting terms because we cannot elicit from the Government any information about the number of aircraft or even the number of

  1033
  units. We are told the number of units in the Army and the Royal Navy but not in the Air Force, and this makes it very difficult for us to estimate what the fighting strength of the Royal Air Force will be.
  One thing that gives me considerable concern about its equipment is the business of the Buccaneers. I seem to remember as Minister of Supply 12 years ago trying to persuade the Royal Air Force to use the Buccaneer, and they were convinced then that it was not good enough for them.
  Mr. Healey: It is different now.
  Mr. Maudling: It is not all that different. In 12 years it may have changed a bit, but its main capability, radar, performance and so on have not changed all that much. It is hard to see how an aircraft that was fundamentally unsatisfactory to the Royal Air Force 12 years ago can be really satisfactory in this day and age.
  We accept what the Secretary of State said about the excellence of the equipment of the modern British Army. We can probably all agree that both Governments contributed to building up this excellent equipment, but we are very worried about the air cover available to the British Army of the Rhine. Without more details it is hard to be more definite about this, but we should like an assurance from the Minister on this very important point.
  Our main concerns about the Army are over recruiting and the reserves. I have talked at some length about the Government's policy East of Suez—
  Mr. A. Woodburn: On the question of aircraft, can the right hon. Gentleman describe technologically how the Navy could have any more up-to-date aircraft than were being designed when the Opposition left office, in modern production terms?
  Mr. Maudling: Many more modern aircraft would be available early if many had not been cancelled by the present Government.
  We are concerned about the total inadequacy of Britain's reserves. This brings me back to my earlier point about the uncertainty of our commitments, the inability to foresee exactly the sort of
  1034
  war we may be called upon to fight. Against that background, our reserves in this country are very small compared with almost any continental country's, and they are shrinking. Figures given on 24th June showed the continued shrinkage in the Territorial Army Reserve. The figures for recruiting given on the same day were really deplorable in terms of individual Services and the Services as a whole. If the trend continues the whole of the Government's defence policy will be undermined. I cannot stress too strongly that the country's future security depends on our having a viable reserve backing our forces.
  The Government seemed to give some hints in the White Paper that they are changing their hitherto rigid mind about the question of Territorial Army Voluntary Reserve III. I hope that they will say something really useful about it. They will not get the recruits and the reserves unless on both pay and pensions they are more forthcoming than they have been up to now. I do not see the justification for departing from the Grigg formula and putting Forces' pay before the Prices and Incomes Board, because the Forces are in the peculiar position of being unable to take industrial action. They cannot force through their pay claims by threats of strike. They cannot in any circumstances be pace-setters in the incomes race. Because they do not have that power they have the right to expect that their pay should be brought up regularly to the advances made by other people in the industrial scene in this country. This was our reason for the Grigg formula, and it is the right one. I cannot see why any consideration of incomes policy should lead to a departure from what has been from the point of view of the Services the guarantee of justice and fair dealing for many years.
  On pensions I need say little more than that we had a debate a little while ago and the reply from the Financial Secretary disappointed us, as it disappointed the Armed Forces and the pensioners. The Government must move on this, and soon, if they hope to do something to restore morale in our fighting services.
  To sum up briefly, we believe that the Government have undermined the morale of the forces by their constant chopping and changing; that they have based their figures solely on a rigid

  1035
  financial ceiling, irrespective of the country's defence requirements; that they have totally miscalculated Britain's interest, obligations and duties east of Suez; and that the reserve structure they contemplate is totally inadequate to Britain's real needs. For all those reasons we intend to divide the House against the Motion.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: Are we to understand from the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that if a political calamity struck this country and a Tory Government were returned to power their defence policy would provide for the acceptance of complete responsibility for defence east of Suez? That question must be answered by the Tory Opposition.
  Of course, there was apprehension about the withdrawal of British forces from east of Suez. Having read authorised reports about the situation there, about guerilla activity in Java, the attempt of Indonesian forces to contain the guerillas, and the possibility of another conflict between the guerillas and the Malaysian forces, I confess to some apprehension about how the situation will emerge.
  But a decision has been reached. It is afait accompli. The forces are to be withdrawn, and there can be no question of either a Tory or a Labour Government turning back the clock.
  If responsibility for defence east of Suez is essential, it must be vested to a large extent in the signatories to the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact—the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand— presumably with aid rendered by Indonesia and Malaysia. There can be no question of Britain accepting full responsibility for defence in that area.
  When my right hon. Friend challenged the right hon. Gentleman opposite to come clean, it was interesting to have his response. Now we know where we are. Regardless of the expense—[aInterruption.a] Obviously, some expense must be entailed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Some."]— by accepting full responsibility for defence in that area.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shinwell: Not at this stage. I am only just getting warmed up. I may give way a little later. I will not give way at the moment even for the Chairman of the 1922 Committee. May I be allowed to develop my argument. I have not a great bundle of notes, like right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Only a few ideas that I am anxious to develop, in spite of any interruptions. That is the end of that.
  I want an answer to the question: Does it mean that the policy is to be reversed? If so, the Tory Opposition must state explicitly and with the utmost clarity what expense will be entailed and whether the country can afford it.
  It is obvious what my right hon. Friend's policy or the Government's policy is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Scuttle."] All right, one can use what language one likes. I prefer another expression. We have abandoned to a substantial extent our responsibility east of Suez. We have not scuttled. There is no question of scuttling. There is nothing sinister or criminal about it. We have to recognise the facts of life—I shall be coming to them very shortly—because, if the debate is to be of any value—I hope I can say this with my characteristic modesty —it has to be constructive. It is all right to indulge in bits and pieces— whether we have the requisite number of aircraft, whether we have missiles available, and so on. We have to decide whether we want defence, and if so, what is to be the nature of that defence. In particular, we have to consider what our objective is.
  I understand that the late lamented Duke of Wellington had attributed to him a saying to the effect that the real business of war was wondering what was on the other side of the hill. If he ever made a statement of that kind, it was a very pregnant utterance, because we have to consider our objective and what we are aiming at.
  I want to ask a question that has been asked on several occasions in our innumerable defence debates. It has also been referred to in innumerable White Papers by innumerable

  1037
  Defence Ministers over the years. What is our purpose in Europe? According to my right hon. Friend and according to N.A.T.O., the alliance in Europe, it is to contain the aggressors. Who are the potential aggressors?—the Soviet Union.
  But it is now clear—it is admitted on both sides of the House by principal spokesmen—that if there was a conventional war, it would develop into a nuclear war. There is no escape from it. Indeed, it has been referred to on several occasions in White Papers presented by Conservative Governments— nuclear retaliation.
  Let us consider what the situation is in Europe. My right hon. Friend mentioned that our forces in Europe were formidable. He said they were second to none in Europe. Of course, it depends on the comparison. Our forces in Europe are stronger, better-equipped and better trained than any of the other forces associated with N.A.T.O. That is perfectly true. But what are the facts about N.A.T.O?
  We are supposed to have 52,000 troops on the ground in Germany. I doubt whether that is the correct figure. Perhaps we may be told at the end of the debate what the accurate figure is. I suggest that it is fewer than 50,000. Moreover, when we speak of 50,000 or 52,000 troops, what do we mean? We mean combatant troops, of course. The actual number of combatant troops available in N.A.T.O. in our contribution can be no more than about 35,000. They are spread over two divisions, and two divisions represent six brigades, and whether they are up to full strength I am unable to say. I doubt whether any of the battalions associated with N.A.T.O. are up to full strength.
  But what about the other contributions from N.A.T.O. countries? Let us take them in turn. France does not accept the N.A.T.O. command. That must be made clear. Five of her divisions are "assigned" to N.A.T.O. They are in Germany, not under N.A.T.O. command but "assigned" to Germany if war should occur. The Netherlands has two divisions not up to strength, a negligible quantity. Denmark has a negligible quantity. Italy has no troops in N.A.T.O.; eight divisions are "assigned" to N.A.T.O.
  1038
  Then let us take the United States of America. Here we expect a formidable representation. What do we have? I am not complaining about the United States and its contribution to Europe. It has four divisions, one of which is mechanised, and one armoured brigade. Whether those units are up to full strength, I am unable to say.
  What about the rest? Germany has ten divisions. In all, taking the whole of the N.A.T.O. countries, excluding Greece and Turkey, because I do not regard them as being in a practical sense associated with N.A.T.O.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Certainly Greece could hardly be regarded as being in a practical sense associated with N.A.T.O. However, whether that be so or not, as regards the others it is not more than 20 divisions.
  Let us now look at East Germany. What about her formidable forces—20 divisions, and ten tank divisions in those 20? What about the Soviet Union? She has 140 divisions with 24 divisions in Europe, and, according to the Institute of Strategic Studies—no doubt it has investigated this matter in the most practical fashion—the Soviet Union forces could build up within a month to 70 divisions in Europe.
  Let us look at the situation.
  Sir George Sinclair rose—
  Mr. Shinwell: Suppose a conflict occurred. It could occur in this or that way. Suppose it occurred and there was a confrontation—
  Sir G. Sinclair: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shinwell: I am developing my argument and do not want it to be interrupted. I shall lose the thread and hon. Members will not have the benefit of it. Already I have almost lost the thread, but it will come back.
  I am putting the point of a possible confrontation in the future—this is essential to the argument—from whatever cause it may arise. It may last a couple of hours, two days, perhaps a week or two weeks, and eventually tactical nuclear weapons are used and ultimately we are engaged in a nuclear war.
  I am not going to argue about the merits or demerits of a possible solution of that kind. I ask myself the question,

  1039
  and I venture to ask hon. Members on both sides of the House the same question: are we going to solve this problem by increasing our forces, making an increased contribution in men and equipment, and asking the Alliance to act similarly and the United States to remain in Europe for many years to come? Are we going to solve the problem in that fashion? Or to negotiate with the Warsaw Pact in the hope that it will reduce its forces and we axe proportionately?
  Sir G. Sinclair: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shinwell: No. I will not give way and that is the end of that.
  This problem cannot be solved, indeed, there cannot be an approach to a solution, except by diplomatic means. I am going to make a proposition to the House because of what I have just said. What is the cause of the festering sore which exists in Europe and has existed since the last war? There are two causes. One, the reluctance of the Federal Government of Germany to make a firm and unequivocal declaration that she will renounce any claim to the lost territories. That is the first proposition. The second is that West Germany should recognise the facts of life and recognise East Germany. It exists, whether we like it or not.
  If that problem could be solved, if, first of all, it was understood in Europe that there was no danger of war arising out of the ambitions and aspirations of Governments in West Germany, and secondly, that there existed an approach —I will rate it no higher than that—to unification in Germany, if that proposition could be consummated, we should then be able to talk in practical fashion about disarmament and disengagement in Europe, but there is no use at all expecting any change in the situation merely by increasing forces on one side or the other, and this has got to be understood.
  The trouble in Europe is the fault of statesmanship, the fault of the diplomats, and the intransigence of elements in West Germany. I do not deny for a single moment the ambitions of Soviet Russia. Incidentally, let us just look at what has happened in the Mediterranean—our parish; as it has been, almost, for centuries—our parish: now with a superabundance of Soviet naval vessels with
  1040
  an infinite variety of missiles potentially of devastating character. This is what we are facing now. I want to say to hon. Members, and it has got to be said with the utmost emphasis and deliberation, that the problem cannot be solved except by diplomatic means, and we must address ourselves to that.
  I do not want to suggest that our troops are not well-trained, are not well-equipped, are not a formidable force, but—and I regret to have to say this, and nobody could possibly regret it more than myself because of my past association with the defence Forces of this country, which was perhaps the happiest time I had in my political life, working alongside the most friendly characters I ever met—but if trouble occurred, our troops might be liquidated in a couple of weeks. I do not want to see that happen.
  My right hon. Friend, when he talked about savings and reduced expenditure— I was delighted to hear it—made what was almost a boast—he will forgive me for using that expression, but so it appeared to me to be—because he talked about the succession of Polaris submarines capable of devastation if ever they were used, but regardless of retaliation. That is not the way to solve the problem. I have taken part in every one of the defence debates we have had in this House since the last war; I have taken part in them from the back benches, sometimes from the Front Bench, but more often than not from the back benches; and over and over again we have discussed what I regard as the trivialities associated with defence without regard to the goal we are seeking.
  Finally I want to say this to my right hon. Friend. The number of troops, which he said, may not matter a great deal, that may not be fundamental in a matter of this sort because, after all, if we have fewer troops they may be better trained than large bodies of troops, and therefore their capability is more pronounced. I accept that, but those of us who are concerned about defence are getting a bit worried about the number of ground troops at the Government's disposal. There seems to be a reluctance to link up with the Services. This has nothing to do with lowered morale. It is possibly because there is more affluence in the country, strange as it may seem, than

  1041
  in the past, and young men are not disposed to join the Services. I do not blame them altogether for that, but that enhances the need for reserve forces of some kind or another, and I think there should be.
  I repeat what I have said on many occasions in these debates. There is a difference of opinion among my hon. Friends on this subject of defence. There are some of them who want to abolish defence altogether; some want to reduce it to negligible proportions, so that it is of no value at all. I believe that, because of the failure of the diplomats and the statesmen, we have got to have defence. It is the only means of security. It appears to be our only means of security. What else is there for us?
  We have got to make our contribution to defence in one form or another, but if so it must be effective and efficient, well-trained and well-equipped, even if it costs money, and it is bound to cost money. I can understand the desire and the idealism of many of my hon. Friends who want to cut down expenditure in the hope that the savings can be used for more housing, better roads, more hospitals, and the like. I do not believe that that is the only approach to the solution of our social problems. Money must be found in a direct or an indirect fashion from the people of this country, but unless we can solve the problem in the manner I have ventured to indicate —and I should like to have an answer to that before the end of the debate—then we have got to have a measure of defence.
  Therefore, I am going to vote for the Government tonight and not vote in the sense of the Amendment, because much as I dislike N.A.T.O., much as I feel that N.A.T.O. is not fully qualified to face up to the capabilities of a potential aggressor, we have got to rely on something, and N.A.T.O. is for the moment our only hope.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Much of the argument in that very vigorously delivered speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) seemed to me, and I think to the House, to point to the opposite conclusion to that to which it came. It would have seemed that it should lead the right hon. Gentleman literally into another lobby. Much of what he said, too if he
  1042
  will not mind my saying so, was perhaps more pertinent to a foreign affairs debate.
  But I wish to take the right hon. Gentleman up on the argument with which he began, namely, that a subsequent Conservative Government could not, and I think he suggested should not, return to the Far and Middle East. That was a remarkable proposition coming from a right hon. Gentleman who has seen so many changes in his very long and variegated political life. But surely he must accept that if a Government does something which, in the Opposition's view, is dangerously wrong and damaging to the interests of this country, that Opposition, when they obtain the support of their fellow countrymen, not only can, but, if it is physically possible, must reverse that policy. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has seen that happen again and again over steel nationalisation and a score of issues.
  Therefore, when it is clear that there will be a Conservative Government long before the withdrawal from the Far and Middle East has been completed, surely those who differ profoundly from the Government on this issue are entitled to say, and must say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said so well, that this is a policy harmful to this country which we shall reverse at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Easington will realise that this is the only possible attitude for an Opposition to adopt.
  I come to the statement. It is a miserable document, evoking the sour smell of withdrawal, defeat, abandoned allies, the last parades of disbanded units— another stage on the long retreat from greatness for which the Government have been responsible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet said, this is the fourth Defence Review in 18 months. Does not the Minister of Defence for Administration understand the effect on forces of being subjected, four times in 18 months, to the disruption of a review, with cuts added each time. Every time they are told the cuts will be the last. Every time another series of cuts is proposed until it is clear in every barrack room and on every mess deck that there is nothing that the Secretary of State for Defence will not

  1043
  surrender if his colleagues push him hard enough—except, of course, the seals of office.
  If the Minister wants an explanation of the falling off in recruiting to which he devoted a considerable part of his speech, he has not far to look. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that the greatest danger to recruiting is the creation in the minds of people in civil life of the idea that there is not a good career or good life to be had in the forces. Is it altogether surprising that forces which have undergone this process four times in 18 months should be creating the impression in the minds of young men that this might not be as good a career as it was?
  Surely it is not for the Minister just to bemoan the fact that he has presided over a dangerous falling off in recruitment. It is for him to recognise the cause so that he can remedy it. It is for him to make clear that it would be nonsense to say that there was a good career to be had in the forces, if he goes on stage by stage, whenever financial crises caused by the incompetence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer hit this country, to take a further hack at the Defence Forces. It is this which is undermining the enthusiasm for recruiting, the desire to serve and the eagerness of young men to join the Armed Forces.
  In the course of his very smug and complacent speech, the Secretary of State —and I am sorry that he is no longer present—showed not a flicker of recognition of the real reason for the falling off in recruiting.
  I was disappointed very much that the right hon. Gentleman and the White Paper did nothing to meet the hopes which the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) raised in the January debate about our power to come to the help of our allies in the Far and Middle East after the withdrawal under the Government's plans from our bases there. Let me recall what the right hon. Member for Belper, who was then Foreign Secretary and who wound up for the Government said:
  "The point arose when the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was speaking. He raised a question in which he is deeply interested, as I am. He
  1044
  raised the question of Australia and New Zealand, who have come to our help twice in my lifetime, and come a long way to do it, and suffered a lot of casualties. We will have, as they had, a general capability. The fact that it is based here, and not based over there, will not make it any the less available should we, as they did, judge it right to go to their help." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 2078.]
  How can one reconcile the hopes which were then raised in my mind and perhaps in the minds of many people in Australia and New Zealand with the shabby words in paragraph 69 of the Statement on Defence:
  "Thus, although the Government has decided to retain no special capability for major operations overseas …"
  I ask the Minister of Defence for Administration why the Government have gone back on what the right hon. Member for Belper said—and he would not have said it if he did not sincerely mean and feel it; the right hon. Gentleman may have many faults, but he does not lack sincerity—and why there is to be no special capability for this special operation overseas.
  It is useless to suggest, as the White Paper suggests, that a general capability based on Europe can effectively enable us to intervene to help our friends. Would the Minister of Defence for Administration tell me how long after the withdrawal from our bases in the Far East it would take the Government from Day 1 to get to the assistance of Australia and New Zealand a force roughly equivalent to the forces there now?
  The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): We have not any forces in Australia and New Zealand at the moment, so it would take a bit longer. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted one passage from the White Paper. It is said in paragraph 11 on page 24 that it was agreed and stated in the communiqué issued in Kuala Lumpur that
  "There should be a major"
  reinforcement
  "exercise in 1970…".
  I suggest that that will show exactly what our capability is.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to wait until 1970 to discover what the capability

  1045
  which the right hon. Member for Belper promised last January will be? Is that intended as a serious answer—that the right hon. Gentleman does not know, will not know next year and will not know until 1970 what the answer will be?
  Mr. Reynolds: I said that that would show the right hon. Gentleman what the capability is. I am aware of it.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman knows the answer now, although apparently hon. Members, in their responsibilities, will be kept in ignorance on this matter for two years, perhaps he will tell the House what it is? If he does not know it, as I suspect, his intervention was pointless and, in accordance with his justifiable sotto voce comment, "I give up". It would have been better if he had given up to begin with. What the right hon. Gentleman thinks is funny is regarded by many of us, and not only hon. Members on our side of the House, as a matter of great seriousness.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that we have treaty obligations to various countries of the Far East. I have strong feelings about them. I have even stronger feelings about our moral obligations to our Commonwealth friends in that part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he was being rather silly when he referred to having no troops in Australia and New Zealand. No doubt even the right hon. Gentleman knows that the main defence position at the moment for Australia and New Zealand is in Malaysia, which is why the Australians themselves have troops there.
  The question I repeat to him is this. To get back to the Far East anything like the force that is now there after we have withdrawn from these bases, how long will it take? How will he do it? How will he get the heavy equipment there? How long will the whole operation take? Is he even sure that he will have refuelling facilities at Simonstown after his colleagues' treatment of the South African Government? The right hon. Gentleman cannot write off as if it did not matter a thing which, to his credit, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper assumed would matter a great deal.
  1046
  While I am speaking of the Far East I would say how strongly I protest at the decision more than to halve the existing strength of the Brigade of Gurkhas. These are splendid troops. They are the result of a long tradition, the result of a long-standing agreement between Nepal and this country. The proposition is to run them down to some 6,000. How many battalions will that be, and what possibility will there be of increasing that number once this at present powerful force is run down to that size?
  Why is this being done? We were told by the Secretary of State that it was being done for reasons of finance. What saving does the right hon. Gentleman think will be obtained in the next year or two? Presumably the next year or two are what matters if the right hon. Gentleman believes that the financial policies of the Government will restore our economy. Will there be any saving at all in the next year or two when cancellation charges have been paid, when redundancy payments and pensions have been paid and when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) so effectively intervened to point out, we have over a five-year period paid £50 million to Singapore and £25 million to Malaysia to compensate them for the financial effects on their economy of the withdrawal of our forces. If this is to be done for financial reasons and not to placate hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, let us have the figure. Let us hear what the savings will be not in the seventies but in the next year or two. If the right hon. Gentleman has confidence in his Government's financial policies, it is the next year or two that will be decisively important for our economy.
  I do not share the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman for pulling out of the Far East and putting all that we have into Europe. Of course we must play our part in Europe. We must play a part, as the British Army of the Rhine, magnificently equipped, does in Europe. Let me quote some words to the Minister of Defence for Administration:
  "and we believe that, if by making a marginal increase in our defence expenditure we can help to preserve world peace, to prevent the clash of rival ideologies, the clash of great Powers in certain parts of the world, it is worth making this expenditure. We have taken a long, cold look at this. We have

  1047
  spent 16 months in doing it, and we have come to the conclusion that there is a worthwhile job which we can do outside Europe in the seventies with our military forces, and that we intend to do".
  The Minister of Defence for Administration will recognise the accents of his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Defence on the television just over two years ago, I accept that view, and I think most of our friends in Europe accept the view that this country, with its special knowledge of the Far East and the Middle East, with its special contacts there, its training and experience, can play a great part not only for itself, not only for its friends in the Far East and the Middle East, but for its friends in Europe in a rôle for which we have a specialised capacity. I believe that our friends in Europe understand this. They do not take the narrow view that the only front on which Communism has to be contained lies, as the right hon. Gentleman says, between the Arctic sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. Most people who have thought about this know that this front is world-wide.
  I make one final protest against the way in which these economies, if they have to be achieved, are being achieved. The Secretary of State has adopted the approach of a dentist. He is taking out the teeth and leaving the tail. It is the fighting units that are to go, the aircraft carriers, the battalions, the fighter bomber aircraft. And I must declare an interest— I had the honour to serve in that regiment—the decision to disband the Second Battalion of the Scots Guards is one of the most unhappy of all the decisions. As a Motion on the Order Paper says, I do not believe, in the dangerous world of today, that it is either wise or sensible to disband these and other units which are the result of the work, devotion and skill of those who built them up and those who recruited for them over the years. This is a disastrous and unhappy decision which the Government one day may have the good sense to regret.
  It is the fighting units that go. What do the Government do about the tail? In the January debate I ventured to remind them that the British Army of the Rhine had an army headquarters, corps headquarters, three divisional headquarters and five or six brigade headquarters to command 50,000 men. And
  1048
  this in an age when headquarters do not consist of just a few staff officers and a clerk or two but are large formations with transport, signals, supporting arms and units. Why is it that these no doubt admirable and important headquarters are preserved and it is the fighting units that go?
  Why is the much-diminished Navy of today thought to require virtually the same number of major dockyards as was required by the great Navy with which we went into the war in 1939? If there are to be economies and reductions— and no one in this House would believe me as an ex-Treasury Minister if I said that I did not believe that there are often many economies to be achieved on defence—surely it is better sense to make economies in services and activities which, however useful they may be, are not directly part of the fighting capacity of the country, rather than to destroy units which it may take years to restore and which are part of our very slender operational forces in the dangerous world of today.
  The Government very much misjudge the world today, and they also very much misjudge the mood of the people. Much of the frustration in the country is not unconnected with a feeling of impatience at the increasing weakness of this country, the fact that Britain can only make representations, and that it seems to cynical foreigners that much of the power and strength have departed from us.
  It is the first duty of a Government to provide for the defence of the realm. I know it is infinitely difficult, because there is no precise figure which one can say must be achieved and, if one falls below it, one is wrong. It is a matter of infinitely difficult judgment. But I believe that public opinion is anxious about our weakness. It is instinctively felt, as the Secretary of State admitted earlier this year, that we are taking risks in a world in which risks are of particular sharpness. I believe that the Government are, for the sake of immediately paltry savings, if any, and perhaps by taking steps which involve increased expenditures, and by their air of constant interference and fiddling with our forces, taking action which cannot but undermine their attractiveness and morale. They are making a grave mistake.

  1049
  Turning once again to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington, I am sure that this is a mistake which the next Conservative Government, when it comes—and it will come speedily— will make haste to reverse.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Newens: I have listened with great interest to the speeches from both Front Benches. Most of the arguments were concerned with the Government's decision to end the bulk of our commitments to maintain forces east of Suez. I want to say from the outset that I welcome the decision. My only regret is that it was not taken much earlier.
  A number of my hon. Friends and I have argued for these cuts over many years. Many of our economic problems could have been alleviated had the cuts been made when they were first advocated from this side of the House. However, belated as the decision is, I believe that it is the right one and deserves the full support of the House.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are living in an age which is fast passing. In fact, I believe that it is long past. It is all very well to pretend that Britain's commitments east of Suez and elsewhere are proof of our world power position—Britain's great power status as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Car-penter) suggested in the early part of his speech. But our commitments east of Suez have meant, firstly, dependence on the United States of America as the senior partner in the alliance system and, therefore, a subservient foreign policy; and, secondly, an enormous economic burden which has been a basic cause of the troubles and difficulties that we have experienced over a number of years.
  It is only right that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should have the honesty to say that the maintenance of forces east of Suez or their return at some later stage would impose a crippling blow on this country's economy. They have the duty to explain how they would pay for this policy. It would involve a vastly increased public expenditure abroad and, at a time when they are only too happy to talk of cuts in public expediture at home, they must face up to the fact that the policy which they advocate today would place a crushing burden on the living standards of our people. Right hon. and
  1050
  hon. Gentlemen opposite should make their position very clear and tell the country how they would propose to pay for the maintenance of these commitments.
  While I praise my right hon. Friend for the decision to withdraw from east of Suez, I deplore the counterpart which is to make a larger military contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is totally mistaken. It will not be a contribution to adétente or to world peace, and it will continue to impose a considerable burden on the British economy which we shall live to regret.
  I know that it may be argued that those of us who have pressed for withdrawal from east of Suez should be satisfied with the progress that has been made. I have said already that I rejoice in the fact that agreement has been reached that the commitments east of Suez are not worth a candle. But I remember the time when some of my right hon. and hon. Friends were not as convinced as they are today about the wisdom of this course of action. I look forward to the time when it is recognised that what some of us are saying today about our commitments in Europe is just as correct as what we said yesterday about our commitments east of Suez.
  I recognise that the foreign policy pursued by both major parties in the country is based upon an acceptance of N.A.T.O. and the sister alliances, and this has involved what might be regarded as a division of labour between the United States of America, ourselves and other Powers to maintain the status quo in large parts of the world.
  In a previous debate on 28th February of last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said:
  "…our aim is to produce a situation in which the local Powers can reach agreement on a framework of stability for themselves without the presence of external forces."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 396.]
  The same philosophy is expressed in the White Paper. It was expressed by my right hon. Friend today, just as it was expressed by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home) when the matter was discussed last Thursday, and it was expressed again today by the right hon.

  1051
  Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) when he talked about stability. The principle remains the same, that of stability for the existing social system throughout the world, and I want to challenge this very concept.
  If the increased contribution by Britain to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is to enable the United States of America to lessen its European commitments and concentrate elsewhere, I believe that our policy is wrong, and I wish to assail the principle of the alliance systems. As the right hon. Member for Barnet said following an intervention of mine today, it is a principle which involves an attitude among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite which is tantamount to acceptance of the Warsaw Pact.
  I do not believe that the alliance systems constitute a factor for world peace. Many of the crises of the post-war era have occurred when economic, social and political changes in a small country have threatened to lead to that country shaking off the political domination of one of the major alliances—in other words, leading to the country concerned leaving one of the great camps. It was so in the case of Hungary. It was so in the case of Cuba. It is so in the case of Vietnam, and it is certainly so today in the case of Czechoslovakia.
  In my view, my right hon. Friend was quite wrong when he said that it was very lax of us to introduce into this debate the question of getting rid of N.A.T.O., at a time when the Czech crisis is in full swing. I believe that the Czech assertion of independence is regarded as dangerous by the East European Powers precisely because of and in proportion to the strength of N.A.T.O. The danger of United States domination leading to a United States takeover of Czechoslovakia is the principal argument being used against the liberalisers of Czechoslovakia.
  It is time to recognise that the division of the world into alliances and the attempt of those alliances to veto social and political change is not only an affront to the principles of national self-determination but a major threat to world peace.
  Writing in The Christian Science Monitor this week and discussing recent
  1052
  changes of American foreign policy, including Dean Rusk's attitude, Mr. Joseph C. Harsch has this to say:
  "In the new American foreign policy there is going to be a new respect for the 'spheres of influence' of the Soviet Union. The converse is of course valid. Washington will expect from Moscow an equal respect for the American 'sphere of influence'. This applies to Cuba. The return Washington will expect for keeping strictly aloof from whatever happens between the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia will be a decisive, if gradual, Soviet disengagement from Cuba."
  What a disgrace this state of affairs is. What right have the groups which dominate these great powers to seek to bully small powers and prevent them from exercising the right to determine their own affairs often democratically expressed by their own people?
  In my opinion, the aim of British foreign policy should be to wind up the alliances and not to strengthen and prolong them. We should recognise that the days when Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin could carve out spheres of influence between them are gone. The younger generation throughout the world will not accept it. We should recognise that we have now reached the end of the postwar era, which was characterised by the division of the world into rival blocs, one led by the United States and the other by the Soviet Union, when there was a rivalry known as the cold war, with enormous pressures placed on every independent country to go into one sphere of influence or the other. The dominance of the United States and Russia is being rapidly undermined despite their enormous military power, despite the web of alliances, despite frantic pleas that these alliances are still indispensable.
  The signs of this break-up began perhaps in the 1940s with the break-away of Yugoslavia, but it developed more in the 1950s with the assertion of Chinese independence of Russia and of the assertion of independence of the United States by Gaullist France. It cannot be denied that social, political and economic changes will go on just as long as poverty exists in so many parts of the world. Political revolution will therefore proceed representing a constant challenge to the status quo sought by the dominant world powers.
  We should recognise the right of small countries to self-determination and social

  1053
  change. It is totally wrong that we should denounce whatever changes take place in South-East Asia or elsewhere as aggression because it is not true to say that these changes are caused as a result of subversion organised from outside. They arise from the awakening of the people of these countries and their desire for better living standards, freedom and all the other things which we desire for ourselves.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: I applaud my hon. Friend's desire to allow us all self-determination, but does not he accept that this is primarily our own concern in the sense that events in Czechoslovakia indicate more than ever the need for a Western Alliance to ensure that we are not subjected to the same sort of pressures that she is being subjected to?
  Mr. Newens: Clearly my hon. Friend has not followed my argument. I think that the converse is true and that, if the N.A.T.O. Alliance were as solid as it was in the early 1950s, the liability and possibility that Russia might intervene with force as it did in Hungary would be that much greater.
  Captain Walter Elliot: Is the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument that the threat by Russia to the Czechoslovakian Government is similar to a threat by the United States Government to the Labour Government of Great Britain?
  Mr. Newens: I would not suggest that for a moment, but it is not as bad as the threat by the United States Government to self-determination in Vietnam. Perhaps that enlightens the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this point. But I deplore the attitude of Russia in this case. It is totally wrong and I am wholeheartedly in favour of the Czechs being allowed, like any other small country—whether it be Vietnam or the Dominican Republic—to determine their own affairs irrespective of outside bullying.
  The argument has been put that in weakening alliances we will encourage aggression on the other side. In my opinion, this is not so. The encouragement given by weakening N.A.T.O. would be to the more independently minded people on the other side, because the menace of the other side always constitutes the best argument for increasing armaments. The converse is equally true.
  1054
  In my view—and I am no admirer of Gaullist France in many respects—President de Gaulle's independence in foreign policy has done more to encourage the independence shown in the Warsaw Pact countries than British loyalty to N.A.T.O. The argument that Britain needs to be inside N.A.T.O. in order to influence it for peace is totally unacceptable. We have heard that argument on many occasions but I do not believe that the value of influence on the inside has been proved in relation to Nigeria, Vietnam, Greece and other nations. Our influence outside the alliance would have much greater weight.
  When my right hon. Friend talks about the attitude of West Germany, let him not neglect the fact that the attitude of the German youth is different in many respects from that of the older generation. It would be quite wrong to assume that there is something congenitally militaristic about the Germans because we might find that when the younger generation of Germans comes of age Germany will adopt a very different attitude. There is already the promise of that happening.
  Therefore, this is time for this country to make a basic change of policy which will not be provided by the strengthening of N.A.T.O. I would prefer to see both the Warsaw Pact and N.A.T.O. wound up by agreement. I would prefer to see mutual force reductions and a political settlement in Europe. I would prefer to see us take Mr. Kosygin at his word as he expressed himself in this country in 1967 and see whether we cannot run down these two alliances and eventually wind them up completely.
  Speaking for myself, I would be happy to see us taking steps unilaterally to withdraw from N.A.T.O. if such agreement cannot be achieved. But I am not one of those referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who are not in favour of any army at all. I believe that we should have a strong conventional army but that should not involve an army that would enable us to have troops stationed in many different countries.
  There is therefore room for further reduction. I am in favour of using the research which has been undertaken, wherever possible, for peaceful industrial purposes. There is the Explosives Research and Development Establishment

  1055
  in my constituency, which I have visited. It has done a great deal of useful work which could be applied to peaceful industry. Similarly I am in favour of planning to provide alternative work for those affected by the closure of military establishments.
  Having said that, I still believe it to be vital for economic reasons that we should further reduce military expenditure, at least to the level of comparable West European countries. I would not say that that is the ultimate level, either. I regret very much that we still have the Polaris submarines. It is totally wrong, and there is considerable room for us to make further economies in expenditure on armaments without in any way undermining our real strength.
  I do not argue these views merely for economic reasons. We should also cut military expenditure as part of a basic policy in order to make our maximum contribution to human welfare, not only here but throughout the world. I welcome the withdrawal from east of Suez in this light, as well as for the economic relief it gives at home. It will enable people in the area to settle their own problems.
  At a time when two-thirds of the world's population does not have enough of the right food, when the highly-developed countries spend the equivalent of the total gross national product of the developing areas on arms, at a time when the population of the world is doubling at intervals of 35 years, it seems to me that this vast expenditure on armaments is crass folly.
  In 1962 the United Nations published its "Economic and Social Consequences of Disarmament". Page 3 said:
  "… the world is spending roughly 120 billion dollars annually on military account at the present time. This figure is equivalent to about 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. of the world's annual output of all goods and services; it is at least two-thirds of—and according to some estimates may be of the same order of magnitude as—the entirely national income of all the under-developed countries."
  The total expenditure on armaments has increased since then. We live in a revolutionary age where changes take place very rapidly. We can no longer afford to hang on to the sort of policies which are nostalgically preached, even now, from
  1056
  the other side of the House. They are obsolete and out of date.
  In the latter stage of another post-war era—the Napoleonic war—a famous British Foreign Secretary, George Canning, spoke of calling the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old, when he recognised the new revolutionary régimes of Latin America in his day.
  Today the third world is coming into existence to redress the balance of the old and the new world together—the balance as constituted by the United States and the U.S.S.R. The British commitment to conservative forces of the world is totally wrong. We should be marching on the side of the peoples of the world, and on this issue Tory criticism does not worry me at all. When I see the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) shake his head, as though in self-disgust, I feel encouraged that I have managed to incur his displeasure on this issue. It seems to me that the policy put forward by the party opposite will lead to very great dangers for the human race. What we have to do is to pursue the policies which we have now embarked upon, of withdrawing from our overseas military commitments.
  In this respect the White Paper goes some way and I welcome that. At the same time, I deplore the fact that while we are doing that in one part of the world, we are stepping up commitments elsewhere. In all humility I very much regret that the Amendment was not called, because it would have given some of us on this side of the House the opportunity of expressing a point of view in which we really believe, whereas we are faced with voting for or against this White Paper, and it is very difficult for us to make up our minds.
  Part of it represents an advance, while we consider that the other part is in need of change. It would have been much better had we had the opportunity of voting on the Amendment. I hope that I have made my point of view clear; it is one about which I and other hon. Members on this side of the House feel very strongly. We believe that reductions in arms expenditure have not yet gone far enough, and we shall continue to struggle, argue and campaign for further reductions not only in the interest of the people

  1057
  of this country, but in the interests of world peace and of all those things for which all hon. Members claim to stand.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If I may initially bring the House back to the Supplementary Statement, the Blue Paper before us adds very little indeed by way of detail to the acceleration announced in January of the major reductions in our armed forces which were promulgated a year ago in, I think it was, the Red Paper, the Supplementary Statement of 1967.
  Not only do we have very little additional detail as to those sharp and rapid reductions but we are certainly given no explanation or justification of them. It is less than four years since the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State entered upon his office with the determination, perhaps for the first time, to think through, from first principles, the requirements of Britain's defence and to reconstruct her defence policy and defence forces upon a rational basis.
  Today he must look back with some bitterness on his initial hopes and expectations, when he surveys the result—a budgetary figure for 1973, converted into terms of crude manpower totals for the three Services, unsupported as yet, as this Supplementary Statement admits, by any conception that can be presented to the House of the nature of the forces which those manpower totals represent, or the reasons for the size and composition selected. Between this result and his early beginning there lies a desert of continual, sudden changes of plan and policy so frequent as to be described not as vacillations but almost as vibrations, changes of plan which he himself has candidly admitted to have been the cause of loss of morale and loss of confidence on the part of the Services and which he himself today said were at the root of our recruiting difficulties.
  Another product of the Government's obsession—which they impose on the right hon. Gentleman—with a budgetary figure at a distance of years ahead has already been mentioned in the debate. The House knows, I think, that I regard this country's withdrawal from the Continent of Asia as inevitable in the course of things. Indeed, I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that
  1058
  at times I have been tempted to express that belief perhaps prematurely, perhaps too clearly. But nothing can condone the way in which our relations with our friends and allies have been conducted in these last two or three years and the devastation which has resulted from this preoccupation of the Government with a distant budgetary total: treaties denounced before we had begun to renegotiate them, dates specified years— three, five, sometimes eight years—ahead for total withdrawal in circumstances which could not possibly be foreseen, and all this in order to provide a paper justification for a predetermined figure which had been forced upon the right hon. Gentleman.
  There is a wicked little word early on in this Statement. After mentioning the withdrawal and the new date of the withdrawal, paragraph 2 goes on:
  "The total number of men now in the forces would consequently be reduced by some 20 per cent…"
  There is no "consequently" about it. The reduction of our forces by 20 per cent., or 10 per cent., or 50 per cent., does not follow "consequently", as the Government pretend, from their actions or their announcements of these last 12 months.
  The forces which a nation such as ours requires are not a totting up of garrisons in different parts of the world. They are not to be deduced by poring over the terms of treaties and compiling a list of items entered against each commitment. If the United States only five years ago had worked on these principles, what would it have put in for its commitment to Vietnam? Fifty military advisers perhaps; and now it has half a million men there. Why, not even from our central commitment, from our essential treaty, our membership of the North Atlantic Alliance, could we deduce what ought to be the size and nature of the forces of this country.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) reminded the House—I do not think there is any danger of any hon. Member forgetting it—of what might be portended by the events now unrolling in Czechoslovakia, the unforeseeable combinations and recombinations and shifts in the political pattern of Europe which might, when we look back, be seen to have flowed from the

  1059
  events of these weeks. But does anyone suppose that, whatever that refashioning of the political pattern and alliances may be, Britain's basic, inherent, fundamental commitment to the security and defence of Western Europe could thereby be altered?
  The forces of a country such as ours in time of peace must be those from which we can have a reasonable assurance of raising what we should need in war. From them we must be able to build up, both before the war and as the war proceeds, whatever would be necessary for us to fight to survive, and to fight to win, in that type of emergency which offered the greatest danger to our existence.
  I used the words, "as war proceeds". There, of course, lies one of the great debates of defence policy—in this country and, I suppose, in all countries. For 20 years, most of the major nations have, at any rate officially, been benumbed by what I have called the "nuclear hypothesis", the professed belief that either war on a major scale would not come at all, or, if it came, it would almost instantaneously be terminated again by the holocaust of the nuclear exchange.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as, I am sure, do many in the House, that the rational doubts, the common sense doubts, about the ten-ability of this whole notion which have long been held in many quarters are now coming to expression. It might be said that common sense, like spring, is "bustin' out all over". The right hon. Gentleman was less than happy this afternoon in his response to the challenge put to him by my right hon. Friend, who pointed out that the latest official statement of the American Administration, our principal Ally, to Congress was based upon the proposition that "the threat of an incredible action is not an effective deterrent".
  The right hon. Gentleman talks about an interval not of two days, but perhaps of five days, a few more days, a few more hours, before the statesmen of the various countries would take the resolve to commit mutual suicide. Does he believe that that decision would be more likely to be taken after five days than after two? If he believes that, he believes
  1060
  what an increasing number of people in all countries can no longer believe. In short, we dare not in all reason neglect that danger which is the greatest with which we can be faced, namely, of having to fight a major war for our survival and having to fight it through without recourse to suicide.
  There are two great factors which connect the forces of a country in peace with the forces which it would need to have before war, at the outbreak of war and as war proceeds. One is the strength of its standing forces and the other the strength of its reserves. Obviously, these are complementary, since, within limits, the larger the reserves, the smaller need the standing forces be.
  I recognise that the relationship of these two factors is different for the three Services. The ratio of the material to the human in the Navy and the Air Force is different from what it is in the Army; and where the material factor is greater, rate and capacity of production play a greater part in the all-important equation. But the central fact is that we need to have, by way of reserve, whether reserve of capacity, reserve of trained manpower, or reserve of cadres, the means of raising our standing forces to the level which we believe to be the minimum necessary if and when we were faced with the supreme emergency.
  Of all the blunders which this Government have committed, the one for which I believe they will least be forgiven is the destruction of the citizen volunteer reserve of this country. The right hon. Gentleman is fond of talking about cost-effectiveness. The Government have thereby sought to destroy the best value for money in terms of defence which this country could possibly have. For what it is worth, I welcome the evidence that, even upon this Government, the necessity of thinking again about the complete destruction of the general-purpose volunteer reserve has been forced. I take some personal pride in remembering that it fell to me to give the undertaking, on behalf of the Conservative Party, that we will restore or will recreate a genuine citizen volunteer reserve in this country.
  However, it is, above all, the standing forces which supply the means of providing the forces that would be necessary

  1061
  in war. The resources of training, of knowledge, of philosophy, the cadres upon which larger forces would be raised, are what the standing forces are there to provide
  We have been told that these standing forces, taken as a whole, are to be cut, over a period of five to six years, by no less than a quarter. That is what we are debating—that announcement— in the previous year's White Paper, as accelerated by this White Paper.
  In the Royal Air Force, in terms of manpower, the reduction is to be no less than 36 per cent. in six years. That is a terrific and utterly unexplained and unjustified reduction in the Royal Air Force, one to which no third dimension has been given by any indication of the nature and functions of the sort of air forces to which that reduced strength would correspond.
  Nevertheless, interest has rightly tended to centre upon the reduction of the Army. When public interest has been attracted by the amalgamation or disbandment of battalions, when emotion has been raised by the disbandment of a celebrated regiment, I do not think this is mere sentimentality, the public eye being caught by something superficial. On the contrary—this has already been suggested—I believe that there is here a deep instinct on the part of the people about the central importance of the regular Army. If we should ever need to produce the forces requisite for a war for our existence, above all it would be the Army which would need to expand again as we have known it expand in two wars in our own lifetime. The Army is the embryo of the nation in arms. The Army is the essential symbol of the will of the people to fight. That is why, rightly, the nation has felt that the unexplained and unjustified reduction of the fighting units of the Army by one quarter was a blow to the safety and to the future of this country.
  The right hon. Gentlaman can get up and say: "Very well. I have proposed 46 battalions—at the moment, that is; I may come back a year or two later, as usual and reduce it again. However at the moment I am contemplating an army of 46 battalions in 1973. How many battalions do the Opposition think we should have?" The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), in a debate
  1062
  a year ago when I prophesied that one day we would mourn the lost battalions, said that this was not the first of the reductions in size which the British Army had undergone.
  Those are easy interjections, easy questions to pose. But they miss the essence of the matter. Of course, no one can say that this or that intended strength at the outbreak of war, this or that size of reserve, rate of expansion, size of regular forces, no less and no more, is obviously and demonstrably right. All these are matters of judgment, to be responsibly exercised by a Government. There can be no absolute proof or disproof. But because we cannot give a precise answer, because we cannot give an answer which can be mathematically and logically demonstrated, that does not mean that with levity we can dispense with argument altogether and just say: "These are our figures. Pick your own." Until the right hon. Gentleman is able to show the House and the country what strength of forces he has envisaged as being necessary to the defence of this country in time of war—not now, but 10, 20 or 30 years ahead—and from what reserves and from what standing forces to be maintained in peace he envisages that that wartime strength could be produced, he has not started to do his duty. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has not done his duty; for he knows with what intentions, expectations and ambitions he set out less than four years ago, and he knows that he has failed.
  Sooner or later the questions that I have posed must be answered. I hope that when we have the opportunity to answer them it will not be too late.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: It is not often that we have the privilege of listening to three very different speeches in a run as we have had at this time. It was interesting to note that while the Opposition Front Bench were not noticeably enthusiastic about many of the ideas put forward by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), he appeared to command a much greater audience on the Opposition benches than was present when the official spokesman for the Opposition was opening their case— [Interruption.] We can see the Opposition benches better than hon. Gentlemen

  1063
  sitting opposite. The right hon. Gentleman has the ability of drawing in—I do not know whom they represent in the Tory Party—a large audience to hear his views. Once again, we had the use of extravagant language, which was as unfortunate in this subject as the choice of language that the right hon. Gentleman has used in other subjects, which cause his removal from the Opposition Front Bench to the back benches and which many of us hope will eventually take him out through the door as well.
  The two contributions which were most in contrast were those by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens). I could not help thinking that they were good party conference stuff, but I thought that they would both have received rousing cheers from large sections of the conference. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman gave us what could only be described as the pre-war Tory view of imperial defence, as though he had seen and learned nothing in the last 30 years. It was rather in contrast to what his party's spokesman was saying. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that he had a firm assurance that if the Opposition were eventually returned to power they would take us back into the Far and Middle East, but if one listens carefully to what the Front Bench spokesmen opposite say—and once again it came out today—one realises that they so qualify their statements on the Far and Middle East that they mean nothing at all, and it is quite unlikely that even if we had the misfortune of a Tory Government in future they would go back with a military presence into the Far and Middle East.
  My hon. Friend makes the error which so many silly-minded radicals do. He sees the world not as it really is, but as he wishes it was, and from this he makes a number of serious errors. I think that the timing of the Amendment is particularly unfortunate. At a time when the pressure being put on Europe by the major military Power in Europe, the Soviet Union, is so naked and clear to everyone, to suggest that this is the time to wind up alliances, for each to make his separate way in the world,
  1064
  seems ridiculous and fantastic. One wonders whether my hon. Friend, like the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, has learned nothing from the last 30 years.
  I noticed with interest that my hon. Friend quoted with approval the example of France and her breakaway from the Western Alliance. One could set against that her rôle in the Middle East, which I do not think has been constructive—nor for that matter has that of the Soviet Union. Here is an example of the world suffering from the problems which arise from things as they are, not as my hon. Friend sincerely wishes they were, and this has to be faced. To think that we would gain in some way in security by renouncing all our alliances and going on our own along, what he called, with the people—whatever that means—is remarkable. If we were all individual units in the world, the advantage would be with the supreme power. When the arguments came, as they inevitably do between nations, that power would be able to use its military power, or the threat of its military power to impose its will on other nations, as the Soviet Union is doing to try to impose her will on Czechoslovakia.
  Mr. Orme: On the Americans in Vietnam.
  Mr. Howarth: I give that to my hon. Friend. That is another example, but to suggest that this is the time when we can make our own way in the world is flying in the face of all that has happened within the recollection of my hon. Friend and myself.
  I should like to make a short contribution to the debate on the Supplementary Statement. I want to emphasise that, because it was missed in the speech of the Leader of the Oppositon. It is a Supplementary Statement which has to be read with the Defence Statement issued earlier in the year, because it has much more detail and fills in many of the gaps about which we hear complaints from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  It is only a Supplementary Statement, and I think that many hon. Members were possibly expecting too much, but I think that it now takes us into a quite clear defence posture, and one which I welcome warmly. I have long urged that we should withdraw from the quite unrealistic commitment in the Far and

  1065
  Middle East, and that we should concentrate our effort in the European and Mediterranean theatres.
  I believe that this debate is one of a continuing series which can only be described as historic, historic because they represent the final chapters of the winding-up of a world rôle which we once inevitably possessed as a great Empire power, but which has now passed us by. Therefore, especially as I happen to be a keen advocate of our entry into the European Economic Community, I believe that the strengthening of our role in Europe is to be welcomed. It makes political, economic and strategic sense.
  I welcome this policy also because, contrary to what we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others, I believe that within ten years, if not five, the United States will have withdrawn her military presence from Western Europe and will expect us to take care of ourselves in this part of the world, and quite reasonably so. Why should we expect the United States to carry such a heavy burden in the possible defence of Western Europe? This is a hang-over from the days of the Second World War, and I am sure that as time goes on voices will increasingly be raised in the United States in favour of an eventual complete withdrawal from Western Europe.
  The policies outlined in this Supplementary Statement have my support, and, I believe, wide support throughout the country. I say that because, politically, I believe that to show that we have given up these grandiose aspirations to a world rôle must convince the other European nations that we are serious when we talk about entering the European Economic Community. It must help to create the right kind of climate which will assist us with our entry. Secondly, it contributes to the attempts which are being made to re-establish our economic strength based on our new position in the world, and of course lessens the burden upon our economy by reducing a defence expenditure which was quite out of proportion to what was reasonable.
  I must again take issue with my hon. Friends, who, in their Amendment, attempt to suggest that our spending on defence is in some way beyond what is
  1066
  reasonable. I noted with interest my right hon. Friend's claim that we come somewhere between the spending of France—who, by the way, was applauded by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping in the course of his speech— which spends a greater perecentage of her g.n.p. than we do, and that of Western Germany.
  What we have not heard so far, and what I believe is relevant to the debate where the whole idea of N.A.T.O. is being brought into question, is the spending of the Soviet Union on arms. Here is a major world power who, in the last two years, has increased her defence spending very dramatically, and in such a way that the strength of her forces now must be considerably beyond that which existed even when we heard the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
  In Europe there is now a great imbalance in military forces between Eastern Europe and Western Europe. This has great dangers. We have also seen how Russia is using and has used her increased military power to attempt to interfere in the affairs of other countries. The current example is Czechoslovakia. We must not forget her rôle in the Middle East, and the supplies that she has continued—at, if anything, a higher rate—to give to the Arab countries of the Middle East, thereby contributing significantly to the existing dangers in that part of the world.
  This is not the time to talk of reducing our defence effort to quite unrealistic levels. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping did not choose to comment upon the mischievous rôle of the major military power in Europe. I draw the quite opposite conclusion—that it makes all the more relevant our defence arrangements in Western Europe, because if we demand the right of independence for Czechoslovakia how much more do we demand the same right for ourselves if we have to insist on policies which at some future stage may be challenged by the main military power in Europe—the Soviet Union?
  I believe from what we see now that our effort in Europe needs to be strengthened, for the political and strategic reasons that I have tried to outline, and that on that basis our withdrawal

  1067
  from the Far East and Middle East makes sense and is therefore worthy of support, certainly by hon. Members on this side of the House. I hope that we shall have a full vote in the Lobby this evening, illustrating the difference between the policies outlined by the spokesman for the Opposition and the many variants that we have heard on it from the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. What at hotch-potch of ideas we heard from across the Floor of the House. It behoves all my hon. Friends to express themselves clearly in support of the Government on this occasion.
  While my right hon. Friend was explaining our decisions to recast our defence rôle there were the usual scoffs from the Opposition benches. Once again I detected—possibly from a minority on the benches opposite—the old Tory arrogance, the belief that in some way the world cannot get along without us—certainly without our military presence. It was pleasing to hear the right hon. Gentleman challenge the views of many of his hon. Friends on that point. We expected the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to take us back to the days before Indian independence by the time he had finished. His was a speech quite remarkable for 1968, in view of the claims of the Opposition that they have modernised themselves and that their ideas are now in tune with the second half of the 20th century.
  I want to make a few observations on the equipment of our forces. I do this because, as his second question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether we had the forces to match our new commitments, and whether those forces would be given the equipment they would need to enable them to carry out efficiently and adequately those commitments.
  I want first to consider the rôle of the Navy. Once again, I express my concern about the decision to base our surface missile-carrying capability purely on helicopters. I have expressed my concern about this on innumerable occasions at Question Time. I have had the opportunity to see the equipment in the process of building—the Sea King heli-
  1068
  copters. I have had the privilege of seeing most of the equipment that will be going into them and the missiles that they will be carrying.
  There is no doubt that this is a formidable weapons system. I am sure that in many circumstances it will be very effective. It has the great advantage of speed over the patrol boats and larger missile-carrying vessels in the Soviet fleet operating in the Mediterranean. Although I received assurance at Question Time only last week I am particularly concerned as to what will happen in bad weather, and at night. Will these Sea King helicopters, comprehensively equipped as they will be, be able to operate in bad weather—certainly in the sort of weather in which we know surface vessels can still operate throughout the world?
  I shall follow with interest the development of this weapons system and I shall continue with my inquiries. I hope eventually to be assured that with this system we have a missile that will be a match for, if not better than, anything that any potential enemy can put into the waters either around these shores or in the Mediterranean.
  Mr. Wall: The hon. Member mentioned Sea King helicopters. I understand that the only ships carrying those will be the larger ones—the "Tiger" and the new cruisers. Are not the ones that the hon. Member is really referring to the much smaller ones which are carried in frigates?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member is quite right. I am looking at the earlier statement on the Defence Estimates. As I understand it, our present helicopters are smaller than the Sea King. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend whispers to me in a loud voice that they use the same missile. Perhaps my right hon. Friend who is winding up will comment on the matter. I assume that the smaller helicopters do not have the capability to operate down to the weather conditions in which the Sea King helicopters can operate, nor, I suspect, do they have the ability to operate at night.
  I shall continue to express my doubts. I would have thought that the development of a ship missile system would have been a useful insurance. I nearly said

  1069
  that it would be a not very expensive one, but that is probably asking too much. I should have thought that it was one we could afford at the expense of something else. I cannot suggest what that something else could be, but I should like to hear further about this and I hope that my right hon. Friend will comment upon it at the end of the debate.
  As for the Royal Air Force, my concern is at the small order of Harriers. It seems that a very impressive force of Phantoms is coming into operation at present which, as I understand it, will complement the Harriers. Yet there is this great imbalance between numbers, as far as they are known, and one would have hoped that, even at the expense of the Buccaneer order, it might have been possible to increase the number of Harriers so as to have a more balanced force. I should like to hear the views of my right hon. Friend on the extent to which this imbalance will affect the capability of those aircraft to operate together.
  In previous debates I have urged the need for speedy decisions on the advanced combat aircraft. I know that efforts are being made to achieve genuine international collaboration on this project. I am also aware—because of my knowledge of the civil side of aviation—of the great difficulties involved in trying to achieve international collaboration on such a complex project.
  I wish my right hon. Friend well in his efforts. I know that he has put a great deal of work into this. I hope that he will not be disappointed or let down, as he was in the—dare I mention it— Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft of yesteryear. One hopes that when we discuss the next Defence White Paper, it will contain clear indications of what the major re-equipment for the Royal Air Force will be in the mid-1970s onwards in the shape of a strike reconnaissance aircraft.
  My final point concerning the Royal Air Force is the question of heavy transport aircraft. My right hon. Friend will be aware that certainly the Americans and the Russians have developed, and are developing, very heavy aircraft for transporting heavy military equipment. If we are to be able to give assistance, as I hope we will always be prepared to do, to New
  1070
  Zealand, Australia and Canada at relatively short notice, clearly we will need the capability of lifting heavy military equipment. While we have in the VC10, the Belfast and the Hercules modern and first-class aircraft, they do not possess the capabilities of the largest aircraft which the two super-Powers are bringing into service or are developing.
  In connection with the Army, I wish to comment simply on the rôle of helicopters. I am aware of the Anglo-French agreement on the three helicopters, some of which are for the Army and which, from what I have seen of the presentation given by the companies over here, will certainly be first-class equipment for the Army. Unfortunately, however, as we know, the Chinook helicopter was lost in one of the defence reviews and, seemingly, we will not for many years possess a heavy-lift capability in helicopters.
  Once again, I understand that it is necessary or desirable that we should have equipment which is capable of lifting some of the heaviest pieces of Army equipment on the battlefield for repair or recovery. One hopes that in the next Defence Statement, which, I trust, we will be discussing next March, this omission also will be remedied. This is a target among others which my right hon. Friend should set himself.
  There have been many harsh words about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I believe it is true to say that he has held his office longer than most of his predecessors. He has a reputation in the Forces which is first class. It is recognised that he has worked in very difficult circumstances which were not of his own making. Despite this, he has genuinely tried hard to give the Forces the equipment which they needed to make the arrangements which were in the best interests of the defence of this country and its allies and to give those serving in the Forces as good as deal as possible.
  For that, my right hon. Friend deserves credit. I certainly believe that the vast majority of people would reject the sort of charges which are made against him by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. His record is a good one. When the times comes for the history of this period to be written, I believe that the historians will take a much kinder view of his rôle and his achievements for the

  1071
  Forces than has been that of the Opposition.
  I once again urge my hon. Friends, whom I seem to have driven from the Chamber, who are signatories to the Amendment to settle at least for part of the piece of cake and to come with us into the Lobby this evening.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Hamilton: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, and that you should still defend the rights of back benchers. I was here this morning at 10.15 and was about to speak on this self-same subject when through the door came the Patronage Secretary, together with the Leader of the House. I was on my feet but was bludgeoned into silence because the closure was applied. That action this morning by the Patronage Secretary means that my subject has been transferred far more appropriately to this defence debate. I shall not, however, speak for longer than is necessary, because I know of the reaction among others who wish to speak when one talks too long.
  The White Paper states that the Armed Forces offer a stimulating, worth while and enduring career, and certainly that is true, but on occasions things go wrong. Just over a week ago, to an empty Chamber, I told the strange story of an Army officer. Today I wish to lift the veil on the fuller implications of that story. I do so with my apologies to the Minister of Defence for Administration, who was present also on that occasion. I will quickly skim through the bare bones of the story and then move on to its implications. I assure my hon. Friends that this is no hole-in-the-corner constituency story but has far-ranging implications.
  At the beginning of last year the Army published some excellent new redundancy terms. Among the officers who were tempted to apply for retirement from the Army under those terms was a certain Major Blundell. He made application in the spring of last year and by the autumn it was agreed that he should leave the Army at the end of March, 1968.
  At the same time, he thought about his future and he decided to apply for a career in the Diplomatic Service. He was an able and gifted officer. He is happily married with four young children. On
  1072
  1st May, last year, he applied for a career in the Diplomatic Service. Once again, by the autumn he learned that his application had been successful. He succeeded in going through the tests and competitions and he learned that a post in the Diplomatic Service would be offered to him subject to age, health and other matters being satisfactory. Thus his future appeared assured. He was to leave the Army on 31st March this year and move into the Diplomatic Service on 1st April. I stress that point in passing. There was no question of a civilian going into the Foreign Office. Here was a solider who, on the stroke of midnight, was to be changed from a soldier into a diplomatist."Le roi est mort: vive le roi": the principle is the same.
  When all seemed set fair, suddenly the first blow fell. This officer went to the Foreign Office in January, 1968, and was told, "We are sorry but we cannot now accept you after all. We find that 17 years ago you were taken prisoner by the Chinese Communists in Korea. Radcliffe is Radcliffe, and because you were taken prisoner with the Gloucester, Radcliffe recommended that anybody who has been held by the Communists for any length of time must be debarred." It was a very bitter blow.
  When he walked out of the building that day in January, he realised that he had wasted a very long time indeed, from the spring of last year right through to this year. He was almost at the point of leaving the Army in a matter of weeks rather than of months and instead of having a nice career awaiting him and a home to go to, he had neither.
  What did Major Blundell do in such circumstances? He did exactly what any one of us here would have done. He went to his commandnig officer and said, "I am in trouble. I must apply for another few months in the Army to give me time to reorientate myself in the light of this last-minute decision by the Foreign Office". His commanding officer agreed, and brigade headquarters said, "Certainly, yes". The matter was forwarded to the Ministry of Defence. One would have hoped that all would go well.
  I am anxious to keep this recital of the facts to the absolute minimum, but it is an extraordinary story. On the day when he went to the Foreign Office and learned the bad news, the Foreign Office

  1073
  said to him, "Is there any other way in which we can help you?". This reply was "I do not want to be in the Home Civil Service, which has never interested me. I have always soldiered overseas. But if you can help me to get a temporary post with the High Commission in Australia, that would be most helpful ".
  The first I knew of this case was almost at the end of March—22nd March—when into my office in Salisbury walked Major Blundell. He had only one week left in the Army to go. He had had no extension but was waiting anxiously. Moreover, he had heard nothing about Australia. He wanted to know whether I could help him. I took the matter up with the Foreign Secretary to see whether he could help as it was his Department which had rejected the man. I wanted to know whether he could help regarding a post in Australia. The whole matter then moved away from the Ministry of Defence and away from the Foreign Office to the Commonwealth Office. This was something of an irrelevance, but that is how things work in the Government machine.
  Because of time, I shall not take the House through the appalling rigmarole which I had in dealing with the Government in this matter. The Commonwealth Office informed me five weeks later that Major Blundell's service in the Army had been extended at least until July. It was wrong. I wrote back and told the Commonwealth Office that his service expired on the original date, 31st March. So it went on. The last blow which befell this officer was that one fine day a bailiff called at his married quarter and served a summons on him instructing him to appear—as appear he did—on 26th June at Andover court in order that the Minister of Defence might acquire possession of the married quarter which had been his home.
  This was an astonishing state of affairs. Most hon. Members present tonight have been in the Army and they will know that it was by no means the sort of practice which one would expect from the Army.
  I told the story in the Adjournment debate a week ago. To use his own words at the opening of his reply, the Minister hid "little comfort to offer". That phrase fairly summed up his reply. The only concession he made was to describe the service of the summons and the humiliating appearance in court as
  1074
  "… this unnecessary personal inconvenience". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1968; Vol. 768. c. 1834.]
  If this case were less serious, I should award that euphemism the prize for this Parliamentary Session.
  I come now to the graver issue which underlies this astonishing story. In my Adjournment debate, I asked for an inquiry. This was brushed aside—"I see no possibility of there being an inquiry ". I was that night reminded of another army officer who was wronged by his Minister of Defence, and in his case it took no less than 12 years to have his treatment reviewed. That was another major, not Major Alan Blundell but a certain Major Alfred Dreyfus.
  I have given the Government every possible chance in the matter. I wrote to Lord Shepherd of the Commonwealth Office in May saying that I considered it a very serious case indeed, but Lord Shepherd was busy with the affairs of Nigeria at the time. No discredit to him for that, but at no time do the Government appear to have appreciated the implications of the case. Ministers in all Governments are overworked, and they did not have time to appreciate what was going on. They were happy to leave Thursday's Adjournment debate to the Commonwealth Office, a Department which had hardly the remotest connection with the case itself. They were happy to leave it to a junior Minister. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman, and I think it fair to say that he was probably not aware of the true nature of the material which he was handling. I called at his office six days beforehand to give him an idea of the points which I should raise in the debate, but still the Government were not alerted. This was just some passing constituency problem, the small change of day-to-day administration.
  If only the Government had handled the matter correctly, reasonably, decently and humanly, I think I should have been prepared to let the matter rest. If they had not denied simple justice to this man, that might have been that. I have been reluctant to take matters further— not to have the Government's face, for I have no concern about that, but because of other reasons. However, since Major Blundell and his family have left England for good before the House can reassemble, I feel that I must speak now or not at all.

  1075
  What has happened? The Minister of Defence has been caught red-handed by a rare, and probably unique, set of cirsumstances. It is probably the first time since Lord Radcliffe reported in 1962 that a serving officer who has been a prisoner of war in Communist hands and who subsequently has been consistently in positively vetted posts has had a wish and has also had the ability to qualify for an established post in the Diplomatic Service.
  There are plenty of serving officers in the three Services. There are plenty of serving officers who hold positively vetted posts. There are plenty of serving officers who have been in Communist hands. There are plenty of serving officers who may seek to join the Diplomatic Service. There are plenty of serving officers who are sufficiently able to obtain a position.
  What distinguishes Major Blundell is that he qualifies in all five respects. A pentathlon is an athletic contest of five events. Unfortunately for the Minister of Defence—I wish he would return to the Chamber—it happened that Major Blundell was Victor Ludorum, and therefore the Diplomatic Service had no choice at the end of the game but to snatch from him the trophy which he had won. The conclusion was reached, as Lord Shepherd wrote to me in May,
  "in view of the Radcliffe Committee's recommendations against the employment of men who have been held captive or interned in Communist hands in posts dealing with sensitive material"
  It must have been a difficult choice for the Foreign Secretary: either he could choose to breach the most solemn security procedures of all by admitting Major Blundell or he could lay wide open the flank of his colleague the Minister of Defence. I consider that what he did was right, painful as it is for me to say it and painful as it is to the interests of my constituent. The irony of the situation is that the Minister of Defence has been exposed by none other than the Foreign Secretary himself. It is indeed an astonishing case.
  After that decision had been made, I sensed a slight tremor of apprehension. From that time onwards, this officer clearly constituted a grave potential embarrassment to the Minister of Defence, and in an attempt to cover his tracks he
  1076
  acted with less than his usual adroitness. He refused to grant even a week's extension to the officer's Army service to give him time to replan his life in the light of the last-minute Foreign Office rejection. The right hon. Gentleman acted quickly, and he ignored the normal practices of the House in pausing to consider representations made by a man's Member of Parliament. He ignored the pleas of the man's senior serving officers and acted "contrary to the expectations "of Lord Shepherd at the Commonwealth Office, who had" assumed that all was well".
  The right hon. Gentleman equally acted without the knowledge of the Foreign Office, which would doubtless have liked to help this man, whom it found itself bound to reject, in supporting his plea for his extension of his Army service. It was not clear, as the junior Minister said last Thursday night, to the Diplomatic Service that the Ministry of Defence had intended to turn down the application for an extension, giving that almost unbelievable eviction order. 1 spoke of a short appearance in court. Has any hon. Member ever heard of an officer holding Her Majesty's Commission being served with an eviction order to leave his married quarters like that? In my experience, it is unique. This is all very odd.
  No doubt, explanations will now be advanced. I am perfectly content that the House should assess them for what they are. In any case, these incidents are now past history and incidental to my main theme. All I can say is that they served to alert me to the fact that the case had a most unusual flavour about it.
  The most disturbing fact to emerge from this welter of detail is that, more than six years after Lord Radcliffe reported, positively vetted posts in the fighting Services continue to be held by those who have been captive in Communist hands. This situation obtains in direct defiance of the recommendations of Lord Radcliffe. There is nothing unique about Major Blundell's situation except that he was so successful.
  There are others in the Armed Services who have been in positively vetted posts, and are in them today, who have been in Communist hands. I do not know how long the list is. I assume that it includes members of all three fighting Services. I

  1077
  know that it includes ranks higher than that of major. I give no names, for there would be no point. The Minister has his records, and knows that this is true.
  We are clearly concerned with a breach of security by the Secretary of State. This is a very grave matter. I believe that the men to whom I refer are of the highest integrity and patriotism. Some were captured with colleagues who remained with them throughout their captivity, and, therefore, there is no question of their having been brainwashed or anything like that. This applies to Major Blundell, who was with the Gloucesters.
  I have said that I pondered before raising the issue tonight because doing so may well mean that those men will be sent to other posts. But what is right must surely be implemented. I believe that their sole concern is that they should be able to serve their country in whatever capacity, and if there must be changes and postings, then that must happen. Truth will out, and I think that that is their attitude.
  I hesitate on other grounds, because 1 would not wish to give the impression to our friends overseas that our security system in general is lax. I am concerned tonight with a specific charge. Lord Radcliffe has been disregarded in a most critical field. Therefore, we are concerned in this defence debate with nothing less than the security of the State.
  Major Blundell is a man on whose integrity I would stake my last farthing, but that is not the point. The Foreign Office was right. It knew that once a Government Department is allowed to put its own interpretation on Radcliffe, the whole of our security system collapses. It realised that once Lord Radcliffe's recommendations are allowed to become a subject for debate, all is lost. Either a post is positively vetted or it is not, and that is the essential point. Once the relative sensitivity of Polaris, Porton or a post in a Communist country becomes subject to argument, catastrophe lies ahead. Where discretion and interpretation of the rules by individual Departments is tolerated, therein lies disaster.
  It was for this express reason that in 1962 Lord Radcliffe, Field-Marshal Templer and others were asked to recommend a comprehensive system of security from which no Government of any com-
  1078
  plexion dare to depart. They drew up a framework of absolute clarity within which there could be no scope for debate, for Governments of either party to twist, turn or shuffle out of their responsibility.
  I like to think that my personal relations with the Secretary of State have always been good. Only last week, I was able to thank him in the Chamber for some of his remarks after his visit to Porton. But it sometimes happens that when a Minister is challenged like this, he tends to bolt for cover instead of taking the honourable course. For this reason I must make three very clear references to Radcliffe to ensure that loopholes are not left open.
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his speech to which the whole House is listening with great sympathy and understanding. But as he himself said at the outset, he is to some extent raising a particular matter for which he was unable to have time this morning. He has now spoken for more than 25 minutes on a matter which does not arise specifically out of the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy which we are purporting to debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I should draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) that he is rather wide of the Defence White Paper and that, in view of the subject, he has gone on for rather a long time, bearing in mind that a large number of other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Hamilton: I appreciate your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have spoken as I have because I consider this to be of national importance.
  The relevant points in Radcliffe are, first, paragraph 12, headed "Definition", which makes it crystal-clear that what goes for the Armed Services goes equally for the Foreign Office. Radcliffe applies without distinction and beyond argument to both equally.
  Paragraph 52 explains the processes known as positive vetting and specifies the posts to which it applies and describes the rigorous process itself. It is specific, Either a man is positively vetted or he is not.

  1079
  Lastly, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to paragraph 77, which debars a man from security jobs if he has been in Communist hands.
  Major Blundell was in a positively vetted post during 1962, the year in which Lord Radcliffe reported. He was transferred to another such post in 1964, and remained in it till 1967.
  I hope that the Minister will not, therefore, seek to escape by saying that it was right to take a calculated risk with Major Blundell for so many years. If he were to seek this avenue I equally should be forced to name others in the fighting services, which I am loth to do. As the list of the cases in which the circumstances were exceptional lengthened the House would be bound to ask itself how many exceptions are needed before they cease to be exceptions. "We recommend," Lord Radcliffe wrote, "that no one should be so employed ".
  I have no criticism of the Army. It emerges from the case with clean hands. But the Blundell case indicates a situation in which, more than six years after Lord Radcliffe, positively vetted posts in the Armed services continue to be held by people who have been prisoners of war, just as Blake was a prisoner, in Communist hands.
  Lord Radcliffe's judgments are harsh, not least to my constituent because his career was damaged. But they must be harsh. Lord Radcliffe is concerned with the security of the State, nothing less. His judgments are harsh, too, to Ministers of Defence, whose careers are also damaged if they wilfully disregard them.
  The present Minister of Defence has, I believe, been caught out, and after some rather clumsy covering up—I am sorry that he was not in the Chamber when I described that stage—he has been shown by events to have been negligent in this the most important field of all. It is true, I know, that his Government have shown scant regard for Lord Radcliffe before, but at this time we discover that he himself has disregarded Lord Radcliffe consistently and knowingly throughout his term of office. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me and feel, as I do, that the right hon. Gentleman should take the one honourable course open to him.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Roland Moyle: I am sure that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) will not expect me to comment on his case.
  I have been listening to the debate with some interest. Whether one agrees with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) or not, I think one must agree that he is always likely to make a unique contribution to a debate.
  Addressing myself to the rest of the Opposition, I am forced to say—offering them a bit of disinterested advice—that the General Election is a long time away and already their statements on defence policy are beginning to wear a rather tired air of déja vu. We have already this afternoon, in spite of everything that has gone before, had emotion-choked voices recording the rôle of the regiments that are no longer with us, and even the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West could not avoid a reference to it.
  If we are to flog the subject to death, I would say to my right hon. Friend how grateful I am that he has exercised inspiration in his selectivity among the regiments and preserved the Royal Welch Fusiliers. I notice that the Minister of State is wearing the tie around his neck. I had the honour of serving in the 1st and 4th Battalions. It is a fine regiment. I should have said to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), had he been here, that one battalion of the Royal Welch Fusiliers is worth any number of Guards regiments. The story goes that they were offered the chance of becoming Welsh Guards in the First World War but turned it down.
  Listening to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), I was reminded of the old military aphorism that to try to be strong everywhere is to be weak everywhere. This is another fault of which the Opposition tend to be guilty.
  But there is one thing that I will say to the right hon. Member for Barnet. There was a welcome honesty in his approach to the problems of east of Suez, in that he was prepared to admit that a return to east of Suez, if it is

  1081
  possible, and if the right hon. Gentleman ever becomes Minister of Defence, will cost money. This is a welcome change from the last defence debate that we had when the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), the Leader of the Opposition, was trying to advocate—my right hon. Friend was very gentle to the Opposition in not reminding them of it— that we should hold on to the bases east of Suez in trust and until such time as the French, Germans and Italians join us in patrolling the area and maintaining a European presence there. I was very sceptical of the idea when it was first put over last March, and nothing that has happened since has led me to believe that there is the slightest credence to be placed in this doctrine. As I say, I thought that my right hon. Friend was very generous to the Opposition in not reminding them of the idea put forward by their Leader, which, in my view, was totally without reasonable foundation.
  I want to raise two main points on the Supplementary White Paper. The first is a subsidiary point which has not been dealt with in the debate so far, and the second relates to our main N.A.T.O. and European strategy.
  First, the subsidiary point that I should like to discuss is the peaceful use of military forces. I believe that this has a useful part to play in the post-imperial rôle which Britain's Armed Forces are now beginning to adopt. I am somewhat disappointed that the Supplementary White Paper does not mention this topic. The Under-Secretary of State for the Army promised me on 12th June that there would be a statement about the attitude of the Defence Department to this new development before the Recess. I suppose there are still 24 hours to go, but the statement has not yet appeared, and I am awaiting it with bated breath. In the absence of the statement, I wish to make one or two comments.
  I suppose that from the days when the Roman legions built the Roman roads the civil use of military forces has been an aspect of military life. But I think that, particularly arising from confrontation in Indonesia, there is a realisation that our military forces can make a contribution to police keeping operations which is not necessarily military and which may prevent a policing problem
  1082
  from becoming a military problem. There is a growing awareness, particularly in a place like Scottish Command, that something along these lines is one of the major contributions that our Armed Forces can make.
  One can always draw attention to the sort of thing one means in terms of dramatic tasks undertaken by our Forces. For instance, there was recently the provision of a road and an airstrip in Thailand, we have had troops well boring in Kenya, we have built a civil airfield in the Leeward Isles, and a 550 ft. bridge was built in the Congo. Most of these are jobs for the specialists and engineers. But one wonders whether if any of our battalions ever undertake a police-keeping rôle on behalf of the United Nations a pair of mechanical fitters mending the vehicles of the native population in one of the less developed parts of the world might not do far more good than a whole squadron or platoon of soldiers, armed to teeth, hanging around a strategic point. This is the sort of thing in which hearts and minds can be influenced, and it is the sort of line that I think our troops ought to follow much more closely.
  If our battalions are to go overseas it might well be a function for them to carry with them some larger supports in education, medicine and engineering than they normally would in accordance with peacetime establishments. Of course, it is all a question of balance. I can quite understand that the Army does not want to be regarded as a rather superior type of civil engineering contractor. I can quite understand that men who have joined the Army for the reason that a soldier's life is an attractive life would not be prepared to spend their time labouring away, and of course one does not want to find a situation where possibly a riot is not stopped from occurring because a battalion is out gathering in the harvest, but I think that it should be borne in mind that the arrival of an Army unit in a particular area is an accretion of organisational strength and manpower in that area, a sort of reserve which that area has not enjoyed before. If one looks at it from this point of view—and the experience, I think, of Indonesia does strengthen this point—a

  1083
  contribution can be made for useful tasks which can considerably influence the population which is being policed.
  I leave that with my right hon. Friend and turn to the other aspect of the supplementary Defence Paper and that is the N.A.T.O. and European strategy.
  As far as I can see, however one looks at the problem of N.A.T.O. and the defence of Western Europe, however one dismembers bits and puts them together, possibly standing them on their heads, the key seems to me that we must organise N.A.T.O. in such a way that the Americans are encouraged to retain their rôle in the defence of Western Europe. I believe that if we as a country could treble our contribution to the defence of Western Europe, if we could improve equipment, by spending money far beyond the level the people of our country would be prepared to spend, and yet if this were so, it seems to me that, to combine that with the withdrawal of the American interest in Western Europe—and here my right hon. Friend was not, in the long-term, wholly encouraging—would mean Western Europe would be a much less secure place than it is at the moment. At any rate, I believe that the inhabitants of Western Europe would feel themselves to be much less secure, because the main military threat, to their minds, must always come from the Russians, and the Americans are really the only nation which can match the Russians in terms of military forces.
  Mr. Healey: I would not like my hon. Friend to think that I thought a general American withdrawal was desirable or likely. I said the opposite in my speech.
  Mr. Moyle: I would not take issue on that point at all. I understood my right hon. Friend to say he wished these links strengthened, but I think it is fair to say also that, in looking into the future, this spectacles were not entirely rose coloured.
  There are a couple of other points I think we should bear in mind. We are, to a very large extent, at a cross-roads in defence policy. We are concentrating our forces in and around Western Europe, but I think that what we should bear in mind that it is not necessarily the number of British troops which are actually stationed on the Continent, that matters. What
  1084
  matters in this context I think is that, even as we are deploying forces towards Western Europe, we should try to impress upon our allies that it is the number of British troops who could be brought to bear fairly quickly on a potential battlefield that count. That is, I think, the factor which is important. This may not be an easy process, I agree. But we have a situation where a Rhine Army brigade is already stationed in this country. I have been assured that it could be returned to the Continent in a matter of days.
  I often notice that, in assessing the rival defence strategies of the Russians and ourselves, Russian forces in the Urals are often brought into the equation, whereas no allied forces this side of the Channel are, and yet the fact of the matter is that British forces stationed in this country are much nearer to a potenial battlefield than the Russians in Moscow are, and we shall have, once we have withdrawn from the Far East, a very substantial proportion of logistic support, considering the distances over which our forces will be expected to move.
  But we do have a fundamental alteration in national strategy. For instance, the Defence White Paper on page 10, paragraph 35, says:
  "By the end of the period"—
  that is, 1972—
  "the Army will be concentrating mainly on its primary rôle of defending the central region of Allied Command Europe."
  I think it is fair to say that no British Government and no Defence White Paper produced since the end of the Hundred Years War would have been able to make a comparable statement of that nature.
  This emphasises the change in our national strategy which has occurred, and the intervening strategy has been a very successful one, so presumably there are some major reasons for making the alteration. I think it is also fair to say that just because a course of action has not been followed in the past or is a new course, that is no reason for rejecting it, But on the other hand I think we would have expected very material benefits to flow from our new attitude in defence, and I shall look forward to seeing them.
  On the question of defence and the concentration on Western Europe I think one may reflect on the possible broader

  1085
  political lessons which are to be drawn. I was very impressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet saying that our withdrawal from the Far East, in his view, would lead to American isolation. This may well be true, but it also struck me as being a natural corollary that, if one concentrates on Western Europe, this tends to leave the United States alone, and then one does tend in f'act to strengthen the forces of isolation in the United States. It was one of the arguments we have had in applying to join the European Economic Community that some people thought our presence in that Community would stop it from becoming inward-looking, whereas other thought that by our joining the community we would be made inward-looking by the Community. Since the application was made, defence has been really the only field where we have had freedom of manoeuvre to try out a European policy. I think the result has been that in defence we now have a very inward-looking policy and that has been (he effect of the European strategy on our outlook. We have not succeeded—that is why I mentioned the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley at the beginning of my speech— in making the Europeans outward-looking.
  Of course, defence is a field with its own peculiar arguments. It may well be that in other spheres of activity, such as technology and overseas aid, we may have a very much better effect on Europe. All I can say is that, looking ahead, and judging by the one field where we have had freedom of manoeuvre, the omens are not good for the future, if one draws deductions from our experience. It was because of that that I was particularly anxious to emphasise the contribution which the peaceful use of military forces could make to overseas countries, and one of the reasons why I think it is worth while going on with it in the hope that our Army and our Forces will cease to be quite so inward-looking and will remind this nation that we have responsibilities to the world outside Europe, if we wish to maintain the peace of the world.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: If one point has clearly emerged from the debate it if; that the passionate argu-
  1086
  ments about the rôle of Britain east of Suez in the 1970s are now of academic interest only. I remember that in my early debates when I was defence spokesman for the Liberal Party, which I am not now, I used to cross swords a great deal with the Secretary of State, and no one was a more passionate or determined advocate of the rôle of Britain east of Suez in the 1970s than the right hon. Gentleman. He put a great deal more passion and conviction into it than did the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) when, speaking in opposition to the Secretary of State, he expressed the view that we might have to renew our obligations east of Suez in the 1970s. Just as the inexorable march of events has made the Secretary of State eat his words, so in time the right hon. Gentleman will have to eat his. However much we might think that we should like to have had a rôle east of Suez, inevitably it comes down to what we can afford and what we can sustain. The great William Pitt once said, and I never tire of quoting this, that the arm of Britain must never be extended further than it can be maintained, and the truth is that we could not maintain or sustain an arm of any strength east of Suez in the 1970s.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman worked out what percentage of the gross national product is represented by our entire effort east of Suez?
  Mr. Hooson: Certainly. The foreign exchange costs of maintaining bases east of Suez in the 1970s would be £79 million per annum, which in simpler terms is 4d. per gallon on the tax on petrol. That is just the exchange costs of defence bases without regard to other costs. If what the Conservatives have advocated in defence this year alone, without regard to anything else, were to be accepted, the cost would be £395 million, which is the equivalent of an increase in the standard rate of Income Tax of Is. 5d.
  I was about to develop an argument about our position in Europe. I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I have often disagreed with him, but I thought that this afternoon he made a most valuable contribution to our thinking about Europe. I have

  1087
  always been a passionate believer in N.A.T.O. It is useless for the so-called Left-wingers to pretend that if only N.A.T.O. had not been there all would have been well in the late 40s and 50s. The truth is that while we had people in Russia pursuing the Stalinist line, the hard line, they would not have been stopped but for something of the nature of N.A.T.O. Between the mid-1940s and the present time Europe became the most secure continent because of N.A.T.O.
  At the same time, we are left in a dilemma, because nothing is worse than the status quo maintained for longer than is necessary. The right hon. Member for Barnet referred to this when he said that it was arguable that with the Warsaw Pact on one side and N.A.T.O. on the other there was security. But then if one country disengages, such as France or Czechoslovakia, that threatens the whole balance of Europe. This leads to the dangerous temptation for the United States, for example, to want to abandon certain countries as being in the Russian sphere of influence, or for Russia to abandon other countries as being within the American sphere of influence.
  We ought to take steps to find some kind of détente in Europe. We have to face the fact that there are two strands of thought within Russia as there are within this country. No doubt the Prime Minister of Russia is receiving advice to follow a hard line in Czechoslovakia, just as he is also receiving advice to follow a more liberal and compassionate and understanding line. The more N.A.T.O. is made into a strong military alliance, in a sense the more is strengthened the influence of those in Russia who favour a hard line. Equally, it is likely that if the hard line succeeds in Russia, the inevitable reaction in the West will be to strengthen N.A.T.O. and to make adétente much less likely.
  In these circumstances, it is in the interests of the West as well of the Eastern European countries to try to get some kind of security arrangements in Europe. The right hon. Member for Easington was right to say that what was holding us up was the German question; it lies at the foundation of all our troubles. I have a number of German friends working within N.A.T.O. and I say to the West Germans that they have to take great care that they do not hold
  1088
  their allies in N.A.T.O. to ransom on the issue of the future of Germany. Many of the fears of Russia and the Eastern European countries arise from a fear of Germany rampaging again to recover its "lost territories". The Germans ought to make a constructive contribution towards a settlement of the great problem of Europe and ought to be agreeable to sitting down at a European security conference with East Germany as well as other countries.
  I have no doubt about this. I have had some experience as the chairman of a working party of N.A.T.O. parliamentarians who were in favour of carefully exploring the chances of changing the climate in Europe by probing the possibilities of a security conference of this kind. The lukewarm or cool reaction has come in my experience from the United States and West Germany on the one hand and the Soviet Union and her immediate satellites, or those immediately under her influence, on the other. Many other countries, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Britain and the smaller countries of Western Europe, were and are, very much in favour of such a security conference investigation.
  I do not agree with those who say that the United Kingdom should unilaterally withdraw from N.A.T.O.; this would not be a useful contribution. But, I can see the great necessity for the Eastern and Western European countries to get together with the United States and Canada and Russia to work out a European security arrangement at some time. I would like Parliamentarians first to explore the climate of opinion, without committing any government, to see what could be developed. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Easington is right to say that there is no solution for the European problem save a diplomatic solution.
  When he referred to the possibility of a conflict in Europe, the Secretary of State referred to possibly five days of conventional warfare before the nuclear button was pressed. Others have suggested that it would be two days, or even only a few hours. But what we are talking about is suicide in Europe if there is a conflict, suicide not only for the Western European countries, but for Russia and her satellites. Much of our discussion has a strangely academic

  1089
  flavour when we consider what a few battalions could do here and there. No doubt they would do their best with the best equipment in the world, but let us acknowledge that the reality of the strategic thinking of the West and the Soviet Union so far is that it is geared to the possibility of escalating a war in Europe into nuclear war in a matter of days if not hours. Therefore, we see the great importance of re-thinking our position in Europe.
  I referred earlier to the right hon. Gentleman's passionate advocacy in earlier debates of our rô1e east of Suez. I would now refer to Britain's nuclear rôle. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) came clean at last in the House of Commons about his view of the east of Suez rôle. Although he had come clean once, or hinted at it, in a speech at a Conservative Part)' Conference, this is the first time I have heard him say in the House unequivocally that we have no rôle east of Suez, certainly not in the distant future. Neither from his arguments on Europe nor from arguments from either side of the House can I discern any justification for an independent nuclear rôle for Britain.
  If the Labour Party were right in opposition in their sustained arguments against an independent nuclear deterrent for Britain, those arguments are equally valid today. I dare say that my colleagues will agree with me, but my personal view is that, as regards any contribution which can be made to our defence, the country would be far better off if its nuclear deterrent and the submarines and aircraft to carry it were drowned in the Atlantic Ocean.
  An Hon. Member: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hooson: An hon. Gentleman shouts "rubbish". Let him think for a moment. It has not been argued that the nuclear strategy weapon is a weapon of defence; it has been argued that it is a deterrent. In order to be a deterrent it must be able to deter the enemy. The damage that it can conflict on Russia is not comparable with the damage that the enemy can inflict on this country. If we were not in alliance with the United States, which has a tremendous nuclear force which is a deterrent—and there is every
  1090
  sign that the Soviet Union and the United States now recognise that they have moved in the direction of nuclear stalemate—we would contribute not one iota to the deterrence of the West.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: It is apparent from the hon. Gentleman's speech that the erstwhile spokesman on defence for the Liberal Party has not the foggiest conception of the deterrent.
  Mr. Wall: Tell it to de Gaulle!
  Mr. Hooson: I venture to say that France will not be able to sustain economically the next generation of nuclear weapons and she would be far better off, as would this country, without them. I am astonished that the Secretary of State for Defence in a Labour Government in the fourth year of office still clings tightly to the independent nuclear deterrent. It is in direct contradiction to the promise given by his party when it came into power.
  Mr. Healey: What the Labour Party promised to do when it came to power in 1964 was to internationalise its nuclear weapons. This we have done. If the hon. Member cannot understand the difference between the rôle of the British Polaris force and the V bombers now inside N.A.T.O., and France's refusal to commit nuclear or other weapons to N.A.TO. I am a little surprised that he was ever the defence spokesman of any party.
  Mr. Hooson: It is no moral excuse for this country to try to pass the weapons on to N.A.T.O. Whatever the theoretical difference may be between France and Britain in the control of nuclear weapons, in reality I see no distinction whatever. It was understood that the Labour Government intended to abolish Britain's nuclear rôle. It was after the election that the Prime Minister spoke of internationalising nuclear weapons, and the right hon. Gentleman's memory is failing him in this respect. There is no possible justification for Britain maintaining this extremely costly rôle.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that there is a need in this country for a citizen army. When Russia or any other country which may threaten us fully realises that nuclear war is not "on" because it would be tantamount to mutual suicide between N.A.T.O. and the Eastern European

  1091
  countries, there might be a danger of conventional attack. We are very thin on the ground to meet such an attack, and I think it was a major mistake, and I said so at the time, for the Government to abolish the Territorial Army. We should have maintained the Territorial Army and maintained it on a regional or, bearing in mind Wales and Scotland, a "national", basis. Certainly we should have a reserve of forces of this kind. All parties should face up to this problem, and there are even arguments in favour of the type of conscription that exists in Switzerland for our home defence.
  I spoke of this in a defence debate last year, as, I see, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force recalls. I was laughed at from the Conservative benches when I suggested that we ought to be thinking about a citizens' army. However, I was glad to see an article in the Sunday Telegraph of 21st July discussing this very possibility. It is a matter which all parties, including my own, should be considering. We can cut down on our armed forces still more, but, if we do, we shall need an adequate reserve of people trained for a conventional attack.
  The point has also been made in a previous debate that not since the days of Cromwell have we had a regular army stationed at home in peacetime. Although there is no immediate danger of it, an army take-over at some time in the future is not completely beyond the bounds of possibility. It could happen with an army permanently stationed only in this country, and it is a great safeguard for any democracy to have a knowledge of arms "spread around ". A territorial army or some similar force of that kind, in the ultimate—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but there have been take-overs in countries where one would not have expected them. This is not the justification for a territorial army, but an additional reason for one.
  Through its chief spokesman, the right hon. Member for Barnet, the Conservative Party virtually says, "We will have the defence policy and the forces to carry it out that the country needs, regardless of expense." The right hon. Gentleman criticises the Secretary of State and his approach. I could understand that if it were carried to its logical conclusion.
  1092
  but the Conservative Party propaganda says, further, "If we get back to power, we shall reduce Income Tax by Is. in the £."
  This year alone, the Opposition's de fence policy suggestions would cost £395 million per annum, which represents Is. 5d. in the £ on the standard rate of Income Tax. Carrying it further and adverting to the arguments advanced for devoting between 61 and 7 per cent. of our gross national product to defence, the rate would be increased by far more. In fact, 1 per cent. of the gross national product is roughly £340 million. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the Tory Opposition are arguing in favour of an increase of just over 2 per cent., which results in something in the region of £700 million per annum more. It could not be done if, at the same time the Tory Opposition suggest reducing the rate of Income Tax. If the Tory Opposition say, "We intend to give the country the forces that our defence policy needs", let them come clean and tell the country how much it would cost and what it would represent in taxation.
  I think that the Government have come some way towards the point of view that we advocated years ago. In his heart, I am sure that the Secretary of State acknowledges this. He has been coming a fair way towards what we advocated three or four years ago, and it is inevitable that it must be taken further in future. I think that we should consider the Canadian experiment of having an integrated armed force. That is the next step in development in this country. It has not been unsuccessful in Canada, and prejudices are gradually being overcome. I think that we have to move in that direction in the future.
  I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote with the Government tonight, not because I agree with all of the Government's policy—I am not very much in agreement with parts of it— but because I am more in agreement with it than I am with the Conservative Opposition's policy, whichever version one accepts, whether it be that of the right hon. Member for Barnet or that of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West or even a marriage of the two. I believe that the Opposition's policy would be disastrous to the country

  1093
  in general terms, although I have expressed agreement with certain matters put forward by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. What is more, the Conservative Party's defence policy is not even practicable for a country in a situation such as ours.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Richard CrawshawMy right hon. Friends know that there are certain aspects of their defence policy with which I heartily agree and others with which I am not too happy. I am pleased to see that at last we are giving dates for getting out of the Far East. I know that hon. Members opposite think this unwise. I would agree that possibly the greatest danger to peace lies in the Far East. But what they should take into account is whether it is wise to have small forces in an area which are incapable of carrying out the task for which they are sent there. We saw what happened in the last war when we lost Singapore.
  Under the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty, as I understand it, we have an obligation to defend Thailand. Many people at the moment are rightly delighted that there is talk of peace in Vietnam. But does anyone who knows the situation out there think that peace in Vietnam will finish conflicts in that part of the world? What has worried me for some considerable time is whether, under our obligations to S.E.A.T.O., we could find ourselves involved in a land war in Asia on the same scale as the Americans have found themselves involved in Vietnam. While I applaud the loyalty of the Opposition in supporting allies in that area, I deprecate their strategy in wanting to place military forces which would be hostages to fortune there.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: But surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree with those who believe that a presence east of Suez should prevent war. We had an example of that in the confrontation with Indonesia.
  Mr. Crawshaw: There may be something in that argument in relation to Indonesia, but I am talking about the main menace in the Far East—China. The conflict there, if it arose, would be by infiltration into Thailand from the north, which we would be incapable of preventing. Is the hon. and gallant
  1094
  Gentleman saying that if infiltration took place in Thailand, we should continually have to pour troops in there as the Americans have done in Vietnam? If we are going to intervene, we should be in a position to intervene at the point we choose, and not intervene because we are already committed to a particular part of the earth's surface. To that extent, while I say that getting out of the Far East is the most logical solution, I can foresee the possibility that we may be required at some time in the future to give assistance out there.
  Throughout my time in this House I have maintained that the main worry to the defence of this country lies in Europe, that we can lose a battle in the Far East but that it is in this country and in Europe that we can actually be defeated. That is the aspect which worries me about our present policy. The Opposition rightly criticise the fact that we are not providing adequate reserve power. I, too, criticise that. But I ask who it was who tied themselves to a nuclear strike in Europe.
  It was the Tory party. My hon. and right hon. Friends in Opposition always attacked the Government then because this meant that it would be a nuclear war from the word "go". This may be a very cheap policy, because it means that one does not need extra reserves and large armies. One just tells an enemy that if it advances into Europe, then one will fire nuclear weapons. That is one argument, but I could never reconcile it with keeping a large army in Europe. Either one's policy was right, in which case one did not need a large army, or one was not depending upon that policy, and was making one's enemy believe that one did not intend to carry out what one had said. When my party came into power what did we find?—that if we wanted conventional forces sufficiently strong to repel ground forces in Europe there was no alternative but conscription, which was given up by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I criticise my party for what it has done, but it has really originated from the policy of the Opposition when in government. Consequently, unless my party is prepared to say that it will increase expenditure on European forces, and raise large reserves to be available for a conventional war, it will have to depend on nuclear deterrents. For the

  1095
  last three years I have been saying that this is not a realistic policy and when it comes to the crunch neither side will use the nuclear deterrent, because it is not only a deterrent, but a mutual suicide pact. What happens if fighting on a small scale starts in Europe, inadvertently or, as could happen over the next week or so, over Czechoslovakia?
  What happens if, because Russia says that West Germany is moving troops up to the Czech frontier, a strike is made? What do we do? Do we immediately use our nuclear deterrent, as has been our policy in the past? Or do we do what is suggested in the White Paper, namely begin to build up conventional forces? All we are told is that we could hold on for 48 hours, perhaps a few weeks. I suggest that this time depends upon the time when one commits one's maximum conventional forces. That is the time when one uses nuclear weapons. The less conventional forces one has, the sooner one will have to use nuclear weapons.
  The Government have adopted this policy, and have taken it to its logical conclusion. They have said that they will not stop the war by conventional forces so there is no need to have the reserves to support them. What happens if Government policy changes, if N.A.T.O. changes its strategy? Where will these reserves come from? It is very easy to axe reserves, but more difficult to get them back, and this is the point that I have been making to my right hon. Friends for the past three years.
  I ask them to consider very seriously whether we are permanently committed to a nuclear strike in Europe from the word "go", or can we visualise the possibility of a conventional war which might go on for weeks? I know that my right hon. Friends will say that we could not mobilise reserve forces in two or three weeks and get them into Europe. Many of the Territorial Army units, particularly the Parachute Unit, take part in N.A.T.O. exercises at weekends. They fly out on the Friday night, take part in the exercise, and are back at work on Monday. This is the sort of thing that can be done with a citizens' army if it is organised on a proper scale. When I was in Israel last January our coach driver said one night that he would not be with us the following day because he was a major in the Army and would be doing a day's training.
  1096
  That is how the Israelis organise their Army.
  The Government should be honest in this matter. I say this to the Opposition as well, because I think that there is dishonesty on both sides on this. Everybody talks in opposition about requiring the forces, but they know that if they get into government they will not confront the country with a large bill for forces which the Opposition are saying are not necessary. That is what grieves me about our defence debates. It seems to me that both sides try to make party political gain out of each other. There must be some way of avoiding this.
  Mr. Wall: I very much appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman has just made. Does he agree that a Select Committee on Defence might be the answer?
  Mr. Crawshaw: That could be so. I believe that these matters should be debated outside the public glare, where there is no political kudos in putting forward a particular point, and where everybody puts forward what is best for the country.
  Very few of my hon. Friends are here. What grieves me about some of them is the disparaging way in which they speak of our Regular and Reserve Forces, the glee with which they hear that units are to be axed. They might be talking about Russian divisions being axed instead of our own forces. This is wrong. They are entitled to their view, but I do not think that when people have given their services to the country they should be treated as though they have been parasites on the community. It does not do my hon. Friends or Parliament any credit for that sort of talk to be heard here.
  I was astounded by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens). I was astounded that at a time like this, when the Czech crisis is on, he should start talking about N.A.T.O. being the cause of difficulties that are arising. What does he really think is going through the Russian mind at present about Czechoslovakia? Does he think that it is because of N.A.T.O. that the Russians will or will not act, or whether they are taking into account that 10 years ago over Hungary they lost half the Communist membership throughout the world, as well as prestige,

  1097
  and that on this occasion they are facing a country which is capable of fighting while it is going down? Does he think that that is what is going through their mind as opposed to thoughts about whether N.A.T.O. will do anything?
  I am convinced that Russia has not the slightest doubt about our attitude on the matter. I think that the Government have adopted the right course; perhaps a little more of a pat on the back for Czechoslovakia would not have been out of place, but they are exactly right in keeping out of the bother because we cannot do any good. We could do a lot of harm by intervening. Does he think that the Russians will be influenced by, first, the prestige to be lost if they intervene and, second, the military strength of Czechoslovakia as opposed to what happened in 1957?
  Mr. Newens: I made my speech and tried to make my points clear then. I think that the Russians are very concerned that Czechoslovakia should not move out of the Russian orbit. That is their overwhelming concern, because we have a world and Europe polarised between the two alliances. I want to see them both wound up.
  Mr. Crawshaw: My hon. Friend made it quite clear that he was for having strong forces. As far as I know, we are getting out of the Far East, N.A.T.O., the Isle of Man and all the rest. I can only assume that he wants those strong forces because he has an undue obsession with the Welsh and Scottish Nationalist parties. I cannot ask in what strength these forces will be. I would rather ask about the purpose for which they are to be used. That is the more relevant argument.
  I wish to touch briefly on two other points. The 1966 Defence Review stated that if we increased our conventional forces in N.A.T.O. the Warsaw Pact countries would do likewise. This was given as the excuse for not increasing those forces. Has that gone by the board? Will such units that are to be earmarked for N.A.T.O. be superfluous because, within a week or two, they will be matched by the Russians? Is that more re-thinking that has gone on?
  The second point which astounds me is that the White Paper states:
  1098
  "Secondly, it is also recognised that we should receive timely, possibly prolonged, warning of any change in the political situation that might make war in Europe more likely."
  Of course. But, as I pointed out in a debate three or four months ago, it is at a time of crisis in Europe that we do not want to start shifting troops from this country to Europe or we shall aggravate the situation.
  I presume that the Secretary of State is saying in his White Paper that we will get warning of Russian build-up and mobilisation. What have we had in the last few days? Is not this a warning? Have we taken any steps to make sure that we are secure? I am not saying that we should—in fact, I am saying that we should not—but it does not make it sound logical to put in a White Paper that we will get timely warning when we do not know anything about it. Is there any object in a timely warning? For all we know, the Russians may be building up against Czechoslovakia, but they could equally well be building up against Western Germany. I do not feel that is logical.
  The T. & A.V.R. Ill is in the melting pot. We are being told that it is to be kept on a care and maintenance basis. I know from experience that these units are losing so many of their permanent staff that they will probably not be able to be kept on a care and maintenance basis. If some decision is not reached in the immediate future, we shall find that these units have ceased to exist. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look into this urgent matter.
  8.58 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The House always listens to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) with great interest on matters of defence. We know of his distinguished record of service and we know that he talks a great deal of sense about the territorial army. All on this side of the House, and I suspect a good many hon. Genlemen opposite, agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  I was amused by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) who spoke for the Liberal Party. I have heard many different arguments in favour of retaining forces in the Middle and Far East, but I have never before heard the argument—

  1099
  I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member has left the Chamber—that one reason why we should not have all the troops returned home is that they might at some future date take over the Government. This is an entirely new argument. I can only say, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, that almost any well organised platoon could take over the Liberal Party.
  It is right and appropriate that we should debate defence on the last day but one before the House rises for the Summer Recess in the light of a very big question mark, namely, what will happen in Czechoslovakia? This overhangs all our deliberations. The hon. Member for Toxteth has rightly drawn attention to the serious issues involved for us, for N.A.T.O. and for the Warsaw Pact countries, with almost unlimited implications.
  Turning to the White Paper, really one need only read the last sentence of paragraph 14. Having read it, I do not think one need read any further. The last sentence of paragraph 14 on page 4, relating to our commitments to S.E.A.T.O., reads:
  "When we have completed the withdrawal, we shall not declare forces to these contingency plans, although we shall remain members of the organisation."
  In other words, this is complete window-dressing. We are to belong to a club, but pay no subscriptions and abide by none of the rules and obligations. We are to be an ally without assets so far as S.E.A.T.O. is concerned, and if one is an ally without assets, one is not an ally at all.
  I do not believe that our capability to help Singapore and Malaysia after 1971 is credible. I do not believe that Ministers have begun to think this out, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and others have put some pertinent questions to which I hope we shall receive a reply. I believe that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who concocted these plans in the Ministry of Defence are going on the basis that they hope everything will be all right on the night. I do not believe that there has been any contingency planning at all.
  I have grave doubts about the wisdom of our withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. I have said before, and I say it again,
  1100
  that by far the cheapest form of aid is stability, and by withdrawing prematurely we have gravely endangered stability. Moreover, I dislike the way in which we have carried out a unilateral abrogation of many treaties. We have behaved as though we were a landlord who has told a tenant that he proposes to tear up the lease and to get him to sign a fresh lease transferring all the landlord's liabilities to the tenant. This is not the way to behave, and this is not the way to increase our reputation commercially, militarily, or in any other way. I want a great deal of convincing, far more than anything that we heard from the Secretary of State for Defence today, that the world is so safe and secure, be it in the Middle East, the Far East, or, above all, in Europe, as to warrant the sort of rundown in our Forces, Army, Navy and Air, which this document envisages.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he will say a word or two about these alleged savings. I have never been clear about how much money is supposed to be saved by this withdrawal. The crucial point was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, that it is in the next two years when the savings are necessary, and after that, if the Government's plans come off and the economy is more secure, the economic crisis will be over. But these cuts do not take effect until 1971. The Government are therefore confusing something which is on the doorstep now with something which is some way down the garden path, and they are in the process of leading themselves and many others up the garden path.
  During the debate on 5th March the right hon. Gentleman said that every £100 saved in annual expenditure in the Far East would require capital expenditure here of £500, and every £100 saved by bringing back troops from Germany would require capital expenditure of £2,000 in the United Kingdom. I think that that is right, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I am quoting from his speech
  Those figures do not seem to make very much sense, because of what we are leaving behind. The Government have spent more than £14 million on building accommodation of various sorts at
  1101
  Bahrein and Sharjah. Equipment, installations, and other assets, valued at more than £30 million are being abandoned in Aden. What the figure is for Singapore is anybody's guess. It is enormous. I do not think that anybody could begin to assess it. It is simply huge. But already —according to the right hon. Gentleman —by 6th March the Government had spent £30 million in this country in building extra accommodation and acquiring married quarters to house the troops that had already been brought back.
  I have a shrewd suspicion and a horrible lingering fear that the figure to which our forces will be run down is nothing to do with the minimum requirement for the safety of the country. That idea was dispelled from the very lips of the Minister of Defence some time ago. I suspect that the figure depends principally upon the barrack and married quarters accommodation available in this country. If more troops are brought back and are not to be demobilised and disbanded, and there is no accommodation for them here, the saving is only marginal. It is not a redeployment to help Europe. All that is hooey; it is simply a demobilisation to the level of barrack and married quarters accommodation.
  I would have thought, in the light of our commitments in 1970 and 1971 in Europe, the Middle East or the Far East —commitments that the Government say they are quite prepared to fulfil, although we do not know how—that the one arm not to reduce beyond a certain level would be the infantry, because the infantry is at once the most versatile and adaptable arm. The infantry is always called for when first-aid operations have to be carried out, and first-aid operations almost invariably occur at an unexpected time, and not always singly. They often occur in pairs, and in different parts of the world.
  Let us suppose that the Government were asked to fulfil two or three unexpected fire brigade operations and, at the same time, there was a request to strengthen B.A.O.R. Where would the reserves come from? How would they be sent to the required areas, and how would they be built up?
  Moreover, the cuts in the infantry have been executed in a remarkable way. The Government appear to have forgotten about quality and proceeded solely on
  1102
  the principle of Buggins' turn, a rule-of-thumb basis. Some of the finest regiments, with the best traditions and outstanding records in war and peace, for discipline and recruitment, have gone. Hardly anybody on the benches opposite seems to mind except, very properly, the hon. Member for Toxteth. This is a terrible thing.
  I must declare a personal interest because in the Light Division, the third Battalion of the Green Jackets, is to be eleminated: I do not mind confessing that I have family associations with that regiment for nearly 100 years, and I had the privilege of serving in it for most of the war. I would be less than human if I did not feel this acutely. I understood that the policy has been that the Light Division should contain two large regiments which would be made a success. No one can deny—certainly the right hon. Gentleman will not deny it—that all concerned have done their utmost to make those two large regiments a success, and have succeeded. What has been our reward? There have been further cuts making the cut in the Light Division in general and the Green Jackets in particular proportionately higher than anyone else.
  The regimental tradition which is now laughed upon in certain quarters is the envy of friend and foe alike. Throughout British history British troops have been asked to conduct almost impossible operations, often in almost impossible circumstances and in pretty awful places, due to the vacillation, stupidity, change of mind and ineptitude of Governments of all kinds whether it be in respect of Corunna, the Crimea, Gallipoli or Salonika in the First World War, Dunkirk or Burma in the Second World War, or Aden recently. Never mind; time and time again what appeared to be almost certain disaster has been averted and ultimately turned into victory.
  I fancy that the element which played the biggest part was not the corps, however able the corps commander might have been, nor the division, no matter how able the divisional commander might have been, but was fundamentally the regiment. I am not in the least impressed with the argument that the elimination of famous regiments with long traditions does not affect recruiting. I simply do not accept it. The Secretary

  1103
  of State directed our attention to the recruiting figures and said that people do not mind whether they join the infantry, the gunners or the sappers; they merely queue up and say that they want to join the Army.
  Mr. Healey: That applies to 80 per cent. of them.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that the 80 per cent. who do not mind are of the same calibre as those who would have joined had the old regiments still been preserved?
  It is, of course, true that the present officers, N.C.O.s and other ranks in the regiments to be disbanded will serve loyally for the rest of their service in other units—of course, they will. The question is, however, whether their sons will volunteer in the same manner. My experience is that people volunteer for the Army because the regiment of their choice is based on a strong territorial link or strong family or other connections.
  I do not believe that we can sustain recruitment on the basis of totally ignoring quality, by disbanding a regiment on the basis of Buggins' turn and hoping that everybody will join as before. There is nowhere for them to go further than somewhere like Tidworth or Germany; and in the case of the Air Force there is nowhere left for them to fly to.
  Of the old original Light Division, the Duke of Wellington's in the Peninsula campaign, the 43rd, the 52nd and the Rifle Brigade alone remain, and one of those is now to go. This is a terrible thing. When one thinks of the million of £s which the Government are chucking about quite unnecessarily, the thousands of extra civil servants, the Land Commission and all the waste that we have seen taking place, and when that is contrasted with the fact that some of the units in the T. & A.V.R. III from their own enthusiasm, loyalty and sense of purpose are carrying out training at their own expense, I have a feeling that somebody has got the priorities wrong somewhere. That somebody is the Government, and the sooner they go, the better.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. James Ramsden: I should, perhaps, begin by commenting on a speech which was out of the general run of the rest of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) said that in the course of pursuing a constituency inquiry, it had come to his notice that certain officers who had spent a good deal of time as prisoners of war in Communist hands were in employment in the Ministry of Defence in "P.V." posts, contrary to the recommendations of paragraph 78 of the Radcliffe Report.
  The Minister of Defence for Administration might well wish to clear this matter up when he replies to the debate. It may be that the rider in the Radcliffe Report concerning special circumstances is relevant, and I have difficulty in believing that anybody who was a prisoner of war should be permanently disqualified from command. There is, however, a contradiction on the face of it and I think that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to refer to it.
  The debate has been about the consequences of major decisions taken by the Government some months ago. Since those decisions were taken, the Services have awaited the White Paper and what might be said by the Secretary of State in this debate with some anxiety in order to learn the effect upon their future of the considerable cuts and changes imposed by the Government as a result of the decisions of last January.
  What I have to say in criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that in his approach to the debate and in his interpretation of the White Paper he miscalculated and misjudged badly the significance of this occasion. It has come strongly out of the debate—the point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—that the effect of these decisions on the Services themselves and on their morale has been considerable. By "morale" I mean how they see themselves, how they view their career prospects, and, beyond that, whether they sense that they are being given by this Government the proper backing for the country's defence effort

  1105
  and whether they sense that they have behind them a Government determined to give defence its proper priority in the allocation of expenditure. The Secretary of State's speech and the White Paper should be judged primarily against the standard of how far they have succeeded in giving to the Services that reassurance.
  We found our defence effort on having chosen to sustain it by a voluntary system. We have to man the Services. Without that we can do nothing. In order to do it we have to attract recruits. It seems that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are taking a little too lightly the consequences of their decisions for the future of Regular recruiting. They started off with a Regular Army ready made. I was concerned in the early stages of building up the Regular volunteer Services, and I know the weak position in which one finds oneself and how exposed one feels as a responsible Minister when there is overhanging one a worry about what the next month's recruiting figures will show and about whether one can man one's units successfully. One learns from that experience that recruiting is what is known as a "hard sell", and there has to be an effective and convincing story to tell in order to bring the men in. One has to be able to convince potential recruits of the ultimate worthwhileness of the job which they are asked to do.
  The present recruiting figures are appalling. I shall not weary the House with a lot of statistics. The last time I went through them they were 25 per cent. down on last year, and I do not think that they have been any better in recent months. To give the House an example independent of statistics of the kind of situation we are in, I was talking to one regiment the other day which told me that where they need, and used to have, an inflow of about 30 recruits a month to sustain two battalions, they now have six.
  The Secretary of State said that re-engagement was not too bad. He ought not to preen himself on the satisfactory state of re-engagement, for a Service which depends upon re-engagement to maintain its strength but has not a satisfactory inflow of fresh recruits from civilian life soon lands in trouble through an imbalance of age groups and a promotion block among senior n.c.o.s. We
  1106
  found this even in the days when recruiting from civilian life was buoyant.
  My criticism, therefore, of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and his approach today is that he fails to do convincingly the most important job in terms of the future of the Services, namely, to make clear to them what their rôle is to be, that they are to be given the proper equipment for their job, and that their job is to be one which they can find intelligible in terms of the kind of defence effort which a country of this size and importance needs. It was up to the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear that there will be no more cuts in this country's defences, and that the Services and their needs will be given the requisite priority over other claims on the national resources. This was what the Services anxiously expected that he would do. He should have done it, but he did not.
  It is all very well for him to say, as he did, that the Government have succeeded in striking a balance between the claims of defence and the resources we have available. But the House and the Services know very well that the Government have had several previous attempts at striking this balance, and each successive one has been abandoned. Each in turn has involved cuts, disarrangement, redeployment and all the things that operate against satisfactory service morale.
  I should like to give an example of what I mean about the White Paper's failure to tell a convincing story. It is the Government's position that the future of the Services and this country's defence effort is henceforward to be concentrated in Europe. Therefore, everybody wants to know what the significance of the European rôle will be. Chapter IV of the White Paper is headed "Europe", and the first thing in the chapter is the headline: "Mutual Force Reductions". This is exactly what the Services do not want to hear. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way, perhaps in deference to the supporters of the Amendment, to discuss the possibility of mutual force reductions in Europe, because everybody knows that the current discussions along these lines in N.A.T.O. are aimed much more at discouraging the other member countries from envisaging the possibility of force reductions until there is a better balance between N.A.T.O. and

  1107
  the Warsaw Pact, rather than pointing the way to the possibility of an early move by this country. The introduction of this topic into the White Paper and the emphasis given to it by the right hon. Gentleman today were misconceived.
  I should now like to make one or two comments about the present position of the individual Services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to the apparent disparity between the cuts to be imposed on the Royal Air Force and those for the other Services, pointing out that it amounted to 36 per cent. in six years. He said with truth that we have been given no indication of what the future structure and functions of the Air Force are to be, measuring up to those reduced numbers.
  The House knows, and anyone informed of the nature of air power will confirm—indeed, the Secretary of State has more than once said it to the House —that one thing generally held to be indispensable to a modern air force is a capacity for long-range, low-level all-weather interdiction and strike. The present position is that with the cancellation of the F111 the Royal Air Force, after the phasing out of the V-bombers in their new rôle, will be deprived of that capability.
  The Secretary of State told us today that there was a possibility of the production of a suitable aircraft some time in the mid-70s through the operation of the European consortium. I hope that that matures. I am sure he will agree that it is of the utmost importance that an early decision should be taken and an early announcement made. Failing that, and in the meantime, it is surely the job of the Government to reassure the Royal Air Force by showing it either that this capability will be provided for it in the future or that in the rôle which the Government envisage for it it can be dispensed with. The Royal Air Force cannot be left unknowing, or morale is bound to suffer.
  Not many speakers in the debate, as it has happened, have dealt in detail with the future of the Royal Navy, but the Government have in their latest plans assigned to it an Atlantic rôle. This is nothing new for the Royal Navy; it is certainly no stranger to such a rôle. But
  1108
  apparently it will be asked to discharge it in the face of a reduction in the construction programme of nuclear submarines, which the Secretary of State not long ago described as the main striking power of the Royal Navy, and against a threat from surface ships armed with missiles with a 350-mile range—which the Navy will have to confront with what?
  We are told that the Navy will be supported by helicopters armed with a wire-guided missile with a range of some thousands of yards. The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) raised some pertinent queries about the capability of the helicopter in this rôle. The Navy will be supported in addition, as the Secretary of State told us, by fixed wing aircraft operating from land bases. The most that one can say about this idea is that it is a novel one and has yet to be proved as an effective aid to sea power by the experience of war.
  The right hon. Gentleman may have seen an article in The Spectator last week describing an exercise recently held in the North Atlantic. It may not have been accurate in every detail, but such articles reflect what the Services are at present thinking and feeling and what they are telling defence correspondents. Again, the picture painted by that article is not one of clear understanding and a satisfactory state of morale.
  Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the writer of the article wrote one in a totally different sense in Navy News a few weeks ago about the same exercise? On the question of the support of ships by land-based aircraft being a new rôle, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every other navy in Europe, including the Soviet Navy, is supported solely by aircraft from land bases?
  Mr. Ramsden: That does not really clear up the point that I made, that ships of our Navy in their Atlantic rôle are considerably outranged by other ships with a missile capability that they do not begin to match.
  With regard to the Army, the main interest, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, has centred on the Government's decision to dispense with 14 battalions of infantry. That is a considerable reduction in the

  1109
  fighting potential of the British Army, and I estimate it to be equivalent to about two brigade groups able to be deployed, if not more. The Government have made no effort to justify to us in detail a cut of this size except in the vaguest possible terms by talk of the extent to which they have been able to reduce commitments.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, whose flow of eloquence I cannot emulate but by whose logic I am certainly convinced, said that it is right to assert—I agree with him—that one cannot deduce the proper strength of the Armed Forces for a country of this size and importance purely from a consideration of the commitments that they may or may not have to take on at any given time.
  I think that the experience of hon. Members who have followed this will endorse the fact that in no case is this more true than in that of the infantry. We never have enough infantry battalions, and the commitments, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier, are no safeguard of the number of occasions on which troops may have to be used. We know from experience that defence commitments are an exceedingly unreliable guide—that the calls on the Army cannot be guaranteed to correspond to them.
  The Government have made no attempt to explain to us why the reduction of 14 battalions was the right number or how it was determined, and I hope they will do so later. I think that the Undersecretary of State for the Army gave the game away in the debate we had the other night on the Scottish regiments. He was dealing with the method chosen of effecting the reduction and he explained to us that there were 14 infantry brigades and that, therefore, the fairest method of effecting the reduction was to take a battalion from each. I am very much afraid that in fact the number of infantry battalions selected to be reduced depended upon the number of brigades and the obligations the Government felt under to establish an appearance of fairness.
  My hon. Friends have criticised the method of selection of infantry battalions for disbandment or amalgamation and I certainly endorse that, because I believe that there has been no true policy of selection and that the Government have
  1110
  been driven to implement the policy of equal misery for all. I think that is true because they were driven from the original timetable which they had planned for bring the reductions into effect. If they had done the original six and then implemented the new divisional structure they would have had time to spare and the possibility of some choice in bringing about further reductions. They would have been able to make more selection and not have been driven to trench on the smaller brigades.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) —and here I, too, must declare an interest—that one of the most deplorable consequences of this decision is the reduction of the Rifle Regiments from three to two, the Greenjackets. I think that the Army of the future will be poorer for having only two Rifle Regiments, and I say that because of their contribution to the profession of arms which has not only been distinguished but distinctive, with their own particular approach to soldiering, and with the large number of officers they have been able to produce who have made their mark successfully in all quarters of the Army. It is certainly a decision which I would wish to see looked at again.
  I conclude with a word about the Reserves. We debated the Reserves not very long ago, and when I had moved the Motion the Minister of Defence for the Army said he did not understand a number of the points which I had made. They were not very abstruse ones, and evidently somebody in the Department understood them because they are in fact answered in the White Paper, in a way in which they might well have been answered during that debate. We made the point that T. & A.V.R. I and II looked like being unable to provide the numbers required by the Government's Reserves policy; we thought they did not look as though they were going to get the men. This is confirmed by the White Paper, and we now see the Government have to consider retaining National Service men for Reserve liability to make sure of getting the specialists which this much boasted reserve of specialists, T. & A.V.R. I and II, was originally designed to provide. The right hon. Gentleman says in his White Paper that he is thinking of extending the

  1111
  National Service men's liability. He does not want to do so, but he may have to do so if he does not get the men.
  We also believe that it would be most unwise to dispense with T. & A.V.R.II1 and I am glad that this is now conceded, but I ask the Secretary of State whether if he wants to keep these units in being —and I agree with that decision—it is fair to keep them in being by allowing them to pay for their own training, to maintain themselves in being at their own expense, while the Government decide what the right policy is.
  To sum up; what we should have had from the Secretary of State tonight in the interests of the future of the Services and in the interests of their morale and to make sure that we shall be successful in ensuring the flow of recruits which the manning of the Services needs was a clear indication of what their future rôle will be when in the 1970s these cuts have been implemented, what shape the Army will have to discharge this rôle, and, even more, an indication of the Government's determination here and now to call a halt to this succession of reductions in our defence effort to convince the Services that they will get and defence will get the resources which they need. We have not had that from the Secretary of State.
  In view of the Government's record, the word of the Secretary of State is the only thing which could restore the necessary degree of confidence. I do not believe that the word of the present Secretary of State could any longer do that. I believe that he has outlived his credibility, that he has misjudged the position and misjudged the debt which he owes to the Forces in believing that it is his duty to remain in his office. He should make way for somebody, if there is such a one on the Government benches, whose credit is still relatively unimpaired.
  9.38 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): Before dealing with some of the issues raised by other hon. Members, I should like to clear up one matter to which the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) drew attention. It is deliberately pointed out on page 18 of the White Paper that the Government do not wish to renew the
  1112
  National Service Act if we can find other means, and I want to make that perfectly clear. Our aim is to try to avoid renewing the National Service Act. Neither does it say that we shall retain the T. & A.V.R. III units. It says that some expansion of the T. & A.V.R. I and 11 may be desirable and can be afforded and therefore we want to keep the T. & A.V.R. III units in operation on their present admittedly restricted basis while considering that aspect of the matter.
  I remind hon. Members that this is not a new statement of policy but is a follow-up of the White Paper of earlier this year to spell out a number of the details arising from the statement of 16th January. I am glad that the debate concentrated on these policies and their implications; and that we did not have a repeat of our debate of a few days ago about the infantry battalions and particularly about the cut in the Scottish infantry battalions. Although one or two hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Harrogate mentioned them, I do not want to reply to those points this evening, because they were adequately dealt with in that half-day Supply debate. I am glad that we did not carry on where we left off in that debate with regard to one regiment that was being discussed. I hope that matter and the allegations, that have been flung about in the House and outside, can now be brought to an end for the sake of the regiment itself: the individual who commands it; and the other people who were responsible at a higher level in Aden for carrying out so well the policy of Her Majesty's Government in getting out of that colony in a stable and orderly manner.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said that he accepted the doctrine of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that it was not possible to work out the size of the Army by taking the commitments, and determining how many infantry battalions were needed to meet those commitments. I was surprised to hear this from someone who spent a period as Secretary of State for War, as Minister of Defence for the Army and as Under-Secretary of State for War. I was also surprised to hear it from someone who had a period of office in the Treasury, which keeps tight control on the size of the Army. When

  1113
  the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for War, and his right hon. Friend was in the Treasury, the number of infantry battalions was worked out by taking the commitments and deciding how many infantry battalions would be needed to meet those commitments, with one overriding factor. They decided to abolish conscription, and then worked out that they could expect to get only 180,000 men by voluntary recruitment, and that was the ceiling to which they worked, irrespective of the commitment.
  I cannot accept being told that the things which were done during the period when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power are now completely wrong. We have changed many things, but other things are right and hon. Gentleman should not denigrate what they did during that period in order to find a good reason for attacking the Government.
  Mr. Ramsden: Had we geared the number of infantry battalions purely to the commitments we had, we would have had eight fewer than we maintained.
  Mr. Reynolds: Those are the battalions which I was about to mention and which are in the Strategic Reserve. The provision we are working on now is basically the same. We are providing battalions to meet the commitments, plus the Strategic Reserve, in the same arithmetical way as was worked out by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I am primarily responsible, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, for finding many of the ways and means of saving the £250 million he mentioned by which we intend to reduce defence expenditure in 3½ years' time. As the White Paper points out and as hon. Gentlemen are well aware, this means a fairly substantial rundown both in personnel and on the logistic side of all three Services. This is not a new process: it has started in the last six or 12 months since the end of confrontation in Indonesia and the decision of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw from East of Suez. It is a process which has been going on virtually for the last 20 years. There has been a steady reduction in the number of ships and naval establishments ashore. The abolition of National Service brought about a big reduction in the size of the Army, and one only has to fly over the United King-
  1114
  dom to see the large number of abandoned aerodromes. For example, in 1957 the Royal Air Force had about 228,000 men; by 1964 the number was down to about 140,000; by 1967 to 124,000 and it is now planned by 1977 to go down to 84,000. This reduction has been continuous over a period of 20 years and it is a reduction the major part of which took place when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked why the Army reductions were all in combat forces, infantry battalions and armoured units. These are the forces at the sharp end, in organised battalions or regiments. There will be reductions there and so there is a reduction in the number of battalions. Names disappear, and this causes heartburning among hon. Members and also among those concerned with the decisions, and the same applies to the cavalry and other regiments.
  One does not specify reductions in other parts of the Army, because they stem from the fact that, if we have X battalions, we need a certain amount of supporting arms and services. If we have X battalions minus a number of teeth armed units we need fewer supporting units. As most of those are not specially named or numbered squadrons, they are not specified in the White Paper, but there are reductions on the logistics side as well.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it follow from that that it is now proposed to reduce the size and number of headquarter establishments in Germany?
  Mr. Reynolds: That is being looked at all the time. But the teeth units in Germany are not being reduced. We are keeping B.A.O.R. with the same number of divisions and brigades, though one brigade has come back to the United Kingdom, and they have still to be operational. We cannot make massive reductions because it is a force which has to be in an operational state.
  Reductions are being looked at continually in these headquarters and we have recently announced a big reorganisation in the command structure in all three Services in the United Kingdom. The professional membership of the three

  1115
  Service Boards and the departments responsible and managed by the professional members have been designed to secure reductions in staff numbers on the support side of all three Services. This is being done at the same time as the reductions in the teeth armed units.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that what we are complaining about is not abandoned airfields, but abandoned moral commitments to our allies east of Suez?
  Mr. Reynolds: If that is the type of interjection coming from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I shall have to think twice in future about giving way.
  We have announced in the White Paper and given some details of the rundown on the personnel side during the period that we are now discussing. In the case of the Royal Navy, there will not be any redundancy until the fixed-wing aircraft and the carriers begin to fade out. In the case of the Army, there were 1,000 redundancies in 1967–68, and there will be about 1,750 in 1968–69. In the case of the R.A.F., there were 950 redundancies in 1967–68, and there will be about 1,600 during 1968–69.
  The vast majority of those who became redundant were volunteers. Only 240 enforced redundancies had to be imposed in the R.A.F., and a smaller number in the Army. We must get redundancy into perspective, because the figures of redundancies have to be set against the fact that some 44,000 people leave the Services each year either on pension, or the termination of engagement, or for health or other reasons. Redundancies form a small proportion of the total number leaving the Services each year.
  The point must also be made that, despite the redundancies and the rundown in the Forces, we still need some 35,000 recruits every year. We are convinced that we can offer a good career in the three Services to those people who like that sort of life and who measure up to the standards demanded of them. I will ask for the support of the whole House in trying to get this point over in the country.
  One of the most important factors governing whether people come into the
  1116
  Services is the rate of pay, and in that connection, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) asked why we had given up the Grigg system. The decision was announced some 12 months ago. We had decided to refer the matter to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. It was partly due to the criticisms of the Grigg system made in the Prices and Incomes Board's report of some two years ago.
  The Grigg system has now been in operation for ten years. It has served the Services well. But, after 10 years, one needs to look at such a system and make sure that it is working properly.
  We are hoping, as was announced a few months ago by my right hon. Friend, that the Board will complete its full report on Service pay and conditions within what was then a period of 12 months. We shall then be able to give Governmental consideration to it and try to make sure that we have this aspect of Service life right and to be in a position where it will operate properly—perhaps, like the Grigg Report, for 10 years or more.
  The right hon. Member for Harrogate talked of the difficulties of age and rank structure. One of the problems of the Royal Air Force is a consequence of the cancellation of the Thor programme. When that programme was cancelled, it left behind a large number of R.A.F. technicians with no provisions for redundancy. The then Government simply dealt with the problem by not recruiting. As a result, we have large numbers of warrant officers, flight sergeants and corporals but no men at the bottom of the scale in these trades. We are making use of the redundancy scheme to try to get the rank and trade structure right in every part of the Services.
  At the same time, we have run down our logistic facilities. I hope to be in a position within the next eight or nine months to give further information about closures of aerodromes and other military establishments of all kinds. We have to look at this from both the operational and the costs points of view, at the same time consulting other Ministries concerned with the effects on regional economies and planning. These matters naturally take considerable time but I hope in the not too distant future to be able to say more.

  1117
  The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked about air support for our forces in Germany. The Second Tactical Air Force, together with the air forces in the United Kingdom, provides air support not only for B.A.O.R. but is integrated in the general N.A.T.O. air force for Central Europe. In the period we are discussing, we shall have the Buccaneer II, which will be fully adequate for its reconnaissance and strike rôle until the mid-1970s. It will certainly be much better than the Canberra but, unlike the F111, it will become increasingly less adequate after the mid-1970s. As my right hon. Friend has said, we are in discussion with other European countries in trying to get agreement on the joint production of an aircraft which will take over the Buccaneer's rôle in the mid-1970s.
  For direct ground support for our forces in Germany, we shall have the Phantom and the Harrier during the period we are discussing. We are convinced that the Second Tactical Air Force will continue, as in the past, to be able to play its part adequately in supporting our own and other ground forces in Germany and in the Central European area.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) listed the numbers of divisions available on each side of the Iron Curtain with a fair amount of freedom. I have not bothered to check his arithmetic but it is probably not all that far out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not check it?"] It really does not matter from the point of view of my argument any more than it matters in terms of accuracy of one or two divisions either way.
  My right hon. Friend made the point, which I fully accept, that this problem can, in the end, only be dealt with by diplomatic action of some kind or other. At the same time, he answered a number of the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Barnet and even more so by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West who, in giving a rough idea of the total forces arrayed in Central Europe, made clear the provision we would have to make if we wanted to follow his ideas of being able to fight a great, long conventional war. The right hon. Member for Barnet said that he thought that a four-year battle was too
  1118
  long, but a four-day battle too short. He was careful not to say where he would draw the line.
  Mr. Maudling: I asked the Government to say what they were planning on.
  Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West argued that we should be able to keep things going long enough to bring a citizen army into the field. It would take at least 18 months and probably longer to manufacture the equipment for such an army, and when he was at the Treasury, he was one of those who made sure that such equipment was not included in the long-term costings we inherited in 1964.
  I come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth), that of defence against fast patrol boats and missile protection of the fleet in home and North Atlantic waters. It has not for many years depended on aircraft carriers. It depends primarily, and has done for many years, on land-based aircraft, both of the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Air Force. The whole argument for carriers was to have one east of Suez. If carriers were thought to be so important, I wish that they had not been talked about so much in the four years before 1964, but that the then Government had got on with the job of getting them built.
  But the Treasury then was not prepared to provide the money for that type of project. We will have protection against missile-carrying patrol boats through the long-range R.A.F. strike capacity and nuclear fleet submarines. I find it a little difficult—[HON. MEMBERS: "Faster."]—I find it a little difficult to speak at my normal speed and at the same time deal with the shouting of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have not been here at all during the day except to listen to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West who appeared to hold quite a fascination for them. They then went off for dinner and re turned here to start making a noise. I have only thre minutes in which to try to finish my speech.
  We shall have, in addition to the R.A.F. long-range strike capacity and the nuclear submarines, the helicopters

  1119
  referred to on both sides of the House armed with at present the A.S.-12 missile which has a hitting power of a 6-inch shell. We are developing a new missile with greater capability, so that the missile and the new helicopters make a complete system, with both day and night and all-weather capabilities. We shall be able to deploy forces east of Suez from our general capability, and this is mentioned in paragraphs 70 and 71 of the White Paper. It will mean that there will be a time element in getting heavy equipment out there, which hon. Members can work out for themselves. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have come to hear the end of the debate.
  Mr. Quintal Hogg (St. Marylebone): On a point of order. If the right hon. Gentleman would gabble less and speak more distinctly, as if he meant what he said, he would command more attention.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than anyone that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Hogg: I am simply trying to get—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the Chamber for about three minutes this afternoon, and is now trying to take time from me. I agreed to take 20 minutes in the debate to allow as many other hon. Members as possible to speak. The main thing that we have been discussing here is the decisions announced by the

  Division No. 289.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Albu, Austen

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Alldritt, Walter

  Boston, Terence

  Conlan, Bernard

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Anderson, Donald

  Boyden, James

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Archer, Peter

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Cronin, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bradley, Tom

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Barnes, Michael

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

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Baxter, William

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

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

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Bence, Cyril

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Bessell, Peter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Delargy, Hugh

  Binns, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dell, Edmund

  Bishop, E. S.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Dempsey, James

  Blackburn, F.

  Coe, Denis

  Dewar Donald

  Government many months ago to withdraw from east of Suez and the Gulf by the end of 1971.
  My right hon. Friend was criticised for not having said this two years ago by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and other hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can only say that at that particular time we were fighting successfully to deal with confrontation in Malaysia and it was hardly the time to talk of walking out. We successfully brought that confrontation to a conclusion, and I believe this to be the right time to say to our friends that we should now go back home, because the days of a European Power undertaking by itself an international police force throughout the world have long since gone. We are providing economic assistance to these countries. By 1971 I hope that we shall be in a position— and there are encouraging signs at present, that the countries of Singapore and Malaysia will have their economies right, and other countries in the area will have got proper defence facilities— to withdraw our troops and so come out of that part of the world, leaving a very good legacy and a lot of good will behind us.
  Mr. Hogg: Out.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) must contain himself.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes, 242.

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Dobson, Ray

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Doig, Peter

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Dunn, James A.

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

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

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

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

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Eadie, Alex

  Judd, Frank

  Probert, Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  Kelley, Richard

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rankin, John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

  Rees, Merlyn

  Ellis, John

  Lawson, George

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  English, Michael

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Richard, Ivor

  Ennals, David

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Ensor, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Roebuck, Roy

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Foley, Maurice

  Luard, Evan

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Ford, Ben

  Lubbock, Eric

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McBride, Neil

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

  Gardner, Tony

  McCann, John

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Garrett, W. E.

  MacColl, James

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ginsburg, David

  MacDermot, Niall

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Slater, Joseph

  Gourlay, Harry

  McGuire, Michael

  Small, William

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Snow, Julian

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mackie, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Swingler, Stephen

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Taverne, Dick

  Hamling, William

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Hannan, William

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Harper, Joseph

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thornton, Ernest

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marquand, David

  Tilney, John

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Tomney, Frank

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hattersley, Roy

  Millan, Bruce

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hazell, Bert

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Henig, Stanley

  Molloy, William

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Moonman, Eric

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Weitzman, David

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Moyle, Roland

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Mulley, Rt. Hr. Frederick

  Whitaker, Ben

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Murray, Albert

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Neal, Harold

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Howie, W.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hoy, James

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hunter, Adam

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

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hynd, John

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Winnick, David

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Paget, R. T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

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

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Yates, Victor

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Park, Trevor

  Jeger, Georgo (Goole)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Mr. Charles Grey and

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Balniel, Lord

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Astor, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

  Batsford, Brian

  Biffen, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Bell, Ronald

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.w.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Blaker, Peter

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Peel, John

  Body, Richard

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Percival, Ian

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hawkins, Paul

  Peyton, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hay, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Heald, Rt. Hn, Sir Lionel

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Braine, Bernard

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pounder, Rafton

  Brewis, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Pym, Francis

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bryan, Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hornby, Richard

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Burden, F. A.

  Hunt, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Carlisle, Mark

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Clark, Herry

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Clegg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Cooke, Robert

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Scott, Nicholas

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Sharples, Richard

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Silvester, Frederick

  Crouch, David

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lane, David

  Speed, Keith

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stainton, Keith

  Dance, James

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stodart, Anthony

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Loveys, W. H.

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

  Doughty, Charles

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  MacArthur, Ian

  Teeling, Sir William

  Drayson, G.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Temple, John M.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Eden, Sir John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Tilney, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Emery, Peter

  Maginnis, John E.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Marten, Neil

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maude, Angus

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Farr, John

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Waddington, David

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mawby, Ray

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Fortescue, Tim

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

  Wall, Patrick

  Foster, Sir John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Walters, Dennis

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

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Webster, David

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Monro, Hector

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Murton, Oscar

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gower, Raymond

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Grant, Anthony

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Worsley, Marcus

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wright, Esmond

  Grieve, Percy

  Nott, John

  Wylie, N. R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gurden, Harold

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy, 1968, contained in Command Paper No. 3701.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Prices and Incomes, on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Adoption Bill, the Theatres Bill, the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Bill, the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill, Hearing Aid Council Bill, and the Caravan Sites Bill, on Consideration of any Amendments which may be received from the Lords to the Clean Air Bill, and on the Design Copyright Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

  PRICES AND INCOMES
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Prices and Incomes (General Considerations) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 616), dated 16th April 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be withdrawn.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Heath: On Monday evening I raised the question of the right of the Opposition to be able to have a Division and reach a decision on this Order. The Leader of the House very kindly said that he would consider the point, which applies when a Prayer is debated, or, alternatively, when we debate a Motion in lieu of a Prayer to meet the convenience of the Government.
  I thank the Leader of the House in his absence for so ordering the business that we may reach a decision on this Prayer, or on the debate that has been taken in its place. I hope that the House will now be prepared to take a decision on the Order.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, we are about to take a decision on this Order. As a national bus strike is pending, and as I understand from the tapes that my right hon. Friend is to present an Order to the House tomorrow, may I ask whether we are likely to get a statement tomorrow morning from the Government about the position? I think that if we are given an assurance that a statement will be made tomorrow, there will be no question of debating the Order.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a most ingenious point of order. I share the hon. Member's anxiety about the matter he has raised, but we are discussing an Order.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: On the Motion before the House, I wish to put to the Government the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) sought to put as a point of order. I appreciate the reason why it was not possible for the Government to respond to this invitation on the point of order, but we should like the Government to make a statement on the Motion because we have a right to be assured before the House departs that there will be a statement tomorrow. Hon. Members may interject to say that that would not be in order, but I would have thought that the question whether we were to have further discussions about the operation of this Order arises under this proposal. Therefore, all that I ask—and the House has a right to it—is that on a matter of such national importance as a pending bus strike, and when the House is taking time to reconsider an Order which would govern the affairs of that bus strike, if it were to occur, it would be for the convenience of the House and the assurance of the country if the Government would assure us, before we accept the Motion, that there will be a statement in the House tomorrow.
  10.17 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I think that the House understands the concern which has been expressed by my hon. Friend. There is an extremely serious situation in relation to the position in the bus industry. I have noted what my hon. Friends have said. I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary will be personally present tomorrow, but I can undertake that a statement will be made in the House tomorrow morning on that question. I give that assurance, and I hope that the House can now proceed to a decision.
  Question put:—

  Division No. 290.]

  AYES

  [10.18 p.m.

  Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Giles, Rear-Adm, Morgan

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Astor, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

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

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Awdry, Daniel

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Murton, Oscar

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Balniel, Lord

  Cower, Raymond

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Grant, Anthony

  Nott, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Grieve, Percy

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Bell, Ronald

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gurden, Harold

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bessell, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bitten, John

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Peel, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Percival, Ian

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Peyton, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Blaker, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hay, John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Body, Richard

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pym, Francis

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Braine, Bernard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Brewis, John

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. sir Peter

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Holland, Philip

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hordern, Peter

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Bryan, Paul

  Hornby, Richard

  Ridsdale, Julian

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

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hunt, John

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Burden, F. A.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Royle, Anthony

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Channon, H. p. G.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Sharples, Richard

  Clark, Henry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

  Clegg, Walter

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Silvester, Frederick

  Cooke, Robert

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kimball, Marcus

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Corfield, F. V.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, s.)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Costain, A. P.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stainton, Keith

  Crouch, David

  Lambton. Viscount

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

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Lane, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Dance, James

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Temple, John M.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Loveys, W. H.

  Tilney, John

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Lubbock, Eric

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Doughty, Charles

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Eden, Sir John

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Waddington, David

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Emery, Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Marten, Neil

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maude, Angus

  Wall, Patrick

  Farr, John

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Walters, Dennis

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mawby, Ray

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fortescue, Tim

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

  Webster, David

  Foster, Sir John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 262.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Wright, Esmond

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Wylie, N. R.

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Mr. Jasper Moore.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McGulre, Michael

  Albu, Austen

  Foley, Maurice

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Alldritt, Walter

  Ford, Ben

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Forrester, John

  Mackie, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Archer, Peter

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Freeson, Reginald

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Gardner, Tony

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Ginsburg, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Baxter, William

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Bence, Cyril

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Binns, John

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Marquand, David

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gregory, Arnold

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Millan, Bruce

  Boston, Terence

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

  Boyden, James

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Molloy, William

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hamling, William

  Moonman, Eric

  Bradley, Tom

  Hannan, William

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Moyle, Roland

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Hattersley, Roy

  Murray, Albert

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

  Hazell, Bert

  Neal, Harold

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Oakes, Gordon

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

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Ogden, Eric

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hilton, W. S.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hooley, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

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

  Carter-Jones. Lewis

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Paget, R. T.

  Coe, Denis

  Howie, W.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Hoy, James

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Concannon, J. D.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cronin, John

  Hynd, John

  Pentland, Norman

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

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

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Rankin, John

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Richard, Ivor

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kelley, Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dell, Edmund

  Kenyon, Clifford

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

  Dempsey, James

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

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

  Dewar, Ronald

  Lawson, George

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Ledger, Ron

  Roebuck, Roy

  Dobson, Ray

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Doig, Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ron, Rt. Hn. William

  Dunn, James A.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

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

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  Loughlin, Charles

  Slater, Joseph

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Luard, Evan

  Small, William

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Snow, Julian

  English, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Ennals, David

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Ensor, David

  McBride, Neil

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  McCann, John

  Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  MacColl, James

  Swingler, Stephen

  Faulds, Andrew

  MacDermot, Niall

  Symonds, J. B.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Taverne, Dick

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Thornton, Ernest

  Weitzman, David

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Tinn, James

  Wellbeloved, James

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wells, William (Walsall. N.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Whitaker, Ben

  Woof, Robert

  Varley, Eric C.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Yates, Victor

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOE

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mr. Charles Grey and

  Wallace, George

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT HIGHWAYS COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No. 66) (LONDON—PENZANCE TRUNK ROAD, PLYMPTON BY-PASS) 1968
  The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:
  That the Petition of General Objection of the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty against the Order be not referred to a Joint Committee.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that this Order is not being moved.

  GUYANA (GIFT OF TABLE AND CHAIRS)
  Mr. Bishop, Mr. Albert Murray, Sir David Renton and Mr. Nicholas Scott to have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Clerks' Table and Chairs and a Chair for the Serjeant at Arms to the National Assembly of Guyana.—[Mr. Peart.]
  Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members who have not seen the furniture may do so in Room B in the Library.

  PROCEDURE (SELECT COMMITTEES)
  Order [10th November] amended as follows:
  Line 5, leave out 'and'.
  Line 5, after 'journalists', insert 'and to such other Press representatives as the Committee think fit'.
  Line 6, leave out 'twenty-four' and insert 'forty-eight'.—[Mr. Peart.]

  MEMBERS' EXPENSES
  Resolved,
  That any claim for the reimbursement to a Member of this House of the cost of travel between airport and air station in a coach provided for persons using such services, or for the payment to such Member of an allowance of 4½d. a mile for a journey by road, as provided in the Resolutions of the House of 11th March, 1953, and 18th May, 1961, as modified by the Resolution of 18th December, 1964, shall be submitted within a period of three
  1134
  months after the journey has been completed, unless extenuating circumstances can be shown.—[Mr. Peart.]
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the facilities available to a Member for free travel on parliamentary duties between London, Home and Constituency by any public railway, sea or air service should be extended to cover travel by chartered air services and by private aeroplane, provided that the cost to public funds is no greater than the cost of travel by public transport.—[Mr. Peart.]

  Dr. David Owen discharged from the Select Committee on Science and Technology.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  ADOPTION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  THEATRES BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

  FRIENDLY AND INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: It may be for the convenience of the House if all the Lords Amendments are taken together.
  In which case, I would move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member should move the first, and then they can all be taken together, unless I hear any objection to that.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that an earlier Motion on the Paper, the Ministry of Transport Highways Compulsory Purchase Order (No. 66) (London-Penzance Trunk Road, Plympton By-Pass) 1968, was not moved.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is making a plain statement of what is a fact. It was not moved.
  Mr. Peter Walker: On a point of order. There seems to be some confusion about the withdrawal of that Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would not prevent any hon. Member from raising a point of order, but let it be at an appropriate moment. We are now in the very difficult and complex process of deciding upon some Lords Amendments to the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Bill. I think we might get them out of the way first.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment,put and agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Walker.
  Mr. Peter Walker: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Would it be possible for that Ministry of Transport Motion to be moved by the Government? There seems to some confusion as to when it is to be moved.
  Mr. Speaker: There is that Motion on the Order Paper. The Members in whose names it appears said they would not move it, and that is the end of that tonight. We may take it some other day—perhaps during the Recess?—but at some other time.
  Mr. Peter Emery: Further to that point of order. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. When the Government have on the Paper a Motion to which many people affected by it pay a considerable amount of attention, hon. Members and people in their constituencies, is it not normal for the Government to give notice if they will not move it or are considering withdrawing it? Is there any way in which we can be assured that this sort of embarrassment to Members will not happen again?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is an old and experienced Parliamentarian. He will know that it is not unknown in the history of Parliament for a Motion on the Paper not to be moved. This has happened tonight. This is not unique.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Item No. 4 on the Order Paper concerns matters of the gravest impor-
  1136
  tance to my constituents. Is there any way whereby, before the House goes into recess, we can discuss the contents of the Order? I was not given an opportunity to discuss it with the Minister before the decision was taken to withdraw the Motion, although I was fully aware of the discussions which led to the Order being laid.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not the Leader of the House, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Tomorrow we are on the Adjournment and I have selected the topics which will be discussed. I do not think that they include the Order which has not been moved. The hon. Gentleman must take the matter up with the Minister concerned. It has nothing to do with Mr. Speaker.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
Clause 1

  POWER OF BOARD TO ACQUIRE SHARES IN CERTAIN COMPANIES
  Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 6, at end insert:
  "(aa) to form or promote, or join with any other person in forming or promoting a company;"
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments No. 2, in page 1, line 15, after "paragraphs" insert "(aa)".
  No. 3, in page 1, line 17, after "which" insert:
  "is formed to carry on or"
  No. 11, in title, line 2, leave out "acquire equity" and insert:
  "form and promote, and to acquire"
  Mr. Speaker: So be it.
  Mr. Maclennan: This is an important Amendment and I am glad that the House is having an opportunity to consider it. Earlier in the proceedings on the Bill, particularly in Committee, I expressed the hope that this power could be added to the Bill in another place.

  1137
  I am happy that that was done. As the Bill is drafted it allows the Highlands and Islands Development Board to buy and hold shares in companies which are already going concerns—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member on his feet at one moment.
  Mr. Maclennan: —or are being set up by other persons. The Amendment enables the Board, by itself directly or jointly with other shareholders, to form new companies or to promote the formation of new companies.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said something about this. I want to ask him whether this Amendment does not arise now because the Long Title of the Bill, when it was in this House before, did not permit them to be made. They therefore had to be moved in another place.
  I recognise the difficulties for a private Member in this sort of situation. I have myself brought in a Private Member's Bill and, because of a change, I had to bring in a No. 2 Bill with a different Long Title. But, while I recognise the difficulties, I must express regret that this most important addition to the Bill has not had a chance of being discussed during the various stages through which the Bill passed in this House and that the kind of discussion we are able to give it now cannot possibly do justice to it. I must place on record the regret of the Opposition that we did not have a proper opportunity to discuss the repercussions of the matters concerned in the Amendment.
  Amendments No. 2, No. 3 and No. 11 arise from the same sort of situation. They could not be made or discussed in this House on the earlier occasions. While we would not seek to oppose them because of their importance, we believe that they should all have been submitted to careful consideration and debate if we had had the opportunity.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2

  FURTHER POWERS OF BOARD RELATING TO LOANS AND OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CERTAIN COMPANIES
  Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 2, line 8, at beginning insert:
  "In accordance with any such arrangements as are mentioned in the said section 8, the Board may hold or dispose of".
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. G. Campbell: I had hoped the hon. Member might take the opportunity of confirming whether I was right or wrong that these Amendments arose because of the Long Title of the Bill being too restrictive in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House. Mr. Maclennan.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) is quite correct. As the House will recall, when it gave me permission to introduce the Bill the points contained in the Amendments were clearly outlined as being within the objective of the Bill. It was my understanding that the House gave me leave to bring in a Bill in wider terms than it was possible to include in the Bill as originally introduced because of the restriction in the Long Title. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn for his remarks and for the help which he has given throughout the passage of the Bill, and for his understanding of the technical difficulties that arise in the presentation of the Private Member's Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 3

    INTERPRETATION
    Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
    Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    It would be convenient if I might refer briefly also to Amendment No. 11.
    Mr. Speaker: We have dealt with Amendment No. 11 with Amendment No. 1, but I would not prevent the hon. Gentleman from gilding the lily at this stage.
    Mr. Maclennan: Since the Long Title of the Bill when it was introduced in this House specified the intention of giving the Highlands and Islands Development Board power to acquire equity shareholdings, Clause 3(2) had to be written into the Bill in order to exclude other types of shareholding by the Board. It seems sensible that the Board should have power to buy shares other than equity shares in the narrow technical sense.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

    HEARING AID COUNCIL BILL
    Lords Amendments considered.
  Clause 1

    HEARING AID COUNCIL
    Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 10, leave out "the retail selling of" and insert "dispensing".
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    May I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that so many Amendments have emerged in another place? This is mainly because of drafting problems and also because, once one had to become more closely defining in terms, it led to consequential Amendments. The Amendment paves the way in order to ensure that hirers as well as sellers of hearing aids are encompassed in the Bill.
    The Amendments which follow are designed in order that there shall be greater clarity in the way in which the Bill is interpreted, once it goes on to the Statute Book.
    I apologise again for the number of Amendments from another place, but they are all consequential, drafting, or in order to improve the grammar.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 2

    REGISTERS OF PERSONS SELLING HEARING AIDS
    Lords Amendment No. 13: In page 2, lines 34, leave out lines 34 to 42 and insert:
    "() Any individual other than a disqualified person shall be qualified to be registered under this section as a dispenser of hearing aids if—
    (a) during the period of two years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act he has acted as a dispenser of such aids for a period of. or periods totalling, at least six months; or "
    Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This seeks to make the Measure get off the ground. One of the problems in starting a new organisation is to make sure that the impact of the legislation does not harm those already engaged in the business. This is the purpose of the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 3

    OFFENCES BY UNREGISTERED PERSONS
    Lords Amendment No. 20: In page 3, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 4 and insert:
    "to act as a dispenser of hearing aids;
    (b) any person whose name is not for the time being entered in the register maintained pursuant to section 2(1)(b) of this Act to employ any person to act as a dispenser of hearing aids; or
    (c) any person whose name is entered in the register which is so maintained to employ a person other than—

    (i) a person registered under this Act as a dispenser of hearing aids; or

    (ii) a person whose name has been notified to the Registrar of the Council and who is undergoing full-time training with a view to being registered as a dispenser of hearing aids and acting under the supervision of a registered dispenser,

    to act as a dispenser of such aids:"
    Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

    1141
    This looks rather long, but it does not alter the original context of the Bill discussed in this House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 9

    APPEALS
    Lords Amendment No. 39: In page 7, line 8, after "costs" insert "or expenses".
    Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The Amendment arises from the fact that in Scotland costs are known as expenses.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Schedule

    CONSTITUTION AND POWERS OF THE COUNCIL
    Lords Amendment No. 47: In page 11, line 3, leave out paragraph 1 and insert:
    "1.—(1) The Council shall consist of a Chairman and eleven other members who shall be appointed by the Board of Trade.
    (2) The Board shall not appoint as Chairman a person who is in their opinion capable of representing any of the interests mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph.
    (3) The Board shall when appointing persons as members of the Council ensure that the members of the Council include—

    (a) six persons who are capable of representing the interests of persons registered under section 2 of this Act and who are either so registered themselves or are directors of, or participate in the management of, a body corporate which is so registered; and

    (b) five persons who are not eligible for appointment under head (a) of this sub-paragraph and who either have specialised medical knowledge of deafness or audio-logical technical knowledge or who are capable of representing the interests of persons with impaired hearing:

    Provided that in relation to the appointing of persons before the expiry of six months from the commencement of this Act head (a) of this sub-paragraph shall have effect as if
    1142
    references to persons registered under section 2 included references to persons who are, in the opinion of the Board, eligible to be registered under that section."
    Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This looks like a long redraft, but I assure the House that it does not in any way alter the content of the provisions discussed in this House. There is considerable redrafting mainly because of the drafting Amendments needed to make the Bill more accurate than it was in the first place.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

    CARAVAN SITES BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

    DESIGN COPYRIGHT BILL
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    ST. KITTS AND ANGUILLA
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
    Mr. Neil Marten: On a point of order. It seems rather churlish that we should have agreed with all those Lords Amendments without thanking the Lords for doing a jolly good job on all those Bills.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sure that another place will be delighted to hear those warm words of encouragement.
    Sir John Rodgers: It is about a year since the House had the opportunity to debate the relationship between St. Kitts and Anguilla. During that time, there has been a debate which was initiated in

    1143
    another place by my noble Friend Lord Bessborough, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for making it possible to discuss this important subject tonight.
    Since our last debate in this House, one must now make mention of the Parliamentary Commission, consisting of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), which both sides of the House welcomed and which undoubtedly at the time, a few months ago, was successful in lowering the temperature and gaining time in the hope that more mature counsels would prevail in this area. Unfortunately, however, there are already signs that this success may have been only temporary. Personally, I greatly hope that this will prove not to be the case and that at the end of the 12-month period of standstill a satisfactory solution will emerge.
    However, I must confess to considerable doubts, and these doubts are largely due to the extraordinary behaviour of Mr. Bradshaw. The doubts have been shared by my colleagues from both sides of the House, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) who recently visited St. Kitts. They were very concerned at the apparent inflexibility of Mr. Bradshaw, but they still hope that a democratic solution can and will be obtained.
    The House will be aware that considerable doubt has also been expressed not only in this country but in Anguilla about the good faith of the St. Kitts Government. We in Britain are, after all, responsible for the external affairs and the defence of the islands of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. We have, it is true, no responsibility for internal affairs, though these can and do impinge on external affairs.
    There can be little hope of a just settlement if Mr. Bradshaw takes the line that the Anguillans will return to the fold only when they have been beaten to their knees. This regime, which at the moment we are bound to defend, has been condemned by the International Commission of Jurists and by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Associated States. I should like to quote from the Interna-
    1144
    tional Commission of Jurists with reference to recent trials. It said:
    "The indictment against the St. Kitts Government is a long one: it has repeatedly shown contempt for the Courts, has refused to accept their decisions, and has flagrantly attempted— by threats and misuse of the mass media—to use the Courts as an instrument of its policy."
    When the courts proved to be instruments of the rule of law, it resorted to government by emergency resolution and trial by "commission of inquiry".
    Then, as the House may be aware, the West Indian Bar has condemned the St. Kitts Government for its disregard of the rule of law, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Associated States has criticised Mr. Bradshaw in almost unprecedented terms for indulging in "political trials" and initiating debates in that House of Parliament following immediately on verdicts of acquittal by the jury in the first two of the trials. Even more serious than this were some recent remarks by Mr. Bradshaw with reference to Mr. Stuart Roberts, the British representative for the Associated States, whose headquarters are in St. Lucia.
    Whenever, either in debate or at Question Time, the subject of Anguilla and St. Kitts has been mentioned in this House, the Government repeat ad nauseam that, while they are responsible for external affairs and defence, under the terms of Associated Statehood it is St. Kitts and St. Kitts alone that is responsible for internal affairs, though lip-service is paid to the rights of Nevis and Anguilla. In this the Government are technically correct, but all criticism of the Bradshaw regime cannot be brushed aside by this formula, for consider, Mr. Speaker, the position of Mr. Stuart Roberts the British representative in the area, who fulfils this function with regard to our obligations to retain foreign affairs and defence in our hands.
    Mr. Roberts has been referred to by Mr. Bradshaw as a liar, and Mr. Roberts has had to resort to issuing a long statement rebutting these totally false allegations.
    Here we have a situation equivalent in some ways to a Government publicly denouncing its own ambassador in the most abusive terms possible. Is it not high time for the lion to roar just a little tonight? How can this craven Government of ours possibly accept this sort of behaviour from Mr. Bradshaw?

    1145
    I think that the House is entitled to know what representations our Government have made. Have they insisted on a public apology and withdrawal? If no public apology is forthcoming, should we not renounce the Associated States status, as we are perfectly entitled to do under the terms of the West Indies Act?
    Many of us have grave doubts about the viability of this whole concept of Associated Statehood. It is being challenged not only in St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, but in other West Indian islands, as the Secretary of State well knows.
    How can we ask the Anguillans to accept, in the future, jurisdiction over their affairs by a man of such unfortunate volatility as Mr. Bradshaw? Most of the people in the West Indies are fed up with Mr. Bradshaw and his strutting and posturings. They know that he is doing immeasurable harm to the tourist industry, which does not precisely differentiate between one island and another in the West Indies. It is a little ironic that at this time we should have sent a Parliamentary mission from this House to present Mr. Bradshaw with a set of books, including Erskine May. It does not seem to have done him much good.
    I believe that firm action by the British Government would not be opposed by the other West Indian States. From the outset—and I am sorry to say this to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard and admiration—I believe that the Government have been weak and flabby and disingenuous to the point of incredibility.
    Tonight, I hope that the Secretary of State will indicate in unmistakable terms his opinion of Mr. Bradshaw's recent remarks and will tell us what concrete action he intends to take in this matter. I should like to ask what proposals the Government have to alleviate the misery and suffering of the people of Anguilla, brought about by Associated Statehood, and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to devise for Anguilla a new status under the British Crown, since it is obvious that under Mr. Bradshaw, who has been described as a "Mini-Papa-Doc", there is no likelihood of Anguilla ever voluntarily agreeing to an association with St. Kitts, an association not of equals and partners, but one imposed, if necessary, by force by one side
    1146
    on the other. If Mr. Bradshaw should ever revert to force in an attempt to force Anguilla back into the Associate State, then I would ask the Secretary of State for a categoric assurance that Her Majesty's Government will vigorously oppose this and will use all the weapons at their command, including the large sum spent on aid, to frustrate this diabolical move and defend the right of the Anguillans.
    Some straight speaking this evening and some firm action would not be opposed by other West Indian States. Indeed, I believe that they would welcome it. Tonight, I hope that the Minister will indicate what aid Mr. Bradshaw has passed on to the Anguillans. Can we be assured by the Secretary of State that aid specifically designated for Anguilla actually gets to the island? Further, can we be assured that Anguilla gets its fair share of the general aid voted by this House?
    Finally, will the Secretary of State tell the House tonight in unmistakable terms his opinion of Mr. Bradshaw's latest remarks about our representative there and what action Her Majesty's Government intend to take to rectify this very serious matter?
    11.9 p.m.
    Mr. Neil Marten: I intervene briefly, because I was in the island of Anguilla last month. I pay tribute to Mr. Anthony Lee, the British representative out there. He is doing a good job under extremely difficult conditions, and doing it very diplomatically. This House should recognise what he is doing.
    When I was there I met the Council, which Mr. Bradshaw would call the Revolutionary Council. I spent about three hours with the Council discussing the past, the present and the future. Members of the Council told me that the aid projects which come from the central aid in Barbados are coming through, but the budgetary aid, the grant aid, is not coming through from St. Kitts.
    This is one of the things about which they are complaining. Having talked to the Council, I was left with the impression that it would never agree to go back to St. Kitts, whichever party took over from Mr. Bradshaw if and when he went. I think that this is a factor which we must realise. Whoever is in

    1147
    power in Anguilla they do not want to get tied up again with St. Kitts.
    Next week, on 30th July, elections are to be held in Anguilla. They will elect, albeit not under the constitution, a council with which we could talk and realise that it is representing the people through a democratic election. Unfortunately they will not be elected under the constitution, and therefore there might be difficulty about it.
    We created the difficulties in the Associated status of these three islands, and I therefore believe that it is up to us, constitutionally or not I do not know, to try to get these people out of the difficulty. Britain should come forward and act as an honest broker between the situation de facto and the situation as it exists in St. Kitts. In doing so we would have to offer some quid pro quo to St. Kitts for the loss of Anguilla, and it may be that Anguilla would offer a free trade area with St. Kitts so that she would get the benefit of the trade, which she does not have at the moment.
    Once we have started these talks and brought them to a conclusion which accepts that Anguilla will split from St. Kitts, then comes the problem of what constitution Anguilla will be under. The Council was very firm about this and said, "We have got our independence now, and therefore we could not really be expected to go back to colonial status". I believe that the British Government have to work out a solution for islands such as these which split off because the original marriage has not worked very well. We must in some way give them all the benefits of colonial status, without the trappings and meaning of colonial status. It might be independent associated status under the Crown with some sort of administrator in charge, I do not know, but Anguilla is not the only island in this state. There are others, but perhaps it is better not to mention which ones.
    We must now accept that Anguilla will not willingly go back to St. Kitts. We must therefore see what we can do, because unless we settle this matter there will be no economic progress and no investment in Anguilla and the island will just tick over, without any progress for the people, and it is really the people in whom I am most interested.
    11.13 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): It is almost exactly a year since the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), on an Adjournment debate, raised the question of the situation in Anguilla and its relationship with St. Kitts. The hon. Gentleman appears to be establishing an end-of-Session tradition in raising the problems of the community in Anguilla. It will indeed be a sad day when small communities, in many parts of the world, cannot look to the House of Commons to express their grievances and their fears. I have taken careful note of what both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who has recently had the advantage of being in Anguilla, have said. I congratulate them both on saying so much in such brief speeches, and I shall try to emulate them.
    My first comment is that it would be a pity if the perfectly legitimate and understandable anxieties which the hon. Gentlemen and many hon. Members have about the situation in that part of the Caribbean were at this stage to cast doubt on the concept of Associated status itself. It is important in discussing the problem of Anguilla to maintain a sense of perspective about the general problems of Associated status. This new concept of Associated Statehood has existed only since February of last year, and St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, where difficulties have arisen, is only one of five Associated States. In some of the other Associated States, such as Antigua, the relationship of Association has also passed through a degree of testing, but appears to have stood the test successfully.
    As so often happens, when things go well nobody pays any attention but when troubles come they attract attention. I hope the inference is not drawn from the problems of the Anguillans and St. Kitts and Nevis that the concept of Associated Statehood and the experiment of it has failed. It is an important experiment and we must wait some time to see how it works out.
    Mr. Marten: I should like to agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
    Mr. Thomson: I now turn to the particular situation which has been raised in

    1149
    St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. The Government's responsibility in the Associated States is limited to defence and external affairs. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said we declared this ad nauseam. I can only say in answer that he, as someone raising this debate in the House, is perfectly entitled to make the comments he does about the internal affairs of St. Kilts but I as a Minister of the British Government am not entitled in any way to comment upon them.
    Our involvement in this problem of Anguilla's relations with St. Kitts arises because of the appeal from the State Governments to us and other Governments in the Caribbean area last year to restore the situation arising from the attempted secession of Anguilla. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked for an assurance about the question of the use of force. I should like to tell him as plainly as I can that Her Majesty's Government felt then at the beginning of the problem as we feel now. This is a problem not susceptible to a military solution. It can be solved only by political means. That is certainly our constant endeavour. That is why my noble Friend Lord Shepherd went out to Barbados a year ago and played a leading part in the negotiations in which Ministers from the four independent Caribbean Commonwealth countries participated as well as the Premier of St. Kitts and representatives of the Anguillans.
    When that initiative failed we were called on to accede to a request from St. Kitts to send a Parliamentary delegation to seek an alternative solution. The solution recommended by that Parliamentary delegation, to which I paid tribute in the House at the time, was embodied in an exchange of letters between the Minister of State, Lord Shepherd, and the Premier of St. Kitts on the one hand, and between Lord Shepherd and the Anguillan representative, Mr. Webster, on the other. Under the terms of this interim settlement the Government agreed to make available the services of a senior civil servant to assist with the administration of Anguilla for 12 months. I appreciate the tribute the hon. Member for Banbury paid from first-hand knowledge to the work Mr. Lee is doing in very difficult circumstances there.
    1150
    It was agreed this period of 12 months could be lengthened or shortened by mutual agreement and we reserved the right to withdraw Mr. Lee if circumstances made it necessary. But, in default of any other arrangement we would expect Mr. Lee, whose appointment dates from January this year, to serve out his appointed year of office. In the exchange of letters it stated that before the conclusion of his appointment he should submit recommendations on the future status of Anguilla which we should hope would enable all concerned to continue in peace and harmony. He is having a difficult task, but he is half way through it, and our view is that we should give him every possible encouragement to complete his task.
    I should make it clear that this interim settlement was never intended by us to be more than a holding operation. In this sense it is already proving its worth. It has contributed to a lessening of tension in the area, despite some upsets, and it has enabled a British adviser's presence to be introduced, and permitted the resumption of development aid to Anguilla under British direction on a relatively important scale.
    The hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked about aid and I want to give him the facts as I know them. I am grateful to him for giving me notice that he would raise this subject. A sum of nearly £40,000 has been spent on development aid to Anguilla from the beginning of the 1967–68 financial year to the present time. Of this sum, £30,000 has been spent on essential social and economic projects, such as schools and medical equipment, and the airstrip in Anguilla. I want to make it clear that this aid has been made direct to Anguilla through the Crown Agents and is disbursed under the supervision of the British official in Anguilla. I am satisfied therefore that the aid destined for Anguilla against approved projects is being applied for the benefit of the island, and to this extent the interim settlement has been useful.
    I hope that that, as far as it goes, will be reassuring to the hon. Members, but I do not want to pretend that any substantial progress has been made in resolving the fundamental issue, namely, whether or not Anguilla will return to the constitutional fold at the conclusion of

    1151
    Mr. Lee's appointment—as is the expectation of the State Government—or whether the separation of Anguilla from St. Kitts will be given legality, as is the desire of the Anguillans, as I understand it. I shall not say more about the various proposals put forward by the Anguillans concerning their own future at the moment, except to point out that this is a small community of about 6,000 people, without substantial economic resources to sustain a separate existence. All of us concerned with the problem are extremely conscious of the dangers of fragmentation in the Caribbean.
    The hon. Member for Banbury raised the question of elections. He saw something of the preparations for these during his visit to Anguilla. I am aware that the Anguillans have announced their intention of holding further elections next week, on 30th July. I say straight away that for some time I have thought that there would be much advantage in the Anguillans holding proper elections. After all, one of the important aspects of this matter is to ensure that those with whom we deal in Anguilla have authority to speak as genuine representatives of majority opinion on the island. We naturally want to make sure that those who claim that authority will have the confidence and standing to negotiate and subsequently to defend any agreements that they may reach before their own public opinion.
    It was against that background that I recently asked Mr. Webster, as an essential and urgent step, to co-operate in holding elections for the island council, in accordance with the relevant legislation and in the presence of impartial observers. I thought that observers from outside would be a decided advantage and would allay anxieties which might be felt about the way in which the Anguillans conducted their own affairs. I offered, with the agreement of the State Government if my proposal was acceptable to Mr. Webster, to approach the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to see whether he would be willing to provide observers. But Mr. Webster rejected my request and is going ahead with these elections next week, which are not in accordance with the State law, which is the only law that Her Majesty's Government can re-
    1152
    cognise as having any authority on the island.
    Having said that, I add that we shall benefit this time—which we did not last time—from a report from Mr. Lee on the general conduct of the elections, but I must also add that this does not cancel out the disadvantage of the fact that the elections are not taking place under a law that we recognise.
    The hon. Member for Sevenoaks referred to certain allegations which the Premier of St. Kitts made against Her Majesty's Government and the British Government representative in the Associated States, Mr. Roberts, in May this year. The facts as I know them are that a report appeared in the Opposition paper in St. Kitts in which Mr. Bradshaw was said to have accused Her Majesty's Government of complicity in the Anguillan attempt to secede and it was also reported that Mr. Bradshaw had accused Mr. Roberts of lying to him.
    Mr. Roberts—this is the answer to the hon. Member's question about what we have done—was instructed to ask the St. Kitts Government to issue a denial that those statements had been made. This denial has not been forthcoming. When it was not forthcoming, Mr. Roberts was authorised to state that the allegations made were wholly incorrect. I object strongly to any of Her Majesty's representatives being called a liar, and I am, therefore, grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Member gives me to repudiate, in the plainest terms I can use, that sort of allegation.
    The problem that is created by that kind of allegation is, of course, that it does not help—indeed, it actively hinders —our search for some sort of constructive progress designed to resolve the difficult problems between Anguilla and St. Kitts.
    I wish to add for the information of hon. Members that since this incident we have had the advantage of a useful exchange of views in London with Mr. Southwell, the Deputy Prime Minister of St. Kitts. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State, whose illness prevents his being in the House tonight, took the opportunity of that meeting to tell Mr. Southwell plainly what an unfortunate impression those quite unfounded allegations had had on opinion here. I very

    1153
    much hope that in the months to come we will be able to work closely with the St. Kitts Government and with all concerned in this problem towards a solution of the dispute.
    Both hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have a deep concern and interest in the Caribbean, and I recognise this. All of us who have followed Caribbean affairs over the last decade or so are conscious that it is an immensely slow and painful task, which has had many setbacks over recent years, to try to encourage co-operation and unity between the small island communities in the Caribbean. I still think that it is
    1154
    immensely worthwhile patiently to persist in trying to achieve that co-operation and unity. As I have said, we are midway in the efforts that have followed the very successful and helpful visit of the Parliamentary Commission which went out there. I hope that we will not yet despair of these efforts to promote reconciliation between St. Kitts and Nevis, on the one side, and Anguilla, on the other side.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  Registered Letters (Delivery)
  Registered Letters (Delivery)
  Sub-Post Offices (Anti-Bandit Screens)
  Sub-Post Offices (Anti-Bandit Screens)
  Charges
  Charges
  First-Class Mail (Tiverton-London)
  First-Class Mail (Tiverton-London)
  Postal and Telephone Charges, Scotland
  Postal and Telephone Charges, Scotland
  Vehicle Licence Applications (Welsh Language)
  Vehicle Licence Applications (Welsh Language)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Cramlington Area
  Cramlington Area
  Exclusive and Shared Lines (Maintenance Costs)
  Exclusive and Shared Lines (Maintenance Costs)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Export)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Export)
  Waiting Applicants
  Waiting Applicants
  Hull Telephone Exchange
  Hull Telephone Exchange
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Mid-Wales (Reception)
  Mid-Wales (Reception)
  Old People's Homes (Licence)
  Old People's Homes (Licence)
  Programmes (Sub Judice Matters)
  Programmes (Sub Judice Matters)
WALES
  Investiture of the Prince of Wales
  Investiture of the Prince of Wales
  Services (Ministerial Responsibility)
  Services (Ministerial Responsibility)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Brixton School of Building (Extension)
  Brixton School of Building (Extension)
  School Building (Derbyshire)
  School Building (Derbyshire)
  Beer Filter Pads
  Beer Filter Pads
  Educational Reorganisation
  Educational Reorganisation
  Hornsey College of Art
  Hornsey College of Art
  Building Programme (Cheshire)
  Building Programme (Cheshire)
  School Allocations (Appeal)
  School Allocations (Appeal)
  Secondary Education (Harrow)
  Secondary Education (Harrow)
  Public School Commission (Report)
  Public School Commission (Report)
  School Meals (Working Party's Report)
  School Meals (Working Party's Report)
  Grammar School Pupils (Bootle)
  Grammar School Pupils (Bootle)
  Medical Schools (Admission)
  Medical Schools (Admission)
  Denominational Schools
  Denominational Schools
  Overspill Population (Birmingham)
  Overspill Population (Birmingham)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary School Pupils (Preparation for Transfer)
  Primary School Pupils (Preparation for Transfer)
  Chair in Maritime Economics
  Chair in Maritime Economics
  Swimming Instruction
  Swimming Instruction
  School Building (Lancashire)
  School Building (Lancashire)
  Welsh Language Nursery Schools
  Welsh Language Nursery Schools
  Schools of Exceptional Difficulty (Salary Incentives)
  Schools of Exceptional Difficulty (Salary Incentives)
  Aintree Racecourse (Purchase)
  Aintree Racecourse (Purchase)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Breathalyser and Blood Tests
  Breathalyser and Blood Tests
  Betting Offices (Hours)
  Betting Offices (Hours)
  Marches and Demonstrations
  Marches and Demonstrations
  Eros Statue, Piccadilly
  Eros Statue, Piccadilly
  Long-Term Prisoners (Security)
  Long-Term Prisoners (Security)
  Public Services (Coloured Personnel)
  Public Services (Coloured Personnel)
  Race Relations Board
  Race Relations Board
  Criminal Evidence (Review)
  Criminal Evidence (Review)
  Borstal Institutions
  Borstal Institutions
  Gaining Board (Membership)
  Gaining Board (Membership)
  Prison Sites (Sale)
  Prison Sites (Sale)
  Sexual Offences Act (Amendment)
  Sexual Offences Act (Amendment)
  Civil Defence (Compensation for Redundancy)
  Civil Defence (Compensation for Redundancy)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tanzania (Aid)
  Tanzania (Aid)
  Former Colonial Officials (Pensions)
  Former Colonial Officials (Pensions)
  Singapore and Malaysia (Special Aid)
  Singapore and Malaysia (Special Aid)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Nationalised Industries (Borrowing Powers Orders)
  Nationalised Industries (Borrowing Powers Orders)
  Industrial Production Index
  Industrial Production Index
  Non-Industrial Civil Service
  Non-Industrial Civil Service
  Income Tax and Surtax (Personal Allowances)
  Income Tax and Surtax (Personal Allowances)
  Decimal Currency (Machines)
  Decimal Currency (Machines)
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  2½ Per Cent. Consols
  2½ Per Cent. Consols
  Tax System (Computer Scheme)
  Tax System (Computer Scheme)
  Government Office Staffs (London and South-East)
  Government Office Staffs (London and South-East)
  Department (Staff and Salaries)
  Department (Staff and Salaries)
  Ministerial Salaries
  Ministerial Salaries
  Musical Instruments (Purchase Tax)
  Musical Instruments (Purchase Tax)
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, North-East
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, North-East
  Public Companies (Prices)
  Public Companies (Prices)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Development Corporations (Transfer of Assets)
  Development Corporations (Transfer of Assets)
  Aluminium Smelter, Lynemouth (Gaseous Effluent)
  Aluminium Smelter, Lynemouth (Gaseous Effluent)
  Resources Element Grant
  Resources Element Grant
  Local Planning Authorities
  Local Planning Authorities
HOUSING
  Rents (Local Authority Newly-Erected Dwellings)
  Rents (Local Authority Newly-Erected Dwellings)
  Improvement Grant
  Improvement Grant
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar (Aid)
  Gibraltar (Aid)
  British Passports (India)
  British Passports (India)
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  British Honduras
  British Honduras
HOSPITALS
  Book "Sans Everything"
  Book "Sans Everything"
  Merthyr and Aberdare (New Hospital)
  Merthyr and Aberdare (New Hospital)
  Springfield Hospital, Crumpsall (Dismissals)
  Springfield Hospital, Crumpsall (Dismissals)
  Complaints
  Complaints
  Medical Staffing Structure
  Medical Staffing Structure
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Scientology
  Scientology
ROADS
  Expenditure (Overspill Areas)
  Expenditure (Overspill Areas)
  A64 (Tadcaster-York)
  A64 (Tadcaster-York)
  Zebra Crossings (Local Authority Responsibility)
  Zebra Crossings (Local Authority Responsibility)
  X-Way Experiment
  X-Way Experiment
TRANSPORT
  Docks and Harbour Act (Constituents Appeal)
  Docks and Harbour Act (Constituents Appeal)
  Fruit (Carriage Charges)
  Fruit (Carriage Charges)
  Use of Headlamps
  Use of Headlamps
RAILWAYS
  Electrification (Wales)
  Electrification (Wales)
  Central Wales Line (Closure)
  Central Wales Line (Closure)
SCOTLAND
  New Hospital, Dumfries
  New Hospital, Dumfries
  Third Part, West Kilbride (Rent)
  Third Part, West Kilbride (Rent)
  Older Housing
  Older Housing
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  H.M.S. "Resolution" (Cost)
  H.M.S. "Resolution" (Cost)
  Royal Naval Dockyards (Pay Structure)
  Royal Naval Dockyards (Pay Structure)
  Scottish Regiments
  Scottish Regiments
  Disbanded Regiments
  Disbanded Regiments
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Armed Forces
  Armed Forces
  Radioactive Contamination (Safety Teams)
  Radioactive Contamination (Safety Teams)
  Air Training Corps (Report)
  Air Training Corps (Report)
  Research Establishment Experiments (Animals)
  Research Establishment Experiments (Animals)
  Polaris Base, Faslane
  Polaris Base, Faslane
  Polaris Missiles (Cost)
  Polaris Missiles (Cost)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL DISARMAMENT
  NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL DISARMAMENT
  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  PRESIDENT KAUNDA (TALKS)
  PRESIDENT KAUNDA (TALKS)
  ECONOMIC SITUATION (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC SITUATION (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (STAFF)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (STAFF)
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (TRANSPORT COMMUNICATIONS)
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (TRANSPORT COMMUNICATIONS)
  COLLIERY TIPS, ABERFAN
  COLLIERY TIPS, ABERFAN
  No. 10 DOWNING STREET AND CHEQUERS (MAINTENANCE COST)
  No. 10 DOWNING STREET AND CHEQUERS (MAINTENANCE COST)
  HOME SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  HOME SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC SITUATION (CORRESPONDENCE)
  ECONOMIC SITUATION (CORRESPONDENCE)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  SEEBOHM COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  SEEBOHM COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS PRESS GALLERY (CATERING DEFICIT)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS PRESS GALLERY (CATERING DEFICIT)
  CONTEMPT OF COURT (PRESS AND BROADCASTING COMMENT)
  CONTEMPT OF COURT (PRESS AND BROADCASTING COMMENT)
  DIVORCE CASES
  DIVORCE CASES
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fisheries Policy (Review)
  Fisheries Policy (Review)
  Storm Damage, Devon (Compensation)
  Storm Damage, Devon (Compensation)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Redundancy (Re-Employment)
  Redundancy (Re-Employment)
  Productivity (Shift Working)
  Productivity (Shift Working)
  New Lount Colliery (Closure)
  New Lount Colliery (Closure)
  Departmental Staff and Salaries
  Departmental Staff and Salaries
  Employment Exchange, King Street, Manchester
  Employment Exchange, King Street, Manchester
  Retail Prices (Increases)
  Retail Prices (Increases)
  Donovan Report (Consultations)
  Donovan Report (Consultations)
  Pension Rights (Change of Employment)
  Pension Rights (Change of Employment)
  Industrial Training School, Scotland (Publicity)
  Industrial Training School, Scotland (Publicity)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Palace of Westminster (Television Annunciators)
  Palace of Westminster (Television Annunciators)
  Royal Parks (Deck Chair Hire Charge)
  Royal Parks (Deck Chair Hire Charge)
  Government Whips (Free Transport)
  Government Whips (Free Transport)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Abuses (Checks)
  Abuses (Checks)
  Pensions and Benefits (Value)
  Pensions and Benefits (Value)
  Family Entitlements (Leaflet)
  Family Entitlements (Leaflet)
  Supplementary Pensions (Claim Procedure)
  Supplementary Pensions (Claim Procedure)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Factory (Ashington, Northumberland)
  Factory (Ashington, Northumberland)
  Salvage (Waste Paper)
  Salvage (Waste Paper)
  Non-Scottish Manufacturing Companies (Employment)
  Non-Scottish Manufacturing Companies (Employment)
  Cigarettes (Price Increase)
  Cigarettes (Price Increase)
AVIATION
  Civil Airports, Scotland
  Civil Airports, Scotland
SHIPPING
  Scotland
  Scotland
  ANGLO-CZECHOSLOVAK RELATIONS
  ANGLO-CZECHOSLOVAK RELATIONS
  GUYANA (FRONTIER DISPUTE)
  GUYANA (FRONTIER DISPUTE)
  EXPATRIATE FORMER OFFICIALS (PENSIONS)
  EXPATRIATE FORMER OFFICIALS (PENSIONS)
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS (PEKING-LONDON)
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS (PEKING-LONDON)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock; The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Lord Manton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Northesk—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

INDUSTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
3.6 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the public concern following Press reports of the recent speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (when opening the extension to the laboratory of the British Industrial Biological Research Association, at Carshalton), in which he indicated:

(a) that the need might arise for the work of the British Industrial Biological Research Association to be restricted, notwithstanding the finnancial support of the Ministry of Technology;

(b) that this would reduce the essential work as to the safety of food additives;

(c) that any such restriction would be due to the failure of numerous food firms to support and contribute to that research;

and, whether, in fairness to the firms who are contributing, Her Majesty's Government will make available a report on the valuable work of that association with a record of the financial support which is being accorded to it.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, no; I am not aware of any public concern. It is conceivable that the noble Lord saw an entirely misleading account of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and I shall be pleased to send him a copy of the full text. The Parliamentary Secretary did not indicate any of the things enumerated in the noble Lord's Question. I will arrange to have copies of the Research Association's last Annual Report, which contains a list of subscribers, placed in the Library.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for her excellent reply? Will she understand that the reason for asking the Question is that the report by the Press was in exactly the terms that have been stated? Will she further understand that I shall be glad to have the correct report? Moreover, will she bear in mind, as representing the Government, that it is now some years since we had a chance of discussing the Research Association's Reports in this House?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, yes; I take the noble Lord's point. Of course, Her Majesty's Government are very much concerned about the work of this Association. In view of the fact that the noble Lord himself is so knowledgeable on this matter in relation to additives now used in food, I will of course convey his observations to my right honourable friend.

METEOROLOGICAL FORECASTS
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the Meteorological Office were unable to foretell the violent gale of the 14th-15th January or the torrential rain of the 10th July in time for useful warning to be given to the public in the areas concerned.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the Meteorological Office gave as much warning of these events as was technically possible.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his rather Delphic Answer, do I take it that the Government were satisfied? Would the noble Lord care to consider the possibility of breaking into the Radio 4 programme or television, rather in the same way as the Light Programme is broken into with "Attention all shipping!", so that land people may be warned of such approaching catastrophes?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, we will bear that in mind. I would point out that something of that sort was done on one of the occasions to which the noble Lord has made reference. A flash warning was broadcast immediately before one of these events. We will, of course, continue to bear this in mind as a way of warning people of what is about to happen.

CREAM: BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION
3.10 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take arising from the disturbing report of the directors of four of the country's public health laboratories (viz., Birmingham, Truro, Worcester and Gloucester), that 34 per cent. of specimens of liquid or clotted cream failed to pass the test for bacterial contamination.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, my noble friend is no doubt referring to a report in the Lancet of July 13. I am advised that the report does not suggest that cream is dangerously contaminated with bacteria. The view of Her Majesty's Government was stated by my honourable friend Mr. Hoy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place on May 15. My right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health are advised that the public health risk from cream is minimal. I can inform my noble friend that there have been no cases of food poisoning, or other illness, attributed to cream with any certainty during the past ten years. We are satisfied that
1244
the code of hygienic practice for cream production, handling and distribution which has recently been adopted by the dairy trade will reduce what little risk of infection remains.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that the original Question was replied to in another place after attention was first drawn to the position in London, and that my Question relates to the findings in four further laboratories? May one wonder whether the Government think there is any use in having these consultants who produce the figure quoted in this Question if in fact they are not of any value?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of what my noble friend has said. But, in a period of increased consumption of cream, I consider it extremely satisfactory that there has been no case of illness attributable to cream for ten years. We are proud of this record, but not complacent, and my right honourable friend will continue to watch the situation carefully.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, is it not a fact that sour cream is eaten in many parts of the world, such as Scandinavia, and is considered very good for health? Is it not a question of distinguishing between lactic acid bacillus, which has a wholesome effect, and other bacilli which do not, and in these cases may it not have been the wholesome baccili?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am sure that the remarks of the noble Lord are quite wise.

HOSPITAL OUT-PATIENTS' DEPARTMENTS
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Ouestion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration is being given by the Ministry of Health to the Report by the Medical Care Research Unit based on inquiries into the conditions of out-patient departments in 80 hospitals; whether it is considered the conditions disclosed are typical of

1245
many hospitals outside the scope of that Report; and what progress is being made to improve poor conditions for out-patients in some hospitals nearer to the criterion of hospitals where conditions are generally excellent.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Report of a survey commissioned by the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust and covering out-patient services at 80 hospitals was published last week under the title Gateway or Dividing Line?. It is being closely studied at the Ministry of Health and my right honourable friend the Minister will give careful consideration to any evidence from the survey of deficiencies in the out-patient services and to any suggestions made in the Report for their improvement. He is not yet in a position to give his considered views. There is no reason to suppose that the results of such a broadly based survey are not applicable to other hospitals as well, but one may assume that improvements have been made since the survey began in 1962; for example, 241 new out-patient departments have been completed since then and 58 more are under construction.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that there are some hospitals that have immensely improved conditions for out-patients, quite apart from the waiting period? If that be so, can he give me any explanation of why some hospitals have secured this improvement and others still lag far behind? Could it not make the better hospitals a criterion for the rest?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the explanations I could give would probably be longer than would suit the convenience of the House at the moment. The position varies from hospital to hospital, but this is a matter which preoccupies my right honourable friend and the Regional Hospital Boards.

STATEMENTS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement about his talks in Gibraltar. Following this the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on bank mergers. Finally, I would remind your Lordships that dinner will be available this evening from 7.30 until 8.30 p.m.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.14 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report from the Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. SELECT COMMITTEES
Following the setting up of the Committee on the Gaming Bill the Committee have considered the functions, powers and nomenclature of Select and other Committees and whether any change in current definitions is called for. They are of opinion that all Committees of the House, other than Committees of the Whole House and Committees of unlimited membership are, in fact, Select Committees and that unless the House otherwise directs Standing Orders 57–60 apply to them.
The Committee also recommend that Standing Order 55 should be amended to reflect the practice whereby in the absence of the Chairman of Committees a Deputy Chairman takes the Chair at Committees of the Whole House and Select Committees.
The Committee further recommend that appropriate entries be made in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
2. CALLING OF BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE
The Committee recommend that in future the Clerk of the Parliaments should call on the Lord Chairman to move the stages of Private Bills in the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLEAN AIR BILL
3.16 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen, to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Clean Air Bill, has consented to place Her interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Third time.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moyle for moving Amendments to the Bill on my behalf at Report stage. The Amendments have made Clause 6 much better and more practical. One Amendment was due to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to whom I am also most grateful for his searching scrutiny of the Bill. I know that when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was Minister he took particular interest in clean air policy and the work of the Alkali Inspectorate. That fact is remembered with pleasure by that dtpartment, which is not very much in the public eye but whose quiet work has made, and continues to make, such a difference to the air around us.
There is only one further thing I wish to say. This Bill, in regard to grit. dust and chimney regulations will cover much smaller industrial furnaces than those to which the law has previously applied, and this has been achieved by the ready co-operation of the G.B.I. and is a very useful advance. I think though, it is worth while repeating something which I said on Second Reading, that nowadays most smoke pollution comes not from industry but from the domestic chimney. In fact four-fifths comes from the domestic chimney, and it is this situation which the Bill will do much to remedy. I think I have satisfied your Lordships, under the prompting of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that smokeless fuel is available in ample quantities for smoke controlled areas to be extended considerably without shortage or hardship, and this should bring about a noticeable difference in polluted areas. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Raglan.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the whole House will agree that this is a useful little measure, and will join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who has so ably sponsored it in this House. I know the local authorities will also think it a useful measure when they get the improved powers in it, and so will the Alkali Inspectors as regards the central Government powers. It provides, of course, only for cleaner air, and containing the pollution of the atmosphere is certainly an important thing. I say "containing" because, as everybody knows, it is not getting worse. We are holding the line there, even on the most difficult substance, which is SO2 and on the easier ones, like simple old smoke from chimneys, we are making rapid progress.
But it becomes clearer and clearer that we ought to consider the pollution of our environment as a whole. It is not only the air we breathe; it is the rivers and lakes from which we get our drinking water, and in which we like to sail and swim. It is the beaches on which we like to run and lie. It is the sea around us from which we get much of our food, and it is the soil from which we get the rest. It is the food itself, which we increasingly spray with this or that if it is vegetable, and to which we increasingly give this or that to eat if it is animal. And to return to air itself, there is the mischief of noise, and noise is no more than a form of air pollution.
The fact of the matter is that the seas, the rivers, the earth and the air, and all that therein is, need each year more and more protection from the unintended effects of human industry. In all our bones, and especially the bones of young people, there is radiostrontium; the emblem of the age of pollution. If a manufacturer of petrol puts lead in it to stop pinking, that lead turns up at the South Pole. If a farmer puts D.D.T. on his crops that D.D.T. turns up in the livers of the hawks that eat the mice that eat the crops. If the master of a ship runs her on the rocks, that used to mean one ship sunk with her cargo, and the rest was a problem for Lloyds. Now, if the cargo happens to be oil, it may mean an entire coastline fouled, thousands working on the bitter task of cleaning up, a tourist industry

1249
threatened. If somebody administers drugs to farm animals to keep them fit, it may be that those who eat those animals in the end will no longer respond to those drugs when their health depends on it. If someone invents a very quick way of cutting up wood by using a petrol engine, it may mean that forests are polluted by noise, so that they are still economiclly worth while, but no longer a source of recreation and peace for harried people—unless of course one were to make a law that band saws must have silencers, in which case they would not cut so much wood, and would not be so much better than an old push-me pull-you.
If industry finds a very good new way of making something, the only disadvantage of which is that it produces a large quantity of poison, or even of non-poisonous muck, which has to be got rid of down a pipe, there is a difficult decision before us; who ought to pay for getting rid of it? Should it be the firm concerned, in its own factory? Should it be the sewerage authority who accept it at the other end of the sewer? Should it be the river authority, who accept the purified sewage effluent from the sewage authority? Or should it be the water undertaking who have to turn what they find in the river into drinking water for people's taps?
From kitchen taps to space itself, where dead satellites keep on orbiting, this is a growing problem right across the board. Nothing is made without dirt. As more and more people come into the world, so they make more and more. And there is more and more dirt. Fortunately, there is also more and more ingenuity about getting rid of it. All these problems can be dealt with and, in this country, all are being. But I think this will not be the last proposal for controlling the pollution of this or that which the British Parliament will have to consider.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
3.22 p.m.
House in Committee, Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOVERCRAFT BILL
3.23 p.m.
LoRD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to make Orders in Council with respect to hovercraft]:
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("by category according to use").
The noble Lord said: I am very mindful of the other business to follow on the Order Paper, and I do not wish to delay the House, but I consider this is an extremely important Bill. I would express regrets that it comes to us at a very late stage of the Session. We have, I believe, only one day left before the other place leave for their holidays, leaving us to clear up their pretty untidy mess. We know and appreciate the urgency of this Bill, and there would be no purpose at all in trying to delay it; in fact, we welcome the Bill. We know that if we try to alter the Bill now there is the danger of its not receiving Royal Assent until the autumn, because the other place will be already on holiday. It leaves us with art unhealthy option: we either try to improve the Bill now, and face the danger of causing delay in its passing into legislation, or we let it through without giving it proper consideration.
The Bill started in another place, I think last May, some three months ago, and it was a non-Party Bill, really uncontroversial. It was vitally important for this industry. Surely there was a case, if ever there was one, for introducing this Bill into this House. It cannot be said that this House does not take a deep interest in the hovercraft industry. From reading our Hansard Reports I think it is fair to comment that this House has taken more notice of the hovercraft and its development in the past year or so. Therefore I consider it very unfitting that this House should be allowed virtually only one day for its consideration of the Bill.
Having said that, may I turn to my Amendment No. 1? It seeks to make perfectly clear in Clause 1(1)(a), that orders will be made stipulating the category of hovercraft. One has the example of the marine hovercraft, the category between the S.R.N.4—the very large passenger carrying hovercraft—and the two-seater. A similar Amendment, perhaps more sophistticated, was moved in another place, but it was not accepted by the Government as it was said that it would detract from the force of Clause 1(3)(a). I do not see the force of that argument here. This Amendment is intended to help the layman, or anyone reading the Bill, and I believe it gives the Bill more precision. I do not see there would be any harm in accepting it. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I find myself in a good deal of agreement with what the noble Earl has said. I am all in favour of giving more time for consideration of legislation, if it is possible, but, for reasons which I do not think it is necessary to go into here, it was not feasible in this particular case. However, I am sorry that the Bill did not start off its life here and that we have not had more time to discuss it.
With regard to the particular Amendment the noble Earl has moved, I am in agreement with him that it will probably be necessary to have different orders for different categories of hovercraft. It would clearly be inappropriate to deal in one order with everything relating to the hoverrail and, say, the hovercraft. However, it would be much more appropriate
1252
to provide for the differentiation that the noble Earl wants under subsection (3) paragraph (a) of Clause 1, which, as he has already seen, states specifically that an order under this clause may make different provisions for different circumstances, or for hovercraft of different descriptions. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that we accept the principle behind the Amendment, and submit to the noble Earl that it is more properly taken care of in the other part of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for that assurance and acceptance of the principle. I certainly should not wish to take up any more time on this Amendment, as I know the other Amendments are much more important. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON LORD KINGS NORTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("hoverport") and insert ("hovercraftport").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. There are two other Amendments, Nos. 4 and 8, down in my name, and as in my mind they are closely connected I ask leave to refer to them all in the few remarks I want to make. I am sorry that I was unable to be present at the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House and was not, in consequence, able to mention the arguments leading to my Amendments. May I say, if belatedly, how much I welcome the Bill, and that I sincerely hope my attempts to amend it will not seriously hinder its progress. The Bill permits of improvements in the administration of a new kind of machine which, through its being neither solely terrestrial, aerial nor marine in character, has been something of a problem child particularly from the point of view of the regulation of its safety. This task has indeed been performed for the last nine years, at the request of the Government, by the Air Registration Board, of which I am Chairman. As a result of the enactment of this Bill it should be possible to devise a regulatory system which, though my Board would hope to have a major role in it, would be more logical in structure.
I have long objected to the name "hovercraft". To "hover", according to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary is
"to hang or remain suspended in the air over or about a particular spot".
In so far as a hovercraft was a craft that just hovered it would be singularly useless as a transport. In so far as "hovercraft" is understood to mean a craft that is capable of hovering, then the word is more acceptable, even though it would seem to embrace the helicopter and the balloon, which clearly is not intended. The unique characteristic of the hovercraft is that it does its hovering near the surface, generally near the earth's surface. The way this is achieved to-day is by means of an air cushion, and a machine which hovers in this way is called by the British Standards Institution an "air cushion vehicle".
There are, however, other ways of hovering near the earth. It can be done by a fluid jet; it can be done by a magnetic repulsion; it can be done very effectively, as Professor Laithwaite has shown in recent lectures, by electromagnetic means. The rate of invention and development is so fast in these days that I am sure it will not be long before practical hovercraft employing means other than an air cushion will be made.
Consequently, I feel it will save a lot of trouble, and amendment of legislation in the future, if in the present Bill, instead of equating hovercraft to air cushion vehicle—instead of equating, that is to say, genus to species, which is what the definition in the Bill does—we substitute the broader definition in the second Amendment I propose, which takes account of possible devices for sustentation other than air cushions. It would have been best, in my opinion, if instead of the word "hovercraft" the Bill had referred in its title and throughout to "surface effect machines". I feel, however, that were I to argue for such a wholesale change I should be holding up a Bill that I want to see become law as soon as possible. I do not, therefore, propose to argue against the term "hovercraft", though I hope that the Government will agree to it being defined in the way I suggest.
But if a hovercraft is a craft capable of hovering, it: would appear that a hoverport is a port capable of hovering.
1254
We are, I think, much too careless in our invention of new words, and this picture of a new Laputa is one that rather shocks me. We are surely referrirg to a hovercraft port, and although this is a relatively "long-winded" description it is at least accurate: and I hope that your Lordships agree that accuracy is to be preferred to brevity. It has, I fear, become too late to scotch "hovercraft" and substitute "surface effect machine": "Hovercraft" can be said already to be in the language. But "hoverport" is not, and I hope it will be agreed that it never shall be. That is why I beg to move the first Amendment in my name.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like briefly to entirely support the noble Lord on this Amendment. I believe that it is logical, sensible, pertinent, and should be accepted by the Government. I do not think the word "hovercraft-port" was discussed in another place—I am not quite sure, but I think I am right. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, knows, the word in the Bill's Title, "Hovercraft", has been in much dispute, but even if we accept that, I think we should at least accept th.! word "hovercraftport".
LORD LEATHERLAND: I do not want to enter into an argument about semantics, but if you do this what are you going to do about the word "airport"?
LORD BESWICK: May I say that I, too, am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, was not here on Second Reading? Apart from any other qualifications which he has, and they are many, he is Chairman of—I was going to say one of the most highly-respected organisations in the aviation field; I am not sure that I should not say the most highly respected. I have never heard any real criticism against the Air Registration Board, which says a lot for its excellent Chairman, and also for the officials.
The noble Lord was not here earlier and our discussions to-day are a little curtailed. He has pointed out that we are dealing here with a problem child. We have a new piece of equipment, a new tool of mankind—I use these rather flowery expressions because I do not

1255
want at this stage, before we come to Lord Kinnoull's Amendment, to call it either a vehicle or machine. The fact that it is a new invention has led to a lot of trouble with its description.
I do not think I disguised too well on Second Reading my own feeling that the description ought to be an "air cushion vehicle", and although the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, says that he has now changed his mind, so far as that term is concerned, I think there was a time when both he and I agreed that "air cushion vehicle" would have been more appropriate. I am sorry that it was not adopted, because had it been adopted he would have seen that while logic can take us in a certain direction it cannot take us all the way.
It would have been quite inappropriate, I think he will agree, to have "air cushion vehicle port". I do not therefore think it necessarily follows that because we have a hovercraft we have to have a "hovercraftport". I say this with a certain amount of feeling, because I recall another occasion when we had a similar problem before us in relation to the helicopter. On that occasion, I had the privilege of working under the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when we decided that we, at any rate, were going to ensure that the name given to the place where the helicopter came down and took off would be appropriate; it would be concise, logical and scientifically credible.
I remember that we assembled together all the most expert practitioners in the English language. There was the former editor of the Spectator, there was the then editor of the New Statesman, Mr. Kingsley Martin, one or two other professors, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and myself. We said that "heliport" was a bastard of a word which twisted the Greek language; we could not possibly allow it; we must have something different. We solemnly agreed that it should be "airstop". This, we thought, satisfied all requirements. This was logical, it was scientifically credible and it was intended to mean precisely what it said. Nevertheless, although this seemed so excellent, and although we solemnly drew up a report on the basis of this discussion over lunch which we had at the Savoy, the fact of the matter is that the Public
1256
insisted on calling it a heliport. I am afraid that even if we put into this legislation the term "hovercraftport", the general public outside would still call it a "hoverport". Therefore, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that logic does not come into this matter. I have before me some literature of British Rail in which they invite us to "hover to Europe". I do not know how that fits in with the noble Lord's feelings. Here is another paper, the Kentish Express, in which we are told to "Abandon Hovercraft".
I sympathise with what the noble Lord says, but on consideration he may well agree with me that whatever we do in the legislation, "hoverport" will be used. Therefore there is every reason to put into the Bill the word which will be in general usage. The other point about the definition I will deal with when it is called. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his first Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was good enough to mention my name, may I be allowed to say a word or two in support of what he has said? We had all these distinguished gentlemen along to give us the benefit of the finest vintage and cull the very essence of the English language, but, as he said, all they could come up with in the end was "airstop". If I may make one correction, the luncheon was not at the Savoy; it was in the Refreshment Room of this House. One suggestion which was made by some wit was that we ought to call it "Ogmoorings". Unfortunately, I did not equal Mr. Fiore Belisha in having my name immortalised in that way, and that suggestion was turned down. But I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said is quite right, because yesterday I noticed in The Times an interesting supplement on hovercraft and something else called hydrofoils, and I extracted a few of the names which are already in common use in this field. There are "hovercraft", "hovertrains", "hover-finance", "hovermarine", and something most intriguing which is called a "hoverskirt". So in view of the fact that these words are already in The Times and therefore, as it were, have the imprimatur of The Times I think we should be well advised to accept the advice of

1257
the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and leave in the Bill this word "hoverport" which is in common use now.
LORD KINGS NORTON: I realise that in my fight to keep the language logical and pure I am on a losing wicket. I do not regard this as the most important of my Amendments, and I withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Interpretation, etc.]:
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No.:3:
Page 5, line 35, leave out ("vehicle") and insert ("machine").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 standing in my name and, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to couple it with Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. All these deal with the definition of "hovercraft" in the Bill; it is, I believe, the main source of concern, certainly to this Committee at the present time. In my opinion, the definition of "hovercraft" in the Bill is defective on four counts. The first count is the word "vehicle". When one looks at the Pocket Oxford Dictionary one finds the word "vehicle" defined as follows:
"carriage or cart or other land conveyance."
As every member of the Committee knows, hovercraft are used on water and land. For that reason, I have suggested in my Amendment that for the word "vehicle" there should be substituted the word "machine".
The Government reply so far as been that the word "vehicle" has appeared already in other Acts. Section 10(9) of the Finance Act 1966 reads:
"In this section and its Schedule hover vehicle' means a vehicle designed to be supported on a cushion of air."
The definition in that Bill will be incorporated, I think I am correct, in this definition in this Bill. Because it has already appeared in another Act, I do not consider proves that it is correct in this Bill. This Bill, after all, will be the mother of hovercraft Bills.
The second defect in the definition, as I see it, arises in the words "when in motion". That is the subject of my
1258
Amendment No. 5. I consider that it is not accurate to say in that definition:
"'hovercraft' means a vehicle which is designed to be supported when in motion wholly or partly by air expelled from the vehicle to form a cushion of which the boundaries include the ground, water and other surfaces beneath the vehicle."
The reason why I consider it is not accurate is that there are many different types of hovercraft, including the hover-craft that moves the industrial pallet. As I understand it, that is certainly not in motion when it is operating.
The third defect is one that concerns the manufacturers of hovercraft. I believe that technically under this definition hovercraft when they are operating and when they are coming into a harbour would be excluded. In particular, the S.R.N. 6 has been mentioned. At this stage the hovercraft entering slowly into the harbour comes into the operation in a trapped air mode condition. Air is no longer being expelled from the hovercraft at that stage. Yet under this definition we see that
"'hovercraft' means a vehicle which is designed to be supported when in motion wholly or partly by air expelled fro n the vehicle."
So this is the point: that at this stage when the S.R.N. 6 is coming into the hoverport the definition apparently does not apply.
The fourth defect, as I see it, is again a technical one: the fact that the definition at present would include a helicopter operating close to ground, and also, surprisingly, the VTOL aircraft or Harrier as well operating close to ground. One would ask the Government, are these intended to be included in the definition? The question that must be at the forefront of our minds is, what is this definition trying to achieve? We see the Government spokesman on June 27 [col. 108] saying:
"It is our feeling that the definition in the Bill is precise and yet wide enough to allow the inclusion of all the potential developments that we wish to see taken into account."
Those last words "that we wish to see taken into account" I think have been words of query as to what exactly the Government wish to take into account in this Bill. We were told, in reading the reports in another place, that the hoverbed was not intended; yet there

1259
is nothing in this Bill to say why or on what grounds it is not intended.
I ask the noble Lord to clarify to-day exactly what is intended to be covered under this Bill. I believe the definition in the Bill is vitally important. I do not think that at the present time it is correct. Sadly, in the little time we have to consider it I do not think we can do much. But I hope that at least the Government will give us some satisfaction in relation to the four defects that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord has made some very important and interesting points. Some of them relate to the wider question of the definition and I will, if the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, agree, reserve what I have to say until we come to the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, which on the Marshalled List actually comes before the other three Amendments to which the noble Earl spoke.
Dealing with the question of the substitution of "vehicle" by the word "machine", the noble Earl asked what we were seeking to achieve. What we are seeking to achieve is to recognise the hovercraft as a vehicle of a new kind—and I emphasise the word "vehicle". We are here dealing with a new form of transport. We are not purporting to deal with a number of the other devices or pieces of equipment which do, as he rightly says, use this principle of repelled air. There is, for example, the hoverbed. The hoverbed is not, I would have thought, a piece of equipment which the Air Registration Board or its successor would wish either to register or certify in any way. There is also, I gather, either in use or coming into use, a dentist's drill which depends on repelled air for its operation. The noble Lord's definition would include such a piece of equipment. This would be classified as a machine.
We do not intend to try to cover all these other applications of the air pressure principle, but we do seek to cover vehicles. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will see that the word "vehicle" really does carry out the job which we want it to carry out. It is a better word than the word "machine".
1260
On that explanation I trust that it will be possible for him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: In spite of the Oxford Dictionary, I think that the word "vehicle" has a very much wider signification, because, as probably the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, will agree. when you take powder, the jam is the vehicle by which the powder is conveyed. I think that "vehicle" really means anything which is used to convey something else. At any rate, that is how I have always used the word.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and of course I accept that "vehicle" should remain in the definition. I felt that it was a question that should be raised, and I quoted from the Oxford Dictionary. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.53 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON LORD KINGS NORTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 35, leave out from ("which") to end of line 39 and insert (",when in operation, is sustained in the air wholly or partly by means depending upon its proximity to a surface beneath it.")
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this Amendment. May I just make one comment, and that is that if the intention is really to define a new vehicle, and that vehicle in the Bill is defined as an "air cushion vehicle", it is a thousand pities the Bill was not called "The Air Cushion Vehicle Bill". I have been trying to bring some logic into the Bill, using the name "hovercraft" that has been given to it and trying to give that name a definition which will serve us for other kinds of vehicle than the "air cushion vehicle". That is the sole purpose of the definition which I have given under Amendment No. 4, which I strongly suggest does everything the present definition does and a great deal more and will save us a lot of trouble when we come to deal with hovertrains, other devices and other vehicles which are supported in novel ways. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I agree that the noble Lord has made an extremely brave attempt to find a suitable definition here

1261
which is non-technical but which defines what we want to define, no more and no less. With respect, I do not think that he has entirely succeeded. I admit that the words in the Bill could possibly be faulted in some respect, but they are not open to the criticism to which the noble Lord's own words are open. For example, there is the point which the noble Earl made about the occasion when a hovercraft is not actually sustained in the air. It can be coming into the hoverport, or the hovercraftport, and therefore be actually in the water. It is being propelled but it is not sustained in the air, either wholly or partly, and at that point of time it could be said that if the Bill were amended, as the noble Lord seeks to amend it the hovercraft would not be covered.
The noble Lord himself said that the words he puts forward would cover a great deal more. That is another criticism which I make of it: we do not want to cover a great deal more. There will be a time, I have no doubt, when there will be machines or vehicles which will be sustained by something other than air, say by a magnetic field, which the noble Lord himself used as an example, but we do not know exactly what kind of machines or vehicles they are going to be. It would be a mistake to try to tailor a piece of legislation to fit a piece of equipment which is little more than a gleam in the inventor's eye at the present time. So we do not want to go wider than we need. We do not want to cover, for example, an inspection gantry, which could be suspended by air, wholly or partly, under the noble Lord's definition.
I am advised that the noble Lord's definition would include a hydroplane or a speedboat. The noble Lord shakes his head. That is his view, but I assure him there is another view. If you get a speedboat at speed, it is sustained partly by air and will be covered by the noble Lord's definition; and we do not want so to cover it. I feel, therefore, that while there may be a balance of advantages and disadvantages, in the end the words in the Bill "designed to be supported when in motion wholly or partly by air" are abut as foolproof as we can get them. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will see fit to accept them.
LORD KINGS NORTON: If my definition is improved by adding the words
1262
"is designed to" I would agree to include them, but in point of fact I believe that for any defect my definition. Has, there is another defect of the same kind in the definition in the Bill. However, I should prefer, if I may, to continue what is becoming a detailed and semantic argument with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on some occasion outside this House. The last thing I want to do is to delay the passage of this Bill, and if it will help I shall be happy to ask leave to withdraw this particular Amendment; but I would, on sitting down, say that if it is intended to limit the intention of the Bill to the air cushion vehicle, I can only say it is a thousand pities that a word which connotes a great deal more has been used.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment. No. 5:
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("when in motion").
The noble Earl said: I beg leave to move this Amendment. I have already explained its purpose. This was the second and, I think, major defect as I saw it in the definition in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I thought the noble Earl begged leave to withdraw this Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I do not think the noble Lord replied to this particular Amendment in his previous answer.
LORD BESWICK: I beg your pardon, that is quite right. The point here is that the words in the Bill are "designed to be supported when in motion If the words "when in motion" were left out, it would mean that the definition was defective. The whole point of the definition is that it should cover a machine which is designed to move.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am not quite with the noble Lord because, as I explained, there can be pallet hovercraft which we were told in another place were included and which are not designed to move except by manual pulling.
LORD BESWICK: With respect to the noble Earl, I dealt with that point on the earlier Amendment. I said that it was not intended to extend the definition

1263
of this Bill to cover pieces of equipment which were not vehicles. The noble Lord accepted the proposal that we were dealing with vehicles. If we are dealing with vehicles, then we are dealing with things which must move. That is why I thought that the noble Earl's other Amendment would not be moved. We do not want to cover industrial gantries, for example. They would be covered by the Factories Acts or similar legislation, but not by this Bill.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: If I am confused, I apologise, but I think that the Government are a little confused on this Bill. In another place the noble Lord's honourable friend said that the industrial pallet was covered by this Bill, and the noble Lord is now saying that apparently it is not. However, I do not want to delay the Committee, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

GIBRALTAR: CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS
4.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with permission I should like to make a Statement on the Gibraltar constitutional talks. I am glad to inform the House that the constitutional talks which I have been conducting in Gibraltar ended yesterday evening in full agreement. All delegates to the Conference recorded their deep satisfaction at the outcome, both on the question of the link with Britain and with regard to the changes in the internal constitutional arrangements. A lengthy communiqué was issued regarding the details of the agreed new arrangements. I am arranging for copies of the communiqué to be placed in the Library of the House.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that Statement in this House. We always
1264
welcome him back after his exhausting trips abroad, and we also welcome the Statement, although it is not very communicative. I hope that we can welcome the agreement which, one gathers, was reached unanimously despite Spanish blandishments. I will study the communiqué carefully. It had not arrived in the Library a few minutes ago. Am I right in thinking that the agreement will be enshrined in an Act of Parliament here? Can the noble Lord perhaps give us a few of the highlights of the communiqué? Am I not also right in thinking that this is not a question of full internal self-government, but very nearly so?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the success of the efforts of the noble Lord in Gibraltar. We shall study the communiqué with interest. May I ask whether any economic undertaking of any sort is involved?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to the constitutional talks, clearly the economic factor is not included. Although one had the opportunity of discussing this matter, a number of new ideas were given to me and quite recently to the Commonwealth Secretary. These are being actively studied.
May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that this is not a question of internal self-government because of the realities of the situation in Gibraltar. On the question of whether there will be an Act of Parliament, the new Constitution and the Preamble, which is to include the link, will be in an Order in Council, not in an Act of Parliament. I think perhaps the noble Earl might like to read the communiqué. If I were to give some of the highlights, I should perhaps be at this Box for some time, not only in mentioning them, but also in explaining them. As I have said, the communiqué will be placed in the Library, and if the noble Earl wishes to raise any points with me, either privately or in the House, I shall be happy to assist him.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on reaching full agreement with the Government of Gibraltar. May I ask him three questions? First, will this new Constitution incorporate the five vital points? Secondly, if it does not,

1265
as one understands that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said that Gibraltarians may enter Britain as they wish, in spite of the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, can he give an assurance that that situation will continue as long as the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British and not only during the present attitude of the Spanish Government? My third question is to ask the noble Lord whether he has read the article by Llewellyn Chanter in to-clay's Daily Telegraph, entitled "Britain's two Faces over Gibraltar". I would ask him whether the views of the Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Office will no longer be divergent when these two Ministries are merged in the autumn.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to the latter point, I am not aware of any divergence of views between the Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Office. When we go to Gibraltar we go with one voice, and that is the voice of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to immigration, we have agreed that Gibraltarians who wish to come here to work during the present difficulties should be allowed to come in within the general figure which we have set for immigration as a whole. I would not go any further than that, nor do my friends in Gibraltar press me on this matter.
In regard to the five points, the noble Lord will be aware that two of the points, the question of immigration and the question of the Home Office, are not covered. I have made my views quite clear in regard to Gibraltar coming under the Home Office, which is a purely United Kingdom domestic matter. With regard to the first, second and fifth points, I believe that they are fully covered by the preamble, the link between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it would be for the convenience of the House that when a Statement of this importance is made we should have the communiqué at the same time as the Statement? I have no doubt that the communiqué is already in the hands of the Press, yet it is not with us in this House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Earl has read his morning paper, he might already have seen certain aspects of the communiqué. The communiqué was issued last night in Gibraltar and also in London. I undertook to place copies of the communiqué in the Library, for the convenience of Members.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, has said, can we take it t gat an unbreakable relationship between Gibraltar and Great Britain will be incorporated in the Order in Council?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we issued an interim communiqué last Saturday, in which we gave a firm undertaking that the link would be in the Preamble of the Order in Council. I should have thought that that was perfectly clear.

PROPOSED BANK MERGERS
4.8 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which was made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place about the proposed bank mergers between Barclays, Lloyds and Martins Banks. The Statement is as follows:
"I announced on July 9 that I had received the report of the Monopolies Commission on these proposals and that the Commission had found against them by a majority of six to four. The Government have now received representations from the banks, and, in the light of these and other comments and representations, have studied carefully both the conclusions of the majority and the note of dissent by the minority.
"The Government accept the conclusion of the majority. They consider that the proposed mergers between Barclays and Lloyds, or between Barclays and Lloyds and Martins together would be contrary to the public interest and therefore should not proceed. The Government see not objection, however, to Martins joining with another bank.
"The Government believe it essential to maintain a sufficient number of sources of finance for small and

1267
medium-sized businesses, including in particular the fast-growing innovating companies, and they consider that the structure of banking which would result if the mergers went through would lead to a less satisfactory competitive situation. These disadvantages outweigh, in the Government's view, the cost savings to be expected from the merger, especially in the light of the majority's doubts about the likely size and speed of these savings in a less competitive situation.
"Moreover, there is a danger that the mergers might lead to pressure for still further concentration and hence eventually to a two-bank system. The Government believe that this pressure would be stronger than the Commission suggests, and they share the view, expressed both by the majority and the minority, that a two-bank system would be clearly undesirable.
"The Government have noted the criticism expressed by both majority and minority of the agreements between the banks on deposit and landing rates. In the light of this criticism we shall again review the arguments which have hitherto led to the conclusion that these agreements are not, on balance, against the public interest.
"The Government have communicated their views on the proposed mergers to the banks concerned and I am glad to announce that they have informed the Governor of the Bank of England that in these circumstances they do not intend to proceed with the mergers".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. As I happen to bank with one of the banks concerned, I suppose that I must confess an interest—or rather, I fear, a disinterest. I should like to ask the noble Lord just one question on this Statement. Can he tell us how the Government propose to review the pros and cons of the arguments about the agreements between the banks on lending and interest rates? Will that be done in consultation with the banks and other interests, or what sort of procedure is envisaged by the Government?
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, is not this a complete contradiction of the Labour policy of nationalisation, which obliterates competition? I do not mind, and it is not my business, but in other cases they object because competition remains.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, is just a little out of date.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for making that Statement in this House. While agreeing with him that the proposed merger would be against the public interest, may I ask whether the Government propose to do anything about the second majority suggestion, that in the interests of improved efficiency banks as large as these should publish full accounts. I do not know whether I have to declare an interest, but I have an overdraft at one of these banks.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, on the first point of the noble Earl, the Government are in fact proposing to review these matters both internally and externally, and will take full advice. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the President announced on March 20 that the banks would be required to provide, in confidence, full information to the Bank of England for transmission to the Board of Trade about their profits and any reserves, so that Her Majesty's Government would be able to review after a period of time the need for continuing the exemptions. If it becomes clear that it is desirable to remove the exemptions from that particular class of banks before the review of all the accounts is completed, the Government will take the necessary action. In other words, both matters are under active consideration.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I suggest to your Lordships that from the beginning of this House practically until to-day your Lordships have always spoken upon your honour— that is, in accordance with the terms of the last but one of our Prayers, "without fear or favour or partial affection"—and that we should continue to do so and cease to declare an interest?

HOVERCRAFT BILL
4.15 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15):
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Hovercraft Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Before the Question is put, may I say how very much I appreciate the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, have forgone their strongly held views in the general interests of this Bill. I know that they do so because they have at heart the development of this project. Although both they and, to a very minor extent, I, myself, feel that some of these words are open to argument, nevertheless the Bill itself is necessary, and I hope that it will now be allowed to pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to wish the Hovercraft Bill every success in passing into law, and we hope it will be an effective law. I think it will be a comfort to all the thousands of passengers who have travelled on the S.R.N.6, and those who, we hope, will be travelling on the S.R.N.4, to know that at last their journey is legal, or will be when the orders are made. I recognise the difficulty of drafting this Bill and of trying
1270
to cover this very flexible new animal. It has, I believe, a tremendous potential, and I hope it will always be supported by the Government. I am still not happy about the definition, but I hope it will, in fact, prove to be a success. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for trying to meet our points in a very courteous way. One had the feeling that in many cases, but for his brief, he would have liked to accept our points.
On Question, Bill passed.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
4.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "discriminate"]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("the") insert ("sole").
The noble Earl said: Not having been among the 28 or 29 speakers on Second Reading, I think that perhaps I should explain my presence here on this Bill to-day. This is a subject of deep concern to me, as I think it must be to anyone who is concerned with the health and quality of life in these islands, but my presence on this Committee stage of our discussions is, your Lordships will be glad to hear, purely temporary. It is due to the fact that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor is attending a Garden Party in the neighbourhood. But being here, however temporarily, I feel I must stand up and be counted, and, in three or four sentences before I introduce this first Amendment, declare my attitude towards the Bill as a whole.
I believe that we must control and curtail immigration to this country a great deal more stringently than we have done in the past. I believe equally strongly

1271
that we must do all in our power to see that there is no discrimination against those immigrants who are here or who may come here. It is quite clear to me from the P.E.P. report, from the Street report and from my own experience that substantial discrimination at present exists. If it persists, and above all if it extends to the children of the immigrants—to the second and third generations—these islands will be an extremely unpleasant place for our descendants to live in. Finally, I believe there is a place for legislation here. However, for the reasons so admirably presented by my right honourable friend Mr. Hogg in another place, and so cogently expressed on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, this particular Bill is in my view not without its defects, and I hope we shall be able to improve it during our Committee stage.
There was a longish discussion on Clause 1 during the Committee stage in another place, and it was subject to quite severe criticisms. It was amended there rather at the last moment, and it has again been criticised. The purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is not to prevent discrimination in general. We all discriminate. My noble friend Lord Brooke, for example, is discriminating against your Lordships' Committee at this moment in accepting some iced coffee not far from here. This Bill is not aimed at discrimination as such: it is aimed specifically at discrimination "on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins". I believe that this should be made absolutely clear, beyond question, in this definition clause. It should be made clear that this Bill is in no way intended to restrain or inhibit anyone's normal commercial judgment so long as that judgment is not based on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins. It should be made clear that this Bill was not designed to restrain or indeed inhibit discrimination on the grounds of personal whims or personal prejudice, so long as that whim or that prejudice is not in its turn based on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins.
That means, as I understand it, that if the application of a coloured immigrant for housing or employment, for example, is rejected, no complaint or action will
1272
be sustainable under this Bill unless that rejection is on the sole ground of colour, race or ethnic or national considerations. In short, it should be made clear that this is the discrimination which this Bill is designed to catch. That is the purpose, and the sole purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD MITCHISON: The first five Amendments on the Order Paper are about Clause 1, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in a disarming and attractive speech, if he will allow me to say so, said that it had been discussed considerably in Committee below. So it was, and this clause was introduced, after hearing that discussion, on Report. This is the clause which the Government produced after what was really quite a long and very cross-purposive (if I may use that expression) discussion, largely among the lawyers. I am sorry to have to say it, but this Amendment strikes me personally as the worst of the five which have been produced, for this very simple reason. What we are trying to do is to deal with discrimination. Suppose a man has mixed motives—and he usually has—for refusing, let us say, goods, services or whatever it is, and that one of those motives is colour. I should have thought that we all wanted not to allow that to influence him at all.
Suppose one takes it a stage further. Suppose he says, in some case in court, that he did not want any Africans or Asians, or whatever race it was, in the lodgings he was letting. Then, under examination, somebody says to him: "It was not only the African element, was it? You knew about this man, and the fact that he had given a lot of trouble in the lodgings he has been in before?", and he says, "Yes". Of course, if that was a motive, too, then he would be taken out of the Bill under this Amendment.
I agree that Clause 1 is of very limited effect because its provisions themselves state fairly clearly what is required. But I would have thought it very dangerous indeed to put in the word "sole" here, because you really might exclude cases which you did not want to have disregarded; and you would be putting on the judge, if it came to court and he had to construe this clause, the difficulty of deciding whether it really was the whole reason. Nowadays, judges have to quantify a good many things, including the

1273
relative carelessness of two drivers in an accident, and they tend, I think, rather to avoid putting the whole blame on any one person. They would tend, I believe, in a case like this, to avoid saying the sole motive was the discriminatory one if there possibly was any other reason. I think that is a sound view of human nature; and, therefore, I suggest that this Amendment is mistaken, misconceived—the politest word I can use about it, at any rate, in deference to the noble Earl who moved it so delightfully. But I think it is a dangerous thing to allow in, and I hope the Government will reject it.
LORD BROCKWAY: I want to intervene for only one moment. I appreciate the fact that the Opposition now recognise the need for legislation. For many years they opposed that altogether. May I just say, in regard to this particular Amendment, that I recognise the Bill refers only to the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins. I should have preferred a Bill which also dealt with religious discrimination and even with sex discrimination. I recognise this does not. But there are very many cases where it is difficult to draw the line between religious and racial discrimination. There are the cases of Pakistanis who wish to wear turbans when they are serving on buses. Is that racial, or is that religious? To insert the word "sole" here would encourage in the minds of magistrates or of those responsible for the decisions of courts a very rigid interpretation. I hope that the Committee will reject this word "sole" because it might encourage decisions that discrimination which is fundamentally racial might also have a religious element.
4.30 p.m.
LORD ELTON: It seems to me that this Amendment goes to the very root of the Bill, exposing in one word the many obstacles and difficulties and, indeed, impossibilities that it may encounter in its administration. I think that we are too ready to assume that once you prove, say, that a man has not sold to an immigrant or has not employed an immigrant, a case is made out. What continues to puzzle me is that in so many cases, as adumbrated by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, it will not be the ethnic origin of the immigrant against which there is discrimination; but some characteristic
1274
associated with his ethnic origin. It seems to me that you are going to get some obstacles here.
There is an example reported in the Press to-day. Fifty French students had to be dispersed by the police at Bournemouth. They had stormed a café on the ground that they had been banned from using it by its owner. Its owner said that these fifty French students were filthy, that they had behaved like pigs. They came for about three hours at a time, mixed up the salt and the sugar and spilt ash everywhere and so he banned the lot, saying, "I will not have any French students here." One of the French students afterwards said to a reporter, reasonably enough: "Well the proprietor is justified in what he said. A lot of our people are filthy and they did the things that he said; but not all of us. We are being discriminated against unjustly." That is certainly a case in which it will be extremely hard to say that there is justifiable ethnic discrimination and where the noble Earl's Amendment would clear up the matter.
There is another instance to which I referred on Second Reading. Your Lordships may remember it. It was reported not long ago that a tenants' association at a place called Warley, Worcestershire, claimed, with what accuracy I do not know, that after two or three years' investigation they believed that there were some 300 polygamistic immigrants in their neighbourhood. They wanted to know where they would be under the Act if they objected to a polygamist because he was a polygamist; although it would be easy to argue that they were really objecting because he belonged to a certain race and had certain ethnic origins.
Without this word "sole" then; will be an immensity of obstacles and injustices. As I look through the rest of the Bill I find clause after clause in which the insertion of this word would clear up what is at present extraordinarily obscure. I do not want to argue about another clause but may I say that under Clause 3 it appears to me that if you do not employ an immigrant who is qualified for a job you have broken the law. I should have thought that it ought to be drafted to say that you must employ the better-qualified man, whatever his race, colour or the rest of it. I am qualified up to a point to play cricket, but I

1275
am not so qualified as is Colin Cowdrey and I should not expect, if I were an immigrant, to be put into the team because I was qualified, as I might be, for the parents' team at my grandchildren's prep school. That is the sort of obstacle it seems to me that you are going to get all through the Bill. I hope the Government will give some consideration to what the noble Earl has said.
LORD ALPORT: I was one of those who in another place on a previous occasion opposed an attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to introduce legislation to deal with race relations. I must confess, having seen this Bill and, not least, having studied the first five Amendments which are proposed to be moved, that my feelings that legislation on this particular subject is likely to be ineffective are reinforced rather than weakened. I do not believe, frankly, that this Bill will be a success in achieving what we want in this country, which is greater tolerance in racial matters. I regard it rather as a declaration of intent than as a piece of effective legislation; and the contradictions which are inherent in the, Amendments which are proposed to the key clause of the Bill support, I think, that point of view.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, took the opportunity of expressing his point of view in general when he introduced this Amendment. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I have referred in somewhat general terms, on the occasion of the moving of this particular Amendment, to the general view that I have on the Bill. I should regret it if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, felt that I have been converted or that I have moved in any way from my original standpoint on this matter.
4.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I have long known that the subject of race relations was a matter of deep concern to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I have also long known that there is very little difference between us in our detestation of discrimination on grounds of race and the other matters which are the concern of this Bill. I welcome and completely accept the words he uttered in introducing his Amendments. Equally, I accept what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. No one in this House, or anywhere else,
1276
could ever accuse him of racial prejudice. But I hope that we shall forbear, except when absolutely unavoidable, from making Second Reading speeches in these matters because we have 71 Amendments to get through—although, of course, we must fully consider every one.
I should like to say to all noble Lords who take part that I trust that every debate on every Amendment will be conducted in the belief that we all hate racial discrimination; that we are all determined to do our best to outlaw it; and that to-day we shall differ only on the detailed methods to achieve that objective. I also noted what the noble Earl had to say in explaining the absence of his noble friend Lord Brooke. He suggested that in attending a Royal Garden Party he was discriminating against your Lordships' House. I have to confess that I, too, received a Gracious Command to attend the Garden Party; but I am not discriminating at all. With permission I am doing what I regard as my first duty in this House.
The noble Earl's purpose in moving this Amendment is to emphasise, as I understand it, that discrimination on grounds other than colour, race, ethnic or racial origin—that discrimination, for example, on the basis of normal commercial judgment or personal judgment—will not be unlawful. I can assure the noble Earl at once that the Bill already achieves this as at present drafted and the inclusion of the word "sole" is therefore unnecessary. I disagree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the view he expressed on this point. I thought that the example he gave of the 50 French students banned from a café because they were fifthy and riotous and because they mixed up the salt and the sugar—
LORD ELTON: The point was that they were banned because they were French. The man said: "I will not have French students here."
4.40 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I heard what the noble Lord said, but I am talking about legislation and what would be upheld on a complaint of discrimination. My point is that cases like that would be covered without any reference at all to discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, and I regard it as unhelpful to

1277
suggest that they would not. I have assured the noble Earl that his Amendment is unnecessary and that his purpose is achieved by the existing provisions in the Bill. But I go further and agree with my noble friend, Lord Mitchison, that if the Amendment were introduced it would be very dangerous indeed and could have a major weakening effect on the Bill, because it would provide a loophole in cases where it could be falsely argued that race or colour was only one of the reasons for discriminating. That would be the argument. To paraphrase the Bill with the inclusion of the word "sole":
"…a person discriminates against another if on the sole ground of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins he treats that other…less favourably…"
We might just as well tear up the Bill, because anyone so disposed could discriminate with impunity by merely inventing another reason or two, whereas the real reason might well be that the person discriminated against was coloured. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, could not possibly wish his Amendment to have that effect, but I assure him that it would have. With that explanation I trust that he will agree to withdraw it.
EARL JELLICOE: I confess that I am a little puzzled by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. He said that the purpose I have in mind was covered by the Bill as drafted and therefore the proposed Amendment was superfluous. Then he went on to say, and it seemed to me to contradict his first statement, that the Amendment was extraordinarily dangerous in some way. I do not think that these two strictures are altogether compatible, and I find it rather puzzling. The noble Lord said that were the Amendment accepted, it would perhaps disastrously weaken the effect of the Bill. If someone were to put up an entirely fictitious argument as a defence against discrimination, surely that would be for the courts to test and decide, and it seems to me essential that here there should be real clarity. I think the Amendment tends to introduce clarity where there is none at present, and the arguments used by the noble Lord. Lord Mitchison, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, have convinced me that that is right. Nevertheless, we have a great many Amendments
1278
to deal with, we have four more on this clause, and I would at this stage—
LORD CONESFORD: Before my noble friend asks leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to make one suggestion for the consideration of the Committee. I can see the point put for Her Majesty's Government by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this particular Amendment might make the position very difficult, for some of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Milchison. Men's motives are very often mixed. Nevertheless, it seems to me that what my noble friend is seeking to guard against is a very real danger. I was wondering whether, if the Amendment were withdrawn, at the next stage consideration might be given to adding, after the word "if", some such word as "substantially"—" if substantially on the ground of colour". If it is an important motive I agree that the Government may wish to stop it, but it seems to me rather dangerous to suggest that there are no legitimate reasons why discrimination should be all right. I do not rise to suggest that the noble Earl should not withdraw his Amendment if he wishes to do so, but I hope that some such Amendment as I have suggested may be considered before the next stage of tie Bill is reached.
LORD SALTOUN: One likes to understand what one is doing. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said the Bill would not stop a restaurant proprietor in the position of the gentleman in Bournemouth from saying that he would have no Frenchmen in his restaurant. I should like to understand it. It seems to me that the Bill would stop him from doing just that.
LORD STONHAM: I did not say what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, alleges I said. If he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning he will see that I said that that kind of conduct would not support a charge under this Bill of discrimination on racial grounds; and that I still maintain.
LORD CONESFORD: It would.
LORD STONHAM: My noble friend Lord Mitchison drew attention to the fact that this particular matter was exhaustively discussed on Committee and on Report in another place, and the

1279
clause as we are now considering it is what virtually amounts to a consensus of opinion among citizens of the same mind who differ on the legal means to achieve what they all have in mind. No one legal luminary agrees with another as to the precise terms, and that is why I say this is a consensus; it is an essence, a distillation in words, of what it was they attempted to achieve. The Theft Bill, on a subject which had been considered for ten years by some of the greatest legal minds in the country, came to your Lordships' House, and we discussed that non-controversial Bill for nine successive days.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has put forward another suggestion and, as always, I will look at it; but I reassert to the noble Earl that, according to the best legal advice I could obtain, and certainly according to the consensus of opinion in another place, the words we now have achieve the purpose which the noble Earl has in mind. I made clear that that is certainly my own opinion and that the interposition of the word "sole", and drawing particular attention to that aspect opens the way to the kind of abuse I suggested. Of course I will read again what has been said, but when so much consideration has been given to a particular point I cannot hold out great hopes that I may come to a different conclusion. But certainly I will consider it.
LORD BARNBY: I pay particular attention to the request of Lord Stonham that any intervention should be brief, because this is going to be a long Committee stage, but I pay equal attention to the words of my noble friend, Lord Jellicoe, that this matter goes right through the Bill. Bearing in mind what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I want to express the hope that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe makes sure that he gets proper assurances that in the passage of our deliberations he will get satisfaction about this matter later. I feel, and I have felt, very strongly (and I have read it carefully) that the Bill is an extremely complicated measure to interpret. It is very difficult to see the difference between discrimination and freedom of choice. I am puzzled as to its effect and I have growing misgivings as to the
1280
interpretation which will be given to its provisions on common sense grounds. This strikes at the root of the whole matter.
I avoided saying anything during the Second Reading debate but I should like to give two illustrations of judgment between discriminaton and liberty of choice. This is not bringing in the question of colour, but has to do with interpretation in practice. I remember that after the war there was a natural sympathy with the Poles and an attempt was made to teach them to become miners. Many of them became very good miners and were accepted into the South Yorkshire trade unions. Then, when unemployment came, the first people who were thrown out of employment were the Poles. I thought at that time, having always been interested in Poland, that that was discrimination. I throw that out in support of the attitude that I take to the whole Bill and the practice and cost of its administration and in support of Lord Jellicoe's Amendment. May I just add this. The first Lord Vestey built up a large business and gave employment to perhaps 8,000 people in this country. But he had a rule of the house: no redhead must be employed. I call this idiosyncrasy discrimination. I see redheaded Jews, and I think I have seen reheaded Negroes. But it is discrimination. There is the difference: what is discrimination, and what is freedom of choice?
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his further explanation. He said that this clause as it has now emerged represents not only a great deal of careful thought which was given to it in another place, but also a consensus of opinion. Having read the discussion on Clause 1 on the Report stage in another place, I must say that I cannot entirely endorse his view that it represents a consensus of opinion. Grave disquiet was expressed about this particular formula. It is important that we should get it right, because a great deal stems from it right through the Bill. Therefore I hope that between now and the Report stage the noble Lord will be able to give further attention, in particular, to the suggestion, or something like it, which was advanced by my noble friend Lord Conesford. Having said that, and having listened to what the

1281
noble Lord hail to say on this point by way of assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.53 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK BARONESS BIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("Provided that the treatment of any person separately on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins, but in all other respects in the like manner as other persons, shall be deemed to be less favourable treatment.")
The noble Baroness said: I suggest that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together. The object of Amendment No. 2 is to clarify Clause 1 in order to make sure that treating anyone not "less favourably" could not be equated with "equal but separate". The Government's intentions on this are definitely that this should not be so. But the question is whether separate but equal treatment could be interpreted as not being less favourable if this clause stands as it is. For example, there could be separate toilets for black and white, yet all the fittings and equipment could be absolutely identical. There could be two bars separated in the same way; and this could apply to cafés. Any number of examples could be given.
In another place, on the Report stage, the Home Secretary said:
"If honourable Members will stop their reading at the new clause and do not read on to the other clause, then I agree that there might be a problem."
Unfortunately, I think this fails to recognise that in some parts of Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, as they stand now, the wording could be used to support a defence of separate but equal. For example, in Clause 2(1),
"…services or facilities of the like quality, in the like manner and on the like terms…"
could be interpreted as separation, although the facilities might be identical. Then, in Clause 3(1)(b):
"…like conditions of work and the like opportunities for training and promotion…"
could possibly be interpreted as having coloured teams with similar, but again separate, conditions; and so far as promotion is concerned, they could have equal chances, but in their own streams. Those parts of these clauses are contigent on the definition in Clause 1. This
1282
is why to get Clause 1 right is of the greatest importance.
Clause 1, as it stands, is ambiguous. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain, as it is worded at the moment, whether it would exclude the defence of separate but equal. This was the interpretation given to the words, "equal protection of the law", in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by the Supreme Court in 1896, and it was not until 1953 that this interpretation was reversed. Even though it is probable that an English court would not adopt this attitude, the possibility cannot be ruled out. Surely, so far as is humanly possible, any trace of ambiguity in legislation should be ruled out during the passage of a Bill.
All this Amendment does is to make the wording more explicit; in other words, it brings the wording more into relevance with the intention. It is absolutely essential that people outside Parliament, as well as those inside, should understand the precise meaning of any Act. If I may take, quite briefly, the example of the Gaming Act 1960; on the Report stage the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Mr. Dennis Vosper, explained that under the Bill we could not have in this country casinos of the sort that we know there are on the Continent. He went on to say:
"A private individual who organises a casino would find it a singularly unprofitable venture."
We saw how wrong he was about that. It took seven or eight years to reverse this decision, and in the interim a great many people made a great deal of money.
On the Bill we are discussing to-day some distinguished lawyers have taken one view, while equally distinguished lawyers have taken another view. I am expressing this afternoon part of the opinion of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who apologises that he is unable to be here. The fact that there is a difference of opinion between lawyers at this stage means that there is a doubt which should be eliminated before the Bill becomes law. I am sure that plenty of doubts will arise afterwards, but I do not see why we should knowingly add to the field day which will be provided for lawyers in the future. It is absolutely essential, again, that

1283
people outside Parliament should understand it; and in this Bill, in which emotions are highly involved, the people with whose protection it is concerned must feel that the Act in its final form is without any discriminatory loopholes, however unintended they may be. Only then, I believe, will they feel confidence in the Act.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Stonham, who said on Second Reading:
"The key to success lies in conciliation and settlement."
It is therefore essential if the Race Relations Board is to be able to do its work successfully that there should not only be no doubt but that there should quite clearly appear to be no doubt about this very important first clause which, as has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is really the keystone of the whole Bill.
As we are discussing the other Amendments at the same time, perhaps I may comment now, in order to save the time of the Committee, on the following Amendments. Amendment No. 3 in the name of my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, which has great similarity to the Amendment in my name and that of my noble friends, has, I feel, one unfortunate disadvantage—and this, I may say, is also the opinion of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. The word used here is "segregating" rather than "separating"; I think that in this context "separating" is a much better word. "Segregating" means totally cutting off. With this interpretation, taking, for instance, a hotel where an annexe was built with bedrooms, and that annexe was for black people, you could have a communal dining-room and get round it that way; whereas "separating" would mean, as it says, separating the people, not segregating them en bloc. Also, by omitting the phrase in this Amendment "like manner", which is in Amendment No. 2 in my name, I think we make it less clear, and it is again important in this particular Bill, as I have already said, that the position should be clear to the people who are likely to need the help of this Bill in order to cut down discrimination.
As to the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble
1284
Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, although again the intention is the same as that of the other Amendments I do not think it is as explicit or as clear as Amendment No. 2. I must say that though this was the Amendment which at the early stage of the Bill I should have favoured, I now feel that the Government definition, with Amendment No. 2 added to it, makes the position as clear as one can make it when one is dealing with this very difficult subject. The principle that separate treatment, although in like manner, shall be deemed to be less favourable is, I believe, more strictly defined in Amendment No. 2 than in the other Amendments. For that reason, I beg to move.
LORD BYERS: If we are taking all these Amendments together I shall willingly give way to the noble Baroness and follow her.
5.2 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I think my Amendment comes next. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 3 standing in my name on the Order Paper. I wish to move it because fears have been expressed in another place and in your Lordships' House—
LORD SALTOUN: On a point of Order. We have one Amendment which has been moved already. I do not think, therefore, that the noble Baroness can move another Amendment now. She may speak to this Amendment and cover her own Amendment and then move it when the time comes. But there is an Amendment before the Committee which we are discussing.
LORD STONHAM: With all respect to the noble Lord. I understood that that was precisely what my noble friend was doing.
LORD LEATHERLAND: If my noble friend were to say "I would be moving my Amendment for the following reasons…", she would be in Order.
LORD CONESFORD: May I suggest to the noble Baroness that she would be perfectly in order in making the speech she wishes to make if she just omits the word that she is "moving" her Amendment.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I apologise to the Committee. I did not know about all these details. I wish to speak to this Amendment because fears have been expressed, both in this House and in another place, that the definition of "discrimination" which now appears in the Bill is open to the interpretation that the separate but equal treatment of different racial groups would be lawful. It has been argued that this could lead to the development in this country of a form of apartheid or segregation, and I stress this word in spite of what my noble friend Lady Birk said. "Segregation" in this sense is a very useful and pertinent word—segregation on racial grounds.
It is, of course, quite clear that that is not the intention of the Bill, and the Home Secretary has said in another place that such an interpretation could not be put on it. He has pointed out that the definition in Clause 1 must be construed in conjunction with Clauses 2 and 5, and that when that is done it is not possible to argue that the Bill would authorise separate but equal treatment. I do not wish to challenge that, but the fact remains that doubts have been expressed about the effect of the clause as drafted, and it would be unfortunate if the Bill became law without those doubts being resolved. Other noble Lords clearly share this view and I welcome the other Amendments on the Order Paper which seek to redefine "discrimination" in a way in which their sponsors consider would remove the fears which have been expressed.
The spirit of the three Amendments actually on the Paper is the same, even though the words are different, and I personally should be quite happy if the Government could see their way to accepting any of these Amendments. I do not claim that there is any particular virtue in my own Amendment as compared with the Amendments put down by the noble Lords, and I should willingly leave it to the Government to decide which of the various Amendments on the Order Paper would best achieve the purpose which we all have in mind; or whether that purpose can perhaps be achieved by some other means. But I ask that some Amendment should be made so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that once this Bill becomes
1286
law there will be no question that separate but equal treatment of different racial groups would be lawful.
5.7 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My noble friends and I put down Amendment No. 4 for the very same reasons as have been given by the noble Baroness who has just spoken. As the Lord Chancellor said on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Government approach this whole matter of the Race Relations Bill in a spirit of humility, and I should like to reciprocate that. We do not feel in any way that we have the only or the certain answers to any of these problems. But so many of us have been advised, as the noble Baronesses have said, that the new definition of "to discriminate" introduced by the Government in another place constitutes such a grave risk of allowing something like apartheid to come into this country that we do not feel that we can accept it as it stands without amendment or clarification.
I referred on Second Reading to the question of providing bars in pubs which had equal facilities, and all the rest of it. There is a grave danger that that could happen, and I prefer the word which the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, used "segregation", to "separation"; but I am not going to split hairs on that point. The Amendment which we have put down is an adaptations of the definition of "discrimination" given in Article I of the United Nations' International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I take the Lord Chancellor's point, that in fact this adaptation only defines "discrimination" and does not in fact define "to discriminate", and would therefore cause some difficulty to the draftsmen with the rest of the Bill. But I would hope that, if one of the other Amendments is not going to be accepted, the Government would have a look at this adaptation and see whether it could be changed to fit in with the Bill. On the other hand, if the Government E re prepared to take the view that Amendment No. 2 or Amendment No. 3 would achieve the principle which we desire and the Government would accept it, then we should certainly accept that position very gratefully indeed. Our sole concern is to ensure that people are treated in all respects as equally as possible, irrespective

1287
of their colour, race, nationality or ethnic origin.
I have referred to this United Nations' adaptation and it gives me the opportunity of asking the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether the Government could at some time indicate whether or not they are going to be in a position to ratify this United Nations' International Convention. Certainly, if the Government are going to take the view that they can ratify it at some time in the near future, there are many people here who would be extremely grateful to them for their action.
LORD MITCHISON: May I interrupt for a moment? There are three Amendments here and this really is rather a drafting point, because I do not think that anyone in this House, or anyone below, differs much as to the desirability of getting rid quite definitely of the doctrine, which seems to have prevailed for some time but no longer prevails in the States, that if you provide people with equal but separate facilities that is enough and there is no discrimination. That was put very clearly in Committee by a number of honourable Members in another place, and the result of it was the introduction of this clause on Report. Therefore, there is no doubt that this represents the attempt of the Parliamentary draftsman and the Government to meet a particular difficulty which had arisen. It also no doubt deals with other points. I feel, if I may say so with great respect to everyone concerned, that in those circumstances, when the matter has been fully considered by the draftsman—
LORD BYERS: With great respect to the noble Lord may I suggest to him that this really is a matter on which we ought to hear the Government, because representations were made on Second Reading that I would hope were taken seriously by the Government. The noble Lord is saying that nothing can be done about this because it was all fixed in another place.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect that is not what I am saying and I conceive it my duty to finish.
The Amendment which is being put forward from the Liberal Benches is, of
1288
course, the same one that was put forward by the Liberals in Committee below. Therefore that, too, had consideration before this final Government draft appeared.
My conclusion about that point is that I think it is rather rash to try to improve on the matter by some further drafts, all of which differ from one another in detail—to improve on what was decided by the first Chamber. I see the noble Lord is shaking his head. I do not agree with him on this point, and he has always recognised the virtues of disagreement.
There is another point in regard to this. I think we should be careful not to take away too much from the courts. We try to safeguard every possibility and to close every loophole. There are some questions on which that kind of tactic works and others on which it does not: the second part of this Bill is about conciliation and enforcement, and the Race Relations Board as well as the courts have a considerable part to play. I cannot believe that any judge or the Board would treat the provision of equal but separate facilities as anything but discrimination, unless there were a quite separate reason for it. I can conceive of such a reason. I believe that in India it is thought ill of Brahmins that they should eat with people of a lower caste, or at least that used to be so. That would undoubtedly be discrimination, but it would be discrimination both by the Brahmins and by the others.
In my view, this is a matter where the court or the Race Relations Board or the Government of the day would be bound to look at the broad intention of the Bill, and the effect of these Amendments might be restrictive rather than helpful. In particular, on the second Amendment "without some saving words such as "without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing" it certainly would be restrictive. I do not think we ought to try to stop the lawyers at every point. They are not as bad as they are painted and they certainly look at the Act as a whole and at the intention for which it was passed. Therefore, I think this should be left to the courts, without what is intended to be additional clarification but might well be additional confusion.
LORD BROCKWAY: I only wish to say one thing in reply to my noble friend

1289
Lord Mitchison. Is it not the case that both in another place and in the speech which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, delivered in this House on Second Reading, the Government were prepared to look at this matter again?
LORD CONESFORD: I rise for one reason. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in an admirably clear speech indicated that she would have been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. Therefore since she has not been supported by a lawyer so far, I should like to say, speaking as a lawyer myself, that I think the clause as now drafted is capable of the ambiguity of which she complains. I am as eager as the rest of your Lordships to hear what the Government have to say, but I thought it would be unfair to those who have to move these Amendments not to say that there are at least some lawyers now in the Committee who agree with her in her complaint of a possible ambiguity of the clause as it stands.
The other matter (although why I should help the Liberals I do not know) is that the objection that their Amendment does not include the word "discriminates" is not very difficult to deal with. May I give them an Amendment that would do it? I think that if they said:
"For the purpose of this Act a person discriminates against another if he practises discrimination as defined in the next subsection',
and then started the next subsection with the words as they now are, except to omit the words "for the purposes of this Act", that would do what is desired.
LORD BYERS: That is very helpful.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for saying that he approached this matter in a spirit of humility. It is exactly in that spirit that I approach it, and I do not suggest in any way that the Government have the right answer. I will merely try to convince your Lordships and to give reasons for thinking that we shall get to the right answer.
I have listened carefully to everyone who has spoken in this debate and there seems to be no difference of opinion at all about the objective, and there has been almost no difference of opinion at all in the speeches we have heard that there is
1290
a belief, or a conviction, or a certainty that the clause as now drafted leaves some doubt as to whether equal but separate treatment might be regarded by the courts as being non-discriminatory on the grounds which are in the Bill. That is the particular point, and the only point that we have to consider, and I am glad that my noble friend Lady Birk, in introducing her Amendment, suggested that we might consider these three Amendments together. She has quoted my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and suggested that in her view, and on the legal advice she has had, there could be separate bathrooms or separate lavatories which could be identical in all particulars but would in fact be used to separate the races.
My own lay view—and I have studied this matter very carefully over the weekend, when I looked at it for about two hours—was that the Bill is all right. Looking carefully at Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 I just could not see how the courts could decide in the manner that my noble friend Lady Gaitskell and others have said they would. All these clauses are related to Clause 1. Clause 5 makes it unlawful to refuse to dispose of housing accommodation on like terms and in like circumstances, and it makes it unlawful also deliberately to treat differently from others in the like circumstances. I just could not conceive how you could say you were not treating a person differently from others by providing the same type of bedroom, bathroom or lavatory and saying "You must not use that one, but you must use this".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that we must approach this in a spirit of humility. The noble Lord also indicated that his Amendment was based on the words used in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination, which the United Kingdom has signed but not yet ratified.
The grounds in the Bill on which discrimination is to be unlawful are based on an early draft of this article in the Convention—precisely based on that. I know, for example, the Amendment that the noble Lord moved is supported by the United Kingdom Committee for Human wording adopted in the Convention would Rights Year, who consider the use of the

1291
facilitate the United Kingdom's ratification. I gave the noble Lord a categorical assurance that it would in fact have no effect whatever on the ability of the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention. A decision on this has only been deferred until it is finally clear what form this legislation will take. Once the Bill is passed, ratification will be reconsidered. There are still some difficulties about Rhodesia, and possibly some other overseas territories, but so far as United Kingdom legislation is concerned, the present Bill, with this definition in its present form, will open the way to early ratification. That is our intention and I hope that the categorical assurance will satisfy the noble Lord, and in fact satisfy all your Lordships.
To come back to the crux of the matter: as I say, the Bill, as it left the other place, in the Government's view, meets the points that have been raised. But because there is this doubt, we are quite willing to remove any possible shadow of doubt, and put the matter beyond peradventure. So, all it amounts to is the form of words to be used in the Bill to remove the doubt. I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would accept he no longer wants to remove the clause and substitute his own clause.
We therefore come down to the two Amendments moved by my noble friends, Baroness Birk, and Baroness Gaitskell. My noble friend, Baroness Birk, criticised the other two Amendments on the Order Paper—as she was perfectly entitled to do—and said, for example, that she much preferred "separate" in her Amendment to "segregate" in Lady Gaitskell's Amendment. My understanding is that "segregate" means "set apart", and in the example quoted by my noble friend Lady Birk—the annexe set apart for the coloured people—there would be both segregation and separate treatment in the provision of sleeping accommodation, even though there was a dining room shared by both white and black people.
"Segregation" and "separate treatment" do not always mean the same thing. Separate treatment can be achieved without segregation. In other words, "segregation" is greater, is stronger, than separate. For example, at
1292
a hairdressers a man could be given different treatment without being segregated from other customers, although he could be separate. Also, preferential treatment might be "separate" without amounting to "segregation". So as I have said, we could go on discussing this for a long time, but the Government, having given very, very careful and renewed consideration to this, and out of an overwhelming desire to remove any possible doubt, agrees to add the words to the Bill, and they regard the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lady Gaitskell, as technically satisfactory, clear, and that it achieves the purpose we all have in mind. I would recommend your Lordships to accept it.
5.25 p.m.
LORD COHEN: I do not propose to detain your Lordships for long, but I would say I am very glad that the Government have adopted the attitude that they have done. I find no difficulty in understanding Lady Gaitskell's Amendment. I should have had a look about as to what was separate treatment, but, fortunately, I have reached the age when I am not likely to have to interpret that!
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am not sure whether we shall have a discussion on the noble Baroness's Amendment in due course, or whether we should discuss it now.
LORD STONHAM: This is a matter for the Committee. If your Lordships feel it is right, and my noble friend Baroness Gaitskell's Amendment meets your wishes, and my noble friend Baroness Birk is also satisfied, it would be then for my noble friend Baroness Birk to withdraw the Amendment, and my noble friend Lady Gaitskell to move hers formally.
BARONESS BIRK: In view of the undertaking given by my noble friend, Lord Stonham, I should like to thank him and the Government for having put the minds of so many of us at rest over this, and for having taken a great deal of the doubt out of Clause 1. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS GAITSKELL BARONESS GAITSKELL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) It is hereby declared that for those purposes segregating a person from other persons on any of those grounds is treating him less favourably than they are treated.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I only wanted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether he can help me about one matter that worries me. I listened to the discussion on the Second Reading, although I could not take part as I was not here all the time. I also read the discussion in another place I appreciate very much the anxiety of noble Lords that we should not introduce into this Bill anything that could open the door, as it were, to apartheid in any form. There must be noble Lords here—the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, would certainly be one—who know, for example, that Indians and Pakistanis, many of whom have come to this country, regard the European form of toilet as a very insanitary and unpleasant affair, and much prefer a form of their own. It seems to me an employer, who was employing people with both ethnic backgrounds, would be quite entitled to think it right to provide both types of facilities. They are in fact both provided in the docks of London. So far as I can see, if this Amendment is carried, it will be unlawful to do that. The same might apply, perhaps, to an employer who provided food for his employees; he might think that the employees from India and Pakistan like some particular food, and he would provide that for them and provide ordinary English food for his English employees. Again, he would be committing an unlawful act.
LORD STONHAM: I must interrupt the noble Lord. He is introducing a lot of imagination. I do not think he has fully studied the Bill, with respect. If an employer provided a number of different kinds of food on a menu he would not compel one type of employee to eat one kind of dish, and others another. We have curry on the House of Lords menu for lunch, but that is not discriminatory. I do hope, with the greatest respect to my noble friends, we can just really deal with this Amendment now, and I hope accept
1294
it, and then, if there are any matters of the kind he wishes to raise, he could raise them on the relevant clauses of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not want to hold up the Committee. It seems to me that the point I was raising does arise out of this Amendment, and out of the general conception behind this. It would have been quite different if the Government had felt able to accept—and I think this was accepted in another place —a saving clause which would save any act done in good faith for the benefit of the members of the minority community. I understand the Government felt that that was not a practical thing to do.
I take the noble Lord's point about food, but may I with respect pursue the point about toilet facilities. This is a matter that is very difficult, because while it is perfectly true that any member of any community could use whatever toilet facilities he liked, under the Factories Act and the Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act it is necessary to supply so many toilet facilities according to the number of people employed, and it seems that it would be necessary, without finding out what people wanted, to double the facilities so that everybody had the opportunity of using whichever they liked. It is this idea that there are no circumstances in which immigrant communities may want to have some different separate facilities.
LORD BYERS: With all respect to the noble Lord, I think he is making a mountain out of a molehill. There are many parts of the world—I base just come back from Persia—where they provide both facilities and people use whatever they want and it is perfectly natural and normal.
LORD STONHAM: The key lies in the words the noble Viscount uttered, "they use them if they want to". There is no statutory compulsion. If the facilities are needed and people care to use them, that is all right. There is no offence under the Bill about provision of facilities. Her Majesty the Queel does not commit an offence because in Her Majesty's prisons she gives different food to Moslems. and others according tp their religion. They ask for it, and they are riven it and it is not discrimination.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Some of these lavatories are marked "Asian" and some "European". That might appear superficially to be segregation.
LORD STONHAM: Some are marked "Women".
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: As the noble Lord knows, women do not come into this Bill—at least not yet.
LORD MITCHISON: As this is really a drafting discussion, may I call the Government's attention to one point? If segregating a person from other persons is treating him less favourably than they are treated, presumably at the same time you segregate other persons from him and they, too, are less favourably treated. This seems to be a rather curious conclusion which could be avoided by the better use of language.
LORD WALSTON: Surely the only point here is whether it is compulsory or voluntary. You provide any facilities, any sort of food you like, and leave it to people to go into what sort of toilet they like. The only thing the Bill sets out to make illegal, and quite rightly so, is to provide a certain type of toilet which can be used only by Pakistanis and another which can be used only by British, with the Pakistanis not allowed to go into the British toilet and the British not allowed to go into the Pakistani one. That is illegalised, as it should be, but if it is left free for people to go where they like, so long as men do not go into the women's, that is a different thing.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not want to delay the Committee. I did not think it was clear from the Bill as amended, but I accept that separate facilities may be offered provided it is not compulsory to use them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.33 p.m.
LORD STRANGE LORD STRANGE moved Amendment No. 5:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
General
"1. The purpose of this Act is to provide Emergency Laws which may be used against any person who discriminates against another on the grounds of Colour, Race. Ethnic or National Origins—Actions which may be
1296
deemed Provocative of Discrimination are detailed in sections 2, 3, 4, 5 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: May I have the courtesy of the House to explain the background behind this Amendment? It is simply that I do not believe it is possible to suppress hereditary instincts. They come to us from the dark world, through the animal world and to homo so-called sapiens and so to us. They have been with us and instilled in us before our bodies were in the present form. They are part of us. They are of the evolution system, which means that tribal instincts drive tribes together, they form into empires, the empires collapse and go back into tribes and form other empires, and so it goes on.
But each empire leaves a little bit more in the material evolution system. The Greeks left behind architecture, the Romans laws and roads, and the British Empire has left behind cricket and football. This is the way we have progressed from caves to egg box concrete and I do not think we can ever stop it; it goes on that way for ever. The particular instincts which we are upset about in this country which may prove a lot of trouble are the instincts of the tribe. They are part of the system and I do not think they can be suppressed.
The instincts of the tribe are that they have to take a few people into their tribe; otherwise they get so in-bred. The good genes double up and the bad genes double up and they become effete and of course they are washed out by some other tribe. They want, in taking this new blood, to be very careful. They do not know who they are going to get in; if they are getting in enemies or getting in diseases. All the people they take into the tribe have to be very carefully vetted to see if these people will be an improvement for their tribe. That is the thought that comes from instinct into their mind. and I do not think there is any way of stopping it.
I can put it from another angle. This terrible rat race we live in, and can never apparently get out of, has another side. Man has always believed from the earliest days that he could get out of it in a spiritual way, which is a slight comfort. The earliest men buried their dead with food to take into the next world. People in those days were very materially minded, I suppose; I did not know them.

1297
I would think that nowadays we can understand that when you take materialism down to its basic form, the atom and further on, it just becomes a form of radiation, and the idea of transforming one form of radiation into another is not very difficult. I based my views on suppression after reading the works of a sort of Indian Victorian Yogi type saint who became so holy that he was never quite sure whether he was in his own body or not, and I thought that his views might be worth listening to. He said all religions in the world were the same thing: to get out of the rat race into another sphere, another form of existence, and they all use different methods of doing it. Some of the methods just would not work. One of the methods that would not work was suppression.
He said suppression was impossible and nobody had ever been able to make it work. He said in religious parlance that the devil is the hereditary instinct, symbolised as half man, half beast. At one time in the middle ages it was very fashionable to try to tread the devil under your feet. Some of these holy men had thought the devil was firmly held down in the hereditary instinct and they found he was loose, and they were terribly worried about it and they used to flog themselves and torture themselves. And it is just the same with the Government. The Government will find that however cleverly they stand on the devil it will get loose and become wild.
But of course the method which has succeeded is recognition. To recognise all the instincts, wherever you get them from and why you have got them, that are influencing you, and to recognise all your complexes and biases motivating you, if you recognise all these you get a new form of power over them which was not there before, and that is the basis of the Christian religion, and that is, of course, what people have got to get in time. Once they recognise what they are doing, discrimination does not take place. And of course all these Churches from their different religions have something to keep them happy and quiet. I suppose the Christian church preaches brotherly love, to give mercy and show justice—I suppose Christian teaching amounts to that—which softe is the blow of the terrible life, the terrible rat race. We are all in this terrible rat race.
I do think that we have to have this Bill. But the object of my Amendment is to suggest to your Lordships that we cannot do it in too much of a hurry. We must treat this as an emergency measure which can be used. The public should know these powers are there, but if they are all enforced at one time with a lot of prosecutions all over the country, these powers are going to cause a great deal of injustice.
Our people are charming, nice people. We must in fact have a trickle of immigrants coming in all the time. It is part of the evolution system. They bring in new blood. Two successive Governments have put shiploads of them on us without any proper planning. Can you imagine how ordinary people must feel? How young married people feel? They feel that they may have to live with their mother-in-law for ever, that they will never get a house with all these people coming in. And it is not fair on the immigrants. The immigrants have their ways of life. They have beer carefully brought up. They have their tribes, and these tribes have been broken up and put together again.
The Jamaicans are charming people. They have a great sense of humour, and a great sense of rhythm. They have a peculiar, charming music of their own. The Pakistanis are nice people, too. But they are purely business people. They have no time for a sense of humour, and their musical sense is something in the nature of snake-charmer music. It is felt that they can be dumped, but that is illogical and people object to it.
I am coining to the end of my remarks. The world is on edge to-day. We are in one of these evolutionary cycles when we are breaking back into small tribes again. We will break back throughout the world, I am certain into small tribes, and then we will merge into another empire again. I would say to your Lordships that it would be a great mistake to cause trouble where no trouble exists. I await your Lordships' pleasure and I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: I am in a position of some difficulty because my brief consists of five lines, the first of which says:
"The intention behind this new clause is obscure".

1299
I do not think the obscurity has been in any way removed by the most entertaining speech to which we have just listened. I always listen to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Strange, with great sympathy, much appreciation and but little agreement, and so it is on this occasion. In fact, because he knows what a high regard I have for his native land, and what a heavy responsibility I have for it, too, it seemed to me much like the Isle of Man symbol—three legs and no discernible head.
I noticed that the noble Lord said "heredity comes to us from out of the dark world." That is, of course, true. But if we go back far enough into the dark world we were all apes, and so far as I am aware in those days there was no discrimination on grounds of colour, race or national origins. The noble Lord also suggested that all the good genes had triumphed and you could not change it. We are not trying to change it. What we are trying to say in this Bill is that it is unlawful to treat a black gene differently from a white gene. Although the noble Lord agreed that they are all charming people, they are all wonderful, I think he made some observation about Pakistani music with which I am not in a position to agree or disagree, because I am not an expert on it. But obviously he loved them all. What we are trying to do is to legislate so that those of us who do not treat these people as well as we would treat anyone else, are prevented from so doing because it is an unlawful act.
Having discussed the noble Lord's speech so far as I have been able to do so in a few words, I would also add that the effect of the clause if it were accepted —and this is a Bill on racial discrimination—would be to leave the Bill without any sort of a definition of discrimination, which would certainly, as I have suggested, leave the Bill without a head at all. I would submit to the noble Lord that although his new clause was an excellent vehicle for his views, which were extremely interesting, I do not think it has a place in this Bill; and I hope, if he shares my view, that he will agree to withdraw it.
LORD STRANGE: I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the extreme kindness which he always shows
1300
to me and to every Member of the House. How he puts up with my peculiar speeches I have not the faintest idea! It is a failing to have a sense of humour and also to have ideas; and these are ideas and I have managed to express them. Some people may have listened to them, some may not. They are there in Hansard. Those are my views. I know that this is the sort of legal gruyere cheese of an Amendment which any good lawyer, indeed anybody, can see through almost at once. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provision of goods, facilities and services]:
5.46 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 3, leave out lines 3 and 4.
The noble Earl said: I think it might be convenient if with the permission of the Committee we considered this Amendment and Amendment No. 7 to-gether because they bear closely on the same general point. These Amendments are of a probing nature. The both relate to subsection (2) of Clause 2, and I should like to say straight away that, to this layman at least, the structure of this subsection reads most oddly. It starts off by saying:
"The following are examples of the facilities and services "
where discrimination à la Clause 1 will in future he unlawful.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I Parliamentary draftsman, but I must confess that I find this process of proceeding by example a curious and, I would think, a rather unusual one. I know that this process was recommended in the Street Report, but Street has no Biblical authority; and I am inclined to think, unless the noble Lord can persuade me to the contrary, that it is likely to lead to difficulties of interpretation. Will these examples be held by the courts to be merely declaratory, or may they not be interpreted by them, as I think my right honourable friend Mr. Quintin Hogg suggested in another place, as limiting? I think the Under-Secretary at the Home Office, Mr. Ennals, when he was

1301
speaking in Committee said that he would look at this again. I am not quite clear whether the Government have done so.
That said, I should like to turn to the examples covered by these two Amendments: that is, banking, insurance and credit facilities, on the one hand, and facilities for education, instruction and training, on the other. I personally accept the need for some extension of the field of legislation covering services. Equally so, I believe that this new and almost totally unexplored field, and one where the unsuspecting traveller might bump up against a lot of potential booby-traps, it is wise for us to proceed with care. It is important that the net of legislation should not now be cast so wide that the law becomes unenforceable. It is important, therefore, that we should catch within this net only what it is necessary to catch. Where, for example, discrimination carries with it its own built-in financial or commercial penalties, we should be wise, in my view, not to legislate. Above all, we should especially at this quite early stage in legislation in this field where we are proceeding really by trial and error, avoid legislation where legislation is likely to be counter-productive; where it may exacerbate relations between the races more than it will allay racial tensions. Such;in area is where intimate close and personal relationships are concerned. That is why I should like to ventilate some doubts about the examples given in lines 3, 4 and 5 in page 2 of the Bill.
Take insurance as one example. I know that the P.E.P. Report found that there was discrimination in motor insurances. But I wonder, by the same token, whether it is really wise to bring insurance within the scope of this Bill. Is this not an area in which we could count upon the market to do its work for us? If, for example, some insurance companies are discriminating against immigrants, will not others, realising that good business is going begging, step in and take their place? Is not discrimination, in the Clause 1 sense, going to prove an appallingly difficult task to prove in this field of insurance? Who has not felt on one occasion or another that he has been discriminated against by his insurance company? Is not to include insurance, there
1302
fore, to invite an avalanche of claims? If the Government persist, if they insist on including insurance, banking, and credit, should they not at least consider.the institution of some such initial machinery of investigation as they are proposing in the case of employment? I should very much like to hear the noble Lord's comments on that.
Then there are the line five examples, "education, instruction and training". I do not think that the question of the inclusion of education was really discussed —it may have been just touched on—in another place, and I should like to ask why it is included, and how the Government view this. It is not covered in Street, and discrimination in education in the public sector is already, as I understand, ruled out. Is the discrimination in the private sector of education, the 5 per cent. or so, what the Government fear; and, if so, how do they view this? There is another side to this particular coin. I think most of us recognise that special educational facilities for many of cur immigrant population are urgently necessary. There is requirement for special pre-school training in English; there is a requirement for special English classes for immigrant parents, including not least immigrant mothers. This, of course, involves a measure of discrimination, or at least it could be held to do so. On this matter also I wonder how this potential dilemma is resolved in the Government's mind.
What about "instruction and training"? What is that phrase desigled to cover? Much instruction and training is of a very personal and private nature. May I take two examples of the sort of difficulty which I could foresee?—and here the noble Lord may be, able to allay my anxieties. There are, for example, the private tutors, private coaches, of whom there are nunly in London. Most of these are admirable people and, like doctors, and like most of your Lordships, devoid of most racial prejudice; but some may harbour strong prejudices. A private coach of Greek-Cypriot origin, for example, may find it quite intolerable to coach a Turkish-Cypriot in ancient Greek. Is he going outside the law if he refuses to do so? Frankly, I do not know. I do not know whether he would be held to do so as a result of the inclusion of education, tuition, instruction and training. I hope

1303
that the noble Lord, when he replies, will be able to satisfy me on some of these points which, I will be very frank with him, I am ventilating in an exploratory sense because I do not know the answers to them.
He may, of course, argue in this last context of training and instruction, that it is absolutely necessary to include in the Bill some phrase of this sort if industrial training is to be brought within it. I hope that the noble Lord will not lean too much on that argument. We are all, I think, agreed on the importance of industrial training. We all, I think, believe that everyone in employment in these islands should have equal access, without fear of discrimination, to industrial training; and I readily grant that if employment is to come within the scope of the Bill, so should industrial training. But if that is so it would, of course, be perfectly easy to draft a special provision for that in the Bill.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will be able to explain how the Government view the matters on which I have touched. I think that some of them were not raised in another place at all, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to avail himself of the invitation which I now extend to him. That said, I beg leave to move these Amendments.
5.56 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: I hope that my noble friend will remain firm in answering the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, although he has put forward his Amendments in a most moderate way and, as he says, in an exploratory way. But it seems to me that the examples given in the Bill as it stands are eminently reasonable and right.
To deal first with banking and insurance, as I understand it the insurance companies are not opposed to this clause and are behaving in an extremely responsible manner over it. Undoubtedly there are many categories which have to be singled out as being higher risks, either in lending money or insuring motor cars, or anything else. And there is no reason whatever why an insurance company should not say that undergraduates between certain ages, or people who have less than a certain number of years' driv
1304
ing experience, or people who have held a licence only in certain other countries, or other countries as a whole, should have to pay a higher premium.
Nobody would criticise that, and I do not think this Bill interferes in any way with their liberty in doing that, or in charging higher interest rates for loans, or even refusing loans on the grounds that people are not sufficiently stable, that they have no assets in this country which can be distrained on. But to single out people as an unduly high risk, either in lending money or insurance, not because they have not had experience of driving in this country, not because they have no assets in this country which can be distrained upon, but solely because they belong to one particular immigrant group runs completely counter to the spirit of this Bill, and is not an essential part of good and efficient business.
With regard to the educational side, I must say that I think the noble Earl was straining his examples a little far when he talked of the Greek and Turkish-Cypriot private coach. I would remind him that it is not so very long ago—whether it happens now I do not know —that certain public schools tacitly, though without making it public in any way, put a restriction on the number of boys of Jewish origin whom they took into their schools. That is the type of discrimination which I think all of us here now, having heard noble Lords on all sides speak on this, would deplore. That is the type of discrimination which, if it were still to exist, would be outlawed by this Bill. Whether it is in private tuition of that sort directed against, shall we say, Jews, or in industrial training directed against West Indians, whatever it may be, such discrimination runs counter to the spirit of this Bill. It is right that this example should be given, and I hope that my noble friend will remain firm in his resistance.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I support this Amendment, but what I should like to know is where there has been any evidence that there is in fact colour discrimination as regards insurance and banking and general credit facilities. I assume that there has been evidence of discrimination regarding housing or jobs. I find it very difficult to imagine that any banker or insurance company would discriminate on grounds

1305
of colour. The average person discriminates on the ground of colour—quite wrongly in my opinion—only regarding housing and employment because, of course, he is in personal contact with another person. But if one is insuring somebody's car and one is not in personal contact with him, that is a different matter, and I find it very hard to believe that there is any colour discrimination in banking and insurance.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill will make matters very difficult for insurance companies because, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe pointed out when he was talking about various categories of insurance, insurance companies may find that perhaps Pakistanis are wilder drivers than Cypriots, although I should personally imagine that they would be about the same. If that is so, are insurance companies then to be debarred from charging higher premiums to a Pakistani because, as a member of a group, he has been proved to be a wilder driver than a Cypriot? If so, it will be extremely unfair. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lod Walston, say, as I understood him, that the insurance companies welcomed this.
LORD WALSTON: I do not think I said that they welcomed it, but, so far as I know, they have no objections to it.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: That is slightly different, and my information was slightly different. I will not detain the House any longer, but I should first like to have evidence that there is discrimination on the grounds of colour, race or ethnic origin before this provision becomes law, as regards banking, insurance, general credit and so on. I will not go into the question of education, because I know little about it; but I certainly support the first Amendment.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, could give me an assurance on a point regarding education. The benefits of this Bill, so far as I am aware, are not confined to British subjects or to residents in these Islands. Your Lordships may or may not be aware that, whatever opinion we may have about the English public school system, those schools, both boys and girls' schools, are very highly esteemed
1306
indeed in Latin America and Spain. For reasons which the noble Lord will Appreciate I am well acquainted with schools which could take in very large numbers of Spanish and South American boys and girls if they wished.
In the past there has been a certain tendency to ration the intake of these Iberians, who are after all foreigners with very different ideas from our own, very different backgrounds and very different homes. There has been a tendency to ration the intake on the ground that too many persons coming from an alien culture would detract from the English character of the schools. I hope no one will describe me as a racialist. I fully accept that all British subjects should have the right to benefit from the Act and that no one should discriminate against them, but is it really the intention of Her Majesty's Government that an English public school or an English convent school should not have the right to discriminate against alien children seeking education in this country? I assure the noble Lord that it is a very real problem, and I hope I shall get some reassurances.
6.6 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for indicating from the very beginning that he had put these Amendments down in a spirit of inquiry. I will try to deal with the points which he and other noble Lords have raised. It is quite true that the clause of the Bill from which he proposes to delete lines 3, 4 and 5 lists examples. They are not finite: they are, as it were, declaratory. He criticised them on those grounds, and other noble Lords appeared to agree with him.
I was rather surprised to hear him quote in aid in this matter Mr. Quintin Hogg, because when a similar Amendment was discussed in the Standing Committee in another place Mr. Quintin Hogg indicated, regarding education, that though he might have preferred education to be left out of the Bill and dealt with administratively he opposed the particular Amendment to delete this_ line on the grounds—grounds which I agree are important—that facilities for instruction or training are covered by the Bill. In other words, he favoured leaving this declaration.

1307
We often talk about the obscurities of Parliamentary Bills, but I think there is nothing obscure about this clause. It indicates that as regards the services set out in this part of Clause 2, if there is discrimination in them on grounds of colour, race or ethnic origin, then it is unlawful; and as far as education is concerned (line 5) we think that presentationally it is important to show that education is one of the main areas in which discrimination has to be made unlawful in the Bill. The noble Earl also spoke about instruction and training and, in particular, industrial training. Whether it was education or employment—that is to say, whether the training was regarded as education and in other circumstances could be regarded as employment—and similarly with instruction, they would both be caught by the Bill. Certainly we could not agree to discrimination on the grounds of the basis of the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, put very clearly his question about public schools and the position that would arise of schools limiting the intake of foreign children, for example, Spaniards. This has arisen, as I think my noble friend Lord Walston mentioned, in respect of Jews. The answer is that if schools continue to do so after the Bill becomes law, they will have to show that in applying this policy they are not discriminating on racial grounds but have some other justifiable grounds for doing so. That is absolutely fair. This was part of the discussion on the first Amendment to-day over the proposed introduction of the word "sole". This was one of the reasons that I argued against it. It seems to me that schools which, for sound reasons, chose to maintain a balance in this way would have very good reasons for saying so. One of the arguments which would indicate that they were not discriminating on racial grounds is that they had admitted a fair proportion of these children.
I come to the question of banking, credit and insurance. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is aware that if his Amendments were accepted—and he has indicated that they were put down only on a probing basis—the effect would be to exclude from the examples of goods,
1308
facilities and services to be covered by the Bill
"facilities by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit or finance."
If the noble Earl wished to exclude those facilities from Clause 1 he would have to put down another Amendment to except them from Clause 2(1), because the list in Clause 2(2) is not a finite list. The Government are pledged to include insurance and credit facilities in the Bill since they are one of the main areas in which there is evidence of discrimination on racial grounds. The argument that this can be safely and entirely left to the operation of ordinary commercial considerations is not supported by the evidence.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said that he could not believe that there was any discrimination in banking facilities. He did not add credit facilities or insurance. But there is substantial evidence—for example, in the P.E.P. Report. Although I accept that insurance companies do not operate an overtly racial policy, in practice racial groups are being identified, sometimes as a matter of administrative convenience, as creating special risks, and being charged higher premiums accordingly. The noble Viscount quoted Pakistanis and Cypriots, with some advantage to the Cypriots as lesser risks. I hope that he will let me say that that was a hypothetical case, otherwise he will get a lot of letters of protest. He would have been much better in this matter to have stuck to P and C or A and B.
To take that as a hypothetical case, this is the kind of thing that is happening. They are charging these higher premiums, and although they can put their hand on their heart and say, "We send to all our agents and branches precise written instructions that they must not do this", in fact people of a certain race can be charged more. That is the kind of discrimination which the Bill intends to make unlawful. But it does not mean that insurance companies, banks and credit houses should not continue to operate under normal commercial judgment. A man can be a bad credit risk irrespective of the colour of his skin, or he can be a good credit risk without regard to his race. That is quite proper. Equally, the removal of discrimination in

1309
respect of loans and mortgages for housing is also an important corollary of the main housing provisions of the Bill. We certainly do not intend that anything in the Bill should interfere with the exercise of ordinary commercial judgment, and this is provided for in Clause 2(1) in particular in the use of the word "normally". The word "normally" governs this matter. I suggest that we can safely rely on the Race Relations Board and the conciliation committees to take account of legitimate commercial considerations which may properly influence the judgment of insurers and providers of credit.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked, on the subject of banking credit and insurance, whether the Government could not consider some initial means of investigation such as occurs in employment. But there is no real analogy with the proposals for employment. The Government are committed to give the industry the first opportunity to deal with allegations of discrimination in employment, and industry is accustomed to using well tried procedures for settling disputes. Since there are often two bodies concerned in these disputes, the ordinary negotiating procedures within industry can usually be successful over disputes about employment. There is no comparable argument for insurance and credit, and indeed no comparable organisations, and they must be treated in the same way as other services to the public and not be singled out for special treatment.
In any case in which expert knowledge is required the Race Relations Board or its committees can call on the advice of assessors who can be appointed under Clause 17. In any case of this kind where this advice is needed they can call in assessors and pay them—quite independent experts, who can look at the facts of the case in the industry or profession of banking or insurance and say whether a decision was based on commercial judgment, without involving any other factor, or whether a decision was, in their view, coloured by something else—racial discrimination. I have tried to answer all the points which were put to me. I trust that if the noble Earl is not satisfied with all my answers he will at least be satisfied that his probes have got a fairly detailed reply.
LORD SALTOUN: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may think that I am opposing him on this Bill, but in fact I am not. I am merely seeking clarification. If I write to one of those gentlemen who offer you £10,000 on your note of hand alone, I have no doubt that he might give me the £10,000 because I am British and because he knows the law under which I live. But if is were a case of gentleman A (I accept the noble Lord's suggestion) whose original home was 10,000 or 12,000 miles away, I think he would be slow to give him his £10,000 on the ground of his race and ethnic origin. Mr. A may accept the £10,000 and then nip off to his place of origin where the lender could not pursue him without going to very great expense and without encountering a law about which he knew nothing. That clearly comes into the question of finance. I should like to know how the noble Lord separates commercial judgment and ethnic origin, because the two things seem to me in this case to be identical.
LORD STONHAM: May I say, first of all, to the noble Lord, that if he knows someone who will give him £10,000 on his note of hand, I should like the address for reference later on myself.
LORD SALTOUN: I will send the noble Lord the next one I get.
LORD STONHAM: But I submit that there is a difference—I am not talking about race or colour—if you are lending money commercially, between dealing with the head of the House of Fraser, and dealing (I am still talking commercially) with someone, whatever his colour, who perhaps came here only last year and may be going away quite soon. That would be a commercial consideration, and the reply I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on this point was that if there were a complaint—and noble Lords must remember that not all complaints are upheld by any means—which was looked at by a conciliation committee, who can appoint an assessor, or by the Race Relations Board, who can appoint two assessors, it would he considered by experts. They would know about the business and would know whether or not in the circumstances—that is, the commercial circumstances, as this will be a matter of commercial judgment—the refusal of credit facilities or the complaint about

1311
the higher interest charge for credit facilities was justified by commercial considerations. If it was not so justified, it would be discrimination.
LORD SANDFORD: My noble friend said, when moving these Amendments, that they were probing Amendments, and so they are, but I think our probing in respect of Amendment No. 7 has not had an answer from the noble Lord on the point which my noble friend described as "the other side of the coin". When we were discussing the urban programme the other day the noble Lord confirmed to me that the Government were sticking, rightly, to the view that housing must be provided without any favourable treatment at all towards the immigrants. But when it conies to education we are surely in a different position.
Do we not all recognise that if the children of immigrants are going to grow up in our primary schools and secondary schools on a level basis, without whole classes being held back, they must have extra special discriminatory education at the nursery level? We must provide nursery schools specifically for children of coloured immigrant families. This has been asked for in the annual report of the N.C.C.I. It seems to me that if Amendment No. 7 is not accepted, and if "education, instruction or training" remain in the Bill, it will be illegal to provide nursery schooling specifically for coloured immigrants, for it will be quite impossible to do that without discriminating against our native population. I believe we should discriminate in this respect at that stage, in order that the rest of our educational facilities should be available evenly and with advantage to all ethnic groups in our community. We must discriminate on this point. If this Amendment is not accepted, it seems to me that it will be illegal to provide this kind of facility. There are other examples I should have liked to quote, but that is one example.
LORD STONHAM: I agree with the noble Lord that it would be wrong, but I do not agree with him about the Bill. If he looks at subsection (3) of Clause 2, he will see that it provides for a type of positive discrimination for the benefit of a particular group, which it is the purpose of subsection (3) of Clause 2 to protect.
LORD SANDFORD: I cannot find subsection (3) of Clause 2.
LORD STONHAM: I am sorry. Subsection (3) was removed in another place. In the original draft, subsection (3) of Clause 2 provided that it should not be unlawful to do anything in good faith for the benefit of a particular section of the public which had the effect of promoting integration. The subsection was deleted in Committee in the Commons, on the grounds that it was unnecessary and that it could be left to the commonsense of the education authority and, indeed, of the Race Relations Board, because there would be no complaints about this. What I am really saying is that the point was covered in the original Bill but it was decided in another place that there was no need for the subsection because the problem would not really arise.
LORD SANDFORD: I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord is being very sanguine if he thinks there will not be complaints about this. Nursery schools are one of the things in shortest supply but in greatest demand, and if it is not made absolutely clear what the position is, and whether or not it is illegal, there is going to be a lot of trouble.
LORD STONHAM: The point is that if preference were written into the Bill, positive action to help minority groups would become unlawful. That is why we have not written preference into the Bill, and that is why subsection (3) was taken out. We are perfectly satisfied, and they were perfectly satisfied in the Commons, that there would be no danger at all, as envisaged by the noble Lord, from this highly desirable and essential practice of providing in some cases special facilities in education, just as we do now when we have special language classes for young children; and, indeed, for adults and older children. No doubt the noble Lord will remember that subsection (3) was removed on a vote in the Commons, and it was a vote against the Government by a combination of Opposition and Government Members. The Government have accepted the position and have not altered it, because we have become convinced that it will be all right.
LORD CONESFORD: I feel that this is very unsatisfactory. We have to deal with the Bill as it comes before us. The

1313
noble Lord spent a good deal of his time in answering my noble friend's Amendment, by saying that we should find it all right if we looked at subsection (3). It was then pointed out to him that subsection (3) did not exist.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, and I corrected that mistake. I expressed my regret for my slip, and since then I have said when the subsection was deleted and how.
LORD CONESFORD: I was coming to that. I think the noble Lord knows me well enough to know that I am not unfair in that way. When it was pointed out that his justification was quite wrong, because the subsection on which he relied did not exist, the noble Lord then told us that it had been deleted in the House of Commons because they were satisfied that it was unnecessary. I hope he will satisfy us that ii is unnecessary, but the way in which he attempted to satisfy us that it was unnecessary was by saying that the Race Relations Board would not treat as illegal a thing which was so obviously convenient.
But what we are complaining of is that Clause 2 declares that it is illegal. It is all very well to say that the Race Relations Board, in its wisdom, will not complain of the illegality. But surely that is a very odd way to legislate—to make illegal something which the Minister himself says is desirable, and then to say that it is all right because the Race Relations Board will not object to it. Nor, I think, are we very much concerned with what combination of Members defeated subsection (3), of which, until its absence was pointed out to him, the noble Lord was so fond. It is really a very odd way indeed of legislating.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It seems to me that the decision of the Government to abandon subsection (3) was taken before the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, was accepted. Her Amendment says in terms that dealing with people differently constitutes discrimination.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I wish only to make a short comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, about the education of these immigrant children who need special facilities and have
1314
special needs. This is not really a subject for the Bill but for the educational authorities. They can deal with the difficulties; they can deal with such things.
LORD SANDFORD: That may be what the noble Baroness thinks, but we have not yet had a satisfactory answer from the noble Lord to my point; namely, that with the Bill as it is drafted now, with this provision about education in and subsection (3) out, it would appear to me to be quite clearly illegal for any authority to provide nursery schools for coloured immigrant communities if they had to do so at the expense of the native community. My knowledge of this particular subject, with which we have been dealing in another sphere, is that there are very few areas in the country—certainly not in the areas which are suffering general deprivation—where nursery schools can be provided for one section of the community without the other sections of the community feeling deprived. They are almost certain to complain, and I do not see how the Race Relations Board can do anything but uphold their complaint. This runs flatly counter to our educational policy in this sphere.
LORD GIFFORD: I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, but surely the answer to it is this: if special nursery schools are required for young immigrant children on the grounds that they do not speak our language properly, then that is not discrimination under the Bill. If the nursery schools are required because the children live in an area of special need, then I should hope that the nursery schools would be provided by the authority to black and white children alike, irrespective of their colour.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, could give us an indication of any local education authority which he knows that has under consideration a proposal to provide a nursery school for coloured children on the basis that they are coloured, that being the only condition for their entry.
LORD STONHAM: I do not think that there is the room for misunderstanding which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, suggested. I say again that

1315
I made a mistake in referring to subsection (3) of Clause 2, which is no longer in the Bill. The provision for immigrant schoolchildren is, of course, made on educational grounds. As far as the subsection which was removed in the Commons is concerned, it was inserted only to remove any doubts on this subject, and in another place they decided that it was unnecessary—that the remaining part of the clause as it stood, and the Bill, left no room for doubt that there would be any difficulty arising out of it, because it was educationally necessary. It is not a question of providing the special educational facilities because the children are black but because they need it, just as special educational facilities are provided for educationally sub-normal children and others who are even more sub-normal.
But I find it somewhat remarkable that, although this subsection was removed in the Commons mainly by the votes of Opposition Members there, Members of the Opposition in your Lordships' Committee are now arguing that it is necessary.
LORD SANDFORD: I am not arguing about subsection (3) at all. It is not in the Bill before us.
LORD STONHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. It is not necessary, then, to put any special provision in the Bill to meet the point the noble Lord had in mind. If it is educationally necessary it will be quite all right, and there will be no question of a prosecution. If such a case was referred to the Board—and I can see that it could be—then of course they would indicate to the complainant that there was in fact no offence.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I wonder if I might ask a question. Suppose someone wanted to started a private school and he advertised—"School to train young immigrants from Pakistan". That is a possible advertisement. Would that be illegal?
LORD STONHAM: I think I should have to consider whether that offended against the clauses with regard to advertisements, let alone education. I think it might well do so. But there would be nothing otherwise against setting up an
1316
educationally necessary school. The noble Earl brought an advertisement into it. It might well be special language classes. Indeed, it need not be in private schools; an education authority can set up special language classes. But I should think it highly unlikely that they would say they were specially for Pakistanis. They would set up the classes for those who needed to be taught English.
EARL JELLICOE: I said to the noble Lord when I introduced these two Amendments that they were of an exploratory nature, but having made this exploration I must say that I am not altogether happy with the results of it. In some respects, I have returned rather more empty-handed than I expected. I said by way of introduction that I was rather worried about the way this subsection was constructed—the examples of procedure—and that in another place my right honourable friend Mr. Hogg had expressed the view that, because of this, these examples might be interpreted as limiting. The noble Lord, by way of rejoinder on that point, explained that Mr. Hogg had particularly requested that a particular area should be included as an example. If one has a fear that the effect of this procedure is to be limiting, naturally one would wish to have included as an example any particular area which one particularly wishes to have caught within the Bill. But that does not necessarily mean that it removes my doubts—or, I suspect, those of my right honourable friend—about the way subsection (2) is constructed.
On the specific examples, in the field of banking, insurance and credit I suspect we must agree to differ. I do not think the noble Lord, in his very full reply on that point, has really met our view that in many respects there is an inbuilt machinery here, the self-regulating machinery of the market, which will adjust any discrimination if it in fact takes place. But—and here I say so frankly—I think he has met my suggestion, and met it squarely, about some initial investigating machinery being specially designed in this area on the lines of what is being, done for employment. I take the point he made there.
But turning to the other field—education, instruction and training—I must

1317
frankly say that I have certain residual disquiets which have been reinforced by the replies which the noble Lord has given. I do not think we wish to go over this any longer at this stage, but I must frankly say that I have not as yet in any way had my anxieties allayed on the question of reverse discrimination, which was the question raised by my noble friend Lord Sandford; and the noble Lord has not so far as I know dealt at all with my questions on private instruction and training. This is a particularly sensitive field involving very close personal relations, whether it be the private coach, the dance instructor, the golf professional or whoever it may be; and I should like to know whether these types of personal relationships, which I would have thought would be covered by the general heading of instruction and training, will be caught within the scope of the Bill or not. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to reply now or whether he wishes to take it up later.
LORD STONHAM: I can only say this. If those arrangements could be regarded as domestic they would be excepted from the Bill. If, on the other hand, they came within the broader field of education and were not purely domestic, then in my view they would be caught by the Bill. It might depend on the particular circumstances. I will look at this and will write to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think I have heard enough to say that many of my doubts have now been allayed. However, in seeking leave to withdraw these two Amendments, I should like to make it clear that I and my noble friends reserve our right to put down Amendments covering this general area at the Report stage.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Employment]:
6.42 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert "and suitable".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Clause 3 makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse or
1318
omit to employ an applicant for work which is available and for which the applicant is qualified. My Amendment seeks to add after the expression "qualified" the words "and suitable". Your Lordships may think at first sight that there is not very much difference between "qualified" and "suitable". But, on reflection, I think it is clear that "qualified" is not a sufficiently comprehensive expression. There are many persons who are qualified for a job but not suitable for it. Let us, for example, take teachers. A teacher may be qualified as a teacher but may not be suitable for the particular post for which the employing authority desires to employ him.
This Amendment was put down to meet the apprehensions of the Inner London Education Authority and the Greater London Council. They feel that they may meet difficulties when engaging their staff unless there is some provision in the Bill for them to reject an applicant who is not suitable for the particular post they have in mind, although he may be fully qualified for it. That difficulty arises in the case of all professional persons. An architect may be fully qualified as an architect but may not be suitable for the particular post in which the employer desires to employ him. One can think of a number of cases of that sort.
It really is a very short and simple point. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the difficulties which may arise if the clause is left in its present form and that he will agree to add these two words at the end which I think will clear up any difficulties in which the employer may find himself when he is engaging technical staff in particular. I beg to move.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. Of course, it is unquestionable that when somebody comes up for an interview not only his qualifications are taken into account but also a great many other things: his personality, his character and so on—as much as the employer can gauge. All the same, I do not support this Amendment because I think the word "suitable" lays the whole thing wide open for an employer not to accept somebody on account of colour—unless, of course, the noble Lord's Amendment could be re-phrased or re-drafted in a way that would not allow this. To use the word "suitable"

1319
would enable any employer to say, "This man is not suitable"—and to say it entirely on account of his colour. Therefore, I would not support it.
LORD ILFORD: With respect, the employer would have to show that there was some ground of unsuitability. For example, the man might be single, and the post be for a married man; or vice versa.
VISCOUNT MASSER EENE AND FERRARD: I would support this Amendment. I was going to answer the noble Baroness on her point in the way that my noble friend did. It is quite true that there can be two people who have exactly the same qualifications, but it is extremely unlikely that they will have the same personality or the same character. I do not think the word "suitable" is too wide—although the noble Baroness may he able to think of some other word which is not quite so wide. But one is bound to get a lot of friction if one changes the position from what it is to-day when, as I pointed out on Second Reading, the employer can refuse to employ somebody if he does not like his face. Of course, when this Bill is enacted (and I have said this before), if the employer has a white applicant and a black applicant with the same qualifications he will have to employ the black applicant—otherwise he may be open to be taken before the Conciliation Board. I think that if we included the word "suitable" it would be a great help to the employer. As the noble Lord behind me said, the employer would have to prove why the white man or the black man was not suitable; he could not just say that he was not suitable. I can see no objection to the word.
LORD AIREDALE: I suggest that the Government have brought this Amendment upon themselves by the confusion of their own thought which has led them to include in the paragraph the word "qualified". If a person is refused employment because he is not qualified or because he is not suitable—it does not matter which—that is not racial discrimination. I should like to suggest that this Amendment is quite unnecessary and that at the next stage the Government themselves should move an Amendment to take out the words "for which he is
1320
qualified". In my submission those words are quite unnecessary in this paragraph.
LORD MITCHISON: I agree with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell that this Amendment would open the door to some difficulties. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford that "qualified" is perhaps not enough. The difficulty arises from the fact that "qualified" has two meanings. I am not qualified to heave sacks of coal about: I am not strong enough. An architect is qualified in quite a different sense. He may have professional qualifications, as indeed the noble Lord indicated, yet be unsuitable for a particular job. I rise only with diffidence and some terror at my own Front Bench to suggest that the best way out would be to put in a proper definition of "qualified" that would include in it "suitable".
LORD SOMERS: My noble friend when he proposed his Amendment brought in the question of teaching. I should like to bear him out, since I can remember well the case of a certain girls' school where an application for the post of second music mistress was made by a young woman who was a Bachelor of Music. She had had teaching experience and therefore, on paper, was perfectly well qualified for the position. But she turned out to be the most hopeless failure because she was utterly unable to control the girls. She was one of those unfortunate people who believe that others are always against them, and she gave the director of music at that school a very difficult time. This young woman was white, and I do not think that anybody in your Lordships' House would have raised an eyebrow had the director of music realised the position and refused to employ this young person because of that shortcoming. If the Bill stands as it is at present drafted, it will be impossible for an unsuitable white person to obtain employment but quite possible for the unsuitable coloured person to do so. Therefore the coloured person will have a right that the white person has not got. Is that not in itself discrimination?
LORD FERRIER: When listening to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, I recalled the debate on the first Amendment, when Lord Stonham suggested that he might think again about the word "sole", or

1321
the word put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. If something of that sort were introduced to alter the wording of Clause 1, perhaps an Amendment of this nature might not be necessary.
6.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is quite right. We know that the Inner London Education Authority have had some difficulty in matters of this kind. In my view they brought those difficulties on themselves by not making their needs clear. Had they done so, there would not have been any difficulty. The noble Lord seeks to add the words, "and suitable" because he thinks it not enough to say "qualified" for the job, in order to have grounds of complaint if the job is not offered. The clear intention and, I think, the clear meaning of the Bill is that "qualified" must include suitable and therefore the Amendment is quite unnecessary. Again I agree with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell and with my noble friend Lord Mitchison that adding the words "and suitable" would lay the whole thing wide open. The decision about which of several qualified people to engage would involve quite a number of subjective opinions as to their suitability, and employers would be able to make their own judgments, provided that they did not base them on race or colour.
It is extraordinary how fertile are the imaginations of noble Lords who think up marginal cases—and not only marginal, but wholly irrelevant cases. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, asked us to suppose that a single man would apply for a post which was advertised for a married man. The single man would not, of course, be qualified and therefore he would not be able to complain of discrimination. I am assuming, of course, that the job was advertised.
LORD ILFORD: With respect, the man might be fully qualified as a teacher or an architect, or whatever was required, and be unsuitable on some quite different ground, but irrespective of colour.
LORD STONHAM: I am talking about being qualified for the job for which he is being considered; and if the necessary qualifications included, for example, that he had to be a married man, then, clearly, if he was a single man he would not be qualified for the job. That is just as
1322
plain as if there was an advertisement for a Master of Arts and a man who asked for the job said, "I am a Bachelor of Science". He would not be qualified for the job. In my opinion it is absurd that the time of the Committee should be taken up in discussing examples of that kind.
The important thing about my objection to writing in the words "and suitable" is that it would make it very difficult for a complainant to claim or make a good case that he was suitable in the eyes of a prospective employer, whereas it would be easy to establish whether he was qualified. It would merely be a case of whether he had the qualifications for the post advertised, or the qualifications which he was told at the labour exchange were necessary or which were given in the advertisement. There have been cases where immigrants have applied for an educational post and they may have had the academic qualifications and passed examinations, but they were not qualified for the post because they could not speak English or because their command of that language was imperfect. It would not involve discrimination if they were turned down on that ground. But it we included the words "and suitable" it would give some people (I am not thinking of the Inner London Education Authority, who would not use such tactics) an opportunity to take advantage of the loophole and to get away with personal criteria of suitability which might include a discriminatory element quite irrelevant to the qualifications of the applicant.
I must confess that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, hit on the point when he said that the words "for which he is qualified" had no effect. That is quite true. They were put in purely for presentational purposes, because it was thought that it would give an indication to industry. I am perfectly willing to have a look between now and Report stage at the question of deleting the words, "for which he is qualified", but for the reasons which I have given I cannot agree that we should add the words "and suitable".
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am sure that my noble friend would not wish to press the Amendment, provided it is clear that the Government have taken the point about which at least one great

1323
education authority is troubled. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, put his finger on the point when he said that the words "or qualified" are ambiguous. The phrase "a qualified teacher" is accepted, but it does not mean that the teacher is qualified for whatever job he may apply for. I can well understand that somebody may have applied for a job in a school and that there might be no question of competition for the job. He might be the only candidate, but the education authority might consider that he was not suitable for that post, whether he was white or coloured, and he would reply, "But I am a qualified teacher and that is what the law says."
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would satisfy everyone if he would agree to examine the matter from the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, mentioned and which I have endorsed. I am not at all certain that we can solve this problem simply by taking out the words, "and for which he is qualified", though I certainly accept that if the words "and suitable" were added (though it might put the position right for the Inner London Education Authority and other education authorities), it might create difficulties. I am quite certain it is the ambiguity in the word "qualified" which is the trouble here.
LORD MITCHISON: May I rise again, at the risk of being accused of stabbing my noble friend in the back—which is the last thing that I want to do. We all want the same thing here, so far as I can see; I think that goes for everyone who has spoken. I should have thought that there was an ambiguity, and you cannot remedy it easily as a matter of drafting in this clause. What we want is a proper definition in the definition clause later on. I think that is much the best way to do it. I think that to try and do it in the middle of this clause will lead to difficulty. I have had a little experience of drafting in another place, and I hope my noble friend will not mind for once considering my humble advice and. indeed, perhaps answering a suggestion from behind him.
LORD STONHAM: I take it rather hard that my noble friend should say
1324
that I should consider "for once" a suggestion that is made behind me. I have done it already earlier this afternoon. One thing that I have learned, like my noble friend, is never to attempt to draft on your feet, because you never see the snags. Therefore, I am tempted to say that I think the right answer is to leave it as:
"It shall be unlawful for an employer or any person concerned with the employment of others to discriminate against any other person—
(a) if that other person is seeking employment, by refusing or deliberately omitting to employ him on work of any description which is available …"
That sounds to me to be all right, because it gets rid of the ambiguity by getting rid of the words. In my submission, there is no ambiguity there. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, say that he agreed with me about not having the words "and suitable"; but he disagreed with me as to whether the word "qualified" should be there at all. My noble friend Lord Mitchison suggests that we ought to define the word "qualified". I have indicated what I think is favourite, but I will look at all these suggestions and try to come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Before the noble Lord withdraws, as I imagine he will, I risk being gently reprimanded by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for detaining the Committee, but there is one point on this clause that I should like to mention. We are all anxious to see it work, and we must, I think, look at individual cases to see how it will work. Has any consideration been given to the entertainment industry? This seems to me to be a difficult point. I know that in the United States American Equity are anxious at the present time to see that negro actors and actresses are given the chance to appear in parts other than what they call "typically negro parts"; and they may be making some progress in that direction. But consider someone who is casting Othello. He might well say: "Here is a brilliant coloured actress, but really she is not suitable to act as Desdemona."
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Lord think that he was qualified?
VISCOUNT SIMON: That I was qualified?
LORD STONHAM: No; the chap who was not suitable to act Desdernona. Would he be qualified?
VISCOUNT SIMON: He would be qualified as an actress? This perhaps again is what we mean by "qualified". He would not be suitable. Take a corps de ballet where you have 16 charming girls, and, if you like, the Ballet Négre. If a white girl applied, she might be a brilliant dancer and perfectly qualified, but she may not be suitable. It does seem to me that in the entertainment world there is a real problem unless you can import into the idea that there is some point of suitability.
LORD ILFORD: I think the discussion that we have had on this subject has shown that the language which the Bill uses is not sufficiently precise, and this calls, as two or three noble Lords have pointed out, either for the omission of the word "qualified" or for its expansion in further definition. I must say that I am not entirely satisfied with the reply given by the noble Lord, particularly as it is coupled with what seems to me to be rather unnecessary criticism of the local authority who will have to carry this out. The noble Lord has promised that he will look at this again and see whether by some further expansion of the clause or some omission we can get a clause which people will understand, and in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Advertisement and notices.]
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("whether or not") and insert ("if").
The noble Lord said: This Bill makes certain acts unlawful, and it is quite logical and proper that, if acts are made unlawful, it should also be made unlawful to publish or display an advertisement or notice that indicates an intention to perform an unlawful act and nobody could complain if that were what this clause did. But this clause makes a notice or an advertisement unlawful if it discloses
1326
an intention to do an act of discrimination; and then come the words which I criticise,
"whether or not it would be unlawful by virtue of any other provision of this Act".
I think that probably most members of the Committee would agree with me in saying that, if the Government think it necessary to make unlawful a notice which states that you are going to do something perfectly lawful, at least the burden is on them to show that such an extraordinary provision is justified, In the ordinary way, quite obviously, you can advertise or give notice of an intention to do something lawful. My first objection, therefore, to this subsection as it stands is that it seems to be unprincipled and wrong. Nevertheless, I shall listen with interest to whatever is given as the justification for having some clause of this nature, and perhaps for saying that my Amendment is too drastic. However, I hope I can show to the Committee that the words in the clause as it stands cannot really be satisfactory or do what any wise Legislature would intend.
Let me call attention to a simple consequence. It is sought to make the result of subsection (1) less absurd by the provisions of subsection (2). Subsection (2), as will be seen, provides for certain exceptions from the illegality of these notices. In the case of an advertisement or notice which indicates that Commonwealth citizens or any class of such citizens are required for employment outside Great Britain, or that persons other than such citizens are required for employment in Great Britain, the prohibition would not apply.
But let me give an example which would not be saved by subsection (2), of something which would be prohibited, but which members of this Committee, and I hope of the Government, would say ought not to be prohibited. There are many British families living with their children in all parts of the world. If members of the Committee will turn to subsection (6) of Clause 8 they will see that Clause 8 gives the exceptions to the rules on discrimination in the case of employment, and subsection (6) says this:
"Those sections"—
that is Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill—
"shall not apply to the employment of any person for the purposes of a private household".

1327
I think that that exception will be generally recognised as right and proper. But let us take a British family living abroad. This clause as it stands will make it unlawful for them to advertise for a governess of French nationality. Now is it really desirable that that should be made an unlawful act: an advertisement for a French governess? I say it is perfectly absurd, and I give that example to show that the clause simply will not do as it stands.
I have proposed the simple Amendment of leaving out "whether or not" and substituting "if". That is exploratory to the extent that I certainly will not decide about it until I have heard what the Government have to say; I will not say that my Amendment may not be too wide, but I hope I have said enough to show that some Amendment of this clause is essential. I beg to move.
7.12 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, seeks to ensure by his Amendment that only those discriminatory advertisements should be unlawful which refer to an action which would itself be unlawful under the Bill. That is the effect of his words. Lord Conesford argued quite reasonably that where it is not unlawful to discriminate—and he gave some examples; there are many: say, domestic employment or in the letting of lodgings in a small boarding house—it is illogical to make it unlawful for the employer or lessor to advertise the fact that he will discriminate. That is what it would amount to. I know it can also be argued that coloured people will be put to unnecessary trouble in applying for certain jobs or certain posts—some domestic posts—or for types of accommodation from which they can lawfully be excluded—a Pakistani, for example, who seeks lodgings with his compatriots and will be unable to make this clear in his advertisement.
All these things are quite true, but the Government's position is that discriminatory advertisements are a particularly blatant and objectionable form of discrimination which give very great offence; and also that all discrimination on grounds of race or colour is undesir-
1328
able even though for specific reasons the Bill does not provide for certain acts to be made unlawful. Clause 6 will force the employer or the lessor to exercise his, albeit lawful, discrimination personally, instead of impersonally by means of an advertisement which would give considerable offence. There are many other difficulties, quite apart from the basic one of the objectionable nature of these advertisements, and many other objections to the noble Lord's proposal. One of them is that the distinction which the noble Lord wishes to make would make it very difficult for newspapers and other advertisers who have no way of knowing whether a discriminatory advertisement (for example, in respect of lodgings) might be related to a lawful or unlawful act; that is a position of difficulty.
Then the noble Lord spoke about the position overseas. I think he also spoke about a family inquiring for a French governess and advertising in this country for her. I should have thought it most likely that they would have advertised in France for her. If they advertised for somebody to teach French, the position of course would not arise, but the noble Lord said "a French governess". But with regard to overseas advertisements generally, and in particular those which might involve coloured people, the position of the Ministry of Overseas Development, for example, is protected by subsection (2), and they are not prevented from advertising for experts from the United Kingdom for posts in developing countries. It is international practice that aid to developing countries should reflect the character of the country from which it comes, and the need to advertise clearly for suitable people is in our view acceptable. Of course, there are many cases like that. But, although discriminatory advertisements must in general be unlawful, we are anxious that the clause should be consistent with the purposes of the Bill and that innocuous advertisements should so far as possible not be made unlawful.
It has been found impossible to achieve this without negating the whole purpose of the clause, but the exception for advertisements which say that aliens are required for employment in Great Britain goes some way towards relieving the position. It would be possible, for example, to advertise for an Italian waiter or a

1329
German au pair girl. But the exception will not permit advertisements, for example, for a Pakistani chef. I know that these anomalies will exist, but we have given a great deal of thought to this matter.
The noble Lord was good enough to say that he thought his Amendment might be too wide. Indeed, I think I have indicated that it would be. And having given a great deal of thought to this matter, we have found absolutely no way—short of the way that he is suggesting, which is quite unacceptable—of meeting some of the points of anomaly that understandably will occur. We think, however, that this clause is so wholly desirable in the interests of educating public opinion that it is right, and we do not expect that in practice difficulties will arise in respect of advertisements which are, and which are seen to be, unobjectionable.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Do I understand that it is illegal to advertise for a French governess or a Scots nurse? If so, plainly it is crazy. May I ask whether an advertisement or a display saying "Americans go home" also becomes illegal under this Bill?
LORD STONHAM: I have not seen an advertisement saying "Americans go home".
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is paraded every day.
LORD STONHAM: In the newspapers?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, but in display.
LORD STONHAM: Oh well, I have seen displays of that kind with regard to coloured people. If such displays are not already illegal they will certainly become so, and in any case they are objectionable. I said that it is possible under this Bill, without creating an offence, to advertise for a German au pair girl.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord says it is all right to advertise for a German au pair girl but not for a Pakistani chef. Would it be all right to advertise for a Pakistani au pair girl and would it equally be illegal to advertise for a German chef? We really are getting in a most frightful tangle. There must be
1330
cases where the particular qualifications are related to ethnic or national origins, and what one wants to advertise for is a person with that particular qualification. It is the ethnic or national origin which gives them the fullest possible knowledge of the culture and language of that nation. That must be so.
I am speaking now with a certain interest, because part of my function outside this House is to try to keep advertising lawful. This is going to put a most extraordinary strain on advertising. How is an advertising medium going to judge whether an act of discrimination is involved or whether in fact the advertiser is seeking someone with a particular qualification that derives from his ethnic origin? I think one must limit the prohibition under the law to what is contained in the Statute and not say that any form of discrimination that is not caught by the Statute is illegal. The form of discrimination may be of the essence of the requirement, and if that is what is advertised for then surely it should be all right.
LORD MITCHISON: I think what one has to consider here is the practical act, and one has to consider it in the light of the position of a newspaper. Advertising can be a very powerful thing indeed. What the newspaper is supposed not o do is to publish an advertisement which indicates, or which could reasonably be understood to indicate, an intention to do an act of discrimination. I have not forgotten the words that follow, but that is supposed to be the mischief. What is being asked for by this Amendment is that the newspaper should be called upon to enquire whether the act of discrimination would be unlawful by virtue of any other provision in this Bill. I do net see how in practice they could do it. This is not a simple Bill by any means, and they would not have the knowledge to do it. Therefore we may have to chose between the newspaper's being able to say, "We cannot publish this because it is unlawful", and thereby preventing something which would be lawful under the provisions of the Bill from being advertised, or, on the other hand, the newspaper's being able to refuse, on the score of illegality, to publish something which it knows could well be deemed (and may even know that it is) unlawful under the Bill.

1331
As a matter of common sense and in view of what we are all trying to achieve, I think my noble friend is right in saying that we cannot do absolute justice because of the limitations in the position of the Press in this matter. But we have to look at the major evil, and the major evil is likely to be the objection to advertisements of this kind—and it is on the whole a minor one—that in some cases they might, with full knowledge of the facts, be justifiable on the grounds that there was a provision in the Bill allowing that particular act of discrimination to be done. It has to be an act of discrimination, and I should have thought the basis of this Bill was that you must not have acts of discrimination. It is in fact a Race Relations Bill and that is what we are all concerned about.
It would be better, therefore, in the interests of the broad object we have in mind, to take the smaller risk of newspapers having to refuse to publish something which would in fact be lawful if they knew all the facts. I should have thought it would have been rare for them to know all the facts. Then there is the other case of a newspaper publishing a general advertisement, and some of the general advertisement would amount to inciting people to acts of discrimination which would be lawful and some would amount to inciting them to acts of discrimination which would be unlawful. Under this provision they would have to refuse that advertisement.
I hope my noble friend will appreciate, if I may humbly and respectfully say so, that this is a rough judgment. It is something of a judgment of Solomon, as it were. If we accepted this Amendment and took out the words which the noble Lord seeks to take out we should then be letting in advertisements which ought not to be there, and on the balance of the object we have in mind and the whole provisions of the Bill I think, personally and frankly, that one must do rough justice; that in the interests of the Press itself and of decent advertising we must let this clause through in this form. Although I am sure the Amendment is not intended to make their task impossible, it would in fact make it very difficult indeed.
LORD SALTOUN: I am in some difficulty over this matter. The noble Lord
1332
indicated that it is not unlawful to advertise for a Scots nurse or a German cook or a French governess but it is unlawful to advertise for a Pakistani cook. That has been my problem all through, and I find it personally quite offensive because it is a thing that does not enter into my normal calculations. This will be a Public General Act applying to everybody of all ethnic groups, and it has been argued by your Lordships as if it depended entirely on the colour of a man's skin. I dislike it very much. It is not the way to discuss a law and I do not understand why, if it is lawful for me to adopt a fashion which is followed by a great many of my friends and advertise for a Scottish nurse, I should not also be allowed to advertise for a Pakistani cook.
LORD MITCHISON: I am not sure if the noble Lord is referring to me, but I did not say anything of the sort.
LORD SALTOUN: No.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think there must be a way through this, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it is not easy. I probably do not go quite so far as my noble friend who moved the Amendment. I see the force of the Government's objection that we want to render unlawful the sort of advertisement which says "No coloured", and I appreciate that if this Amendment were made somebody could still put in an advertisement including the words "No coloured", and when a complaint was made might say, "Oh, but I am exempted under Clause 7 of the Bill." It would be offensive, I entirely agree, if that sort of Amendment were to appear and if that kind of defence were made.
Nevertheless, if this clause remains entirely unamended it seems to me that the certain result will be that no newspaper will ever accept an advertisement for an Indian or a Pakistani or a Malay; it will be too risky for them to do so. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether there has been any discussion on this clause with the newspaper organisations, because it is most important that we should get it right. I am not pressing the Government to open this clause wide to all kinds of objectionable advertisements, but I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that

1333
it should not be rendered impossible for the perfectly normal and unobjectionable advertisements to appear which nobody for one moment would regard as discrimination. It may be difficult to get the drafting right, but Parliament should have a shot at it, and as this is at the Committee stage of the Bill and I imagine certainly the Bill cannot now become law until October, I greatly hope that between now and the final stages further thought may be given to the possibility of finding a solution which would satisfy everybody.
LORD CONESFORD: I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that he knows from my speech on Second Reading that I do not regard this as a wise Bill. Nevertheless, I had no doubt whatever that it ought to have a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and I have equally genuinely tried to accept the intention to legislate and, to the best of my ability, to improve the Bill. The best way of improving the Bill is to remove things that the public will find to be really nonsensical. I said, in moving this Amendment, that I should fully understand, and should not contest, the view that my Amendment might be too wide in seeking to strike out these words. I agree with the noble Lord that there is evidence that my particular Amendment is too wide, and I should not dream of pressing it. The main part of my speech was to show that the clause, as it stands, without any amendment, produces fantastically foolish results. Even with the acceptance of my Amendment, much too much would still be prohibited, in my view. I think it is quite absurd that there must not be an Indian restaurant in London which is entitled to recruit, and to say it wishes to recruit, an Indian cook. I regard that as absolutely absurd, tyrannous and ridiculous.
I am sorry to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, because with many of his speeches I have found myself in a considerable measure of agreement, but what I am seeking to permit is not some offensive advertisement. If there is a British family living abroad, is it really offensive to advertise in The Times or the Telegraph that they wish to find a French governess? Is it not absolutely absurd to say that is unlawful?
1334
Yet that is what this clause does. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, seemed to think it was a sufficient answer to say, "Why do they not advertise in France?" I dare say they would advertise in France, but the family might rather like to have for their children somebody with a certain amount of experience in England.
Are we really to say we are so incompetent that the Government, with all the resources of Parliamentary draftsmen, cannot think of any way whatever of stopping offensive advertisements without saying that nobody must advertise in a British newspaper for a French governess? I think the thing is so absolutely idiotic that if we take this line, this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will not only he disliked but will become an object of contempt. People will say, "How could Parliament be quite so incompetent as to pass this nonsense?". I should like to find the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, a little more encouraging and seeing some need for improving the clause, and perhaps he and I could get together and see whether I might even be able to persuade him that some change is necessary. Let me say at once that if the Government cannot find any change to meet the point I have made I shall certainly have another shot, and I hope many other people will too. On Report stage, I will not refrain from a Division if the Government have not introduced some sense into this clause. Meanwhile, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Exception in the cue of residential accommodation]:
7.38 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 11, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 15 is consequential on it. I do not know whether it would be convenient or embarrassing to the Government if we were to debate at the same time the other three Amendments relating to housing exemptions, Nos. 11, 12 and 13. I am rather anxious to press on with the Bill, and it might save time. If the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is agreeable, let us discuss

1335
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 together.
Clause 7 deals with various acts which are not unlawful in the case of housing. Broadly speaking, as regards subsections (1) and (2), there is to be an exemption for small premises, and subsections (1) and (2) together, supported by the rest of the clause, seek to make clear what small premises are. My first Amendment is to leave out the requirement in subsection (1)(c), that there must be a sharing of accommodation between the landlord and others residing on the premises, who are not members of his household. If there is a sharing of relevant accommodation (and "relevant accommodation" is defined in subsection (5): that is why my Amendment No. 15 is consequential) then in certain circumstances the accommodation may be regarded as exempt. But as the Bill stands sharing is an essential test before the accommodation can be exempted from the requirements of the Bill.
The first point I want to raise is whether it really is essential to include shared accommodation in the definition of small premises. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be familiar with the Street Report and with the account that is given there of American measures in this context. That Report uses the defining phrase, "intimate personal proximity". There can be intimate personal proximity in a small house even though there is no shared accommodation. In a small house, even though the flats or flatlets or rooms are quite separate from one another, people are living to a much greater extent on top of one another than in other kinds of houses. There may be thin floors, thin walls, and everything said in one room or flat may be easily heard in the next. That is my first point, that there are small premises, where intimate personal proximity undoubtedly exists, and where I am suggesting there should be an exemption from the requirement of the Act on that account although there is no actual sharing of accommodation.
If I may pass to Amendment No. 11, that deals with subsection (2)(a), and the Bill exempts small premises if, having satisfied the requirements in subsection (1),
1336
"in addition to the accommodation occupied by the landlord, there is not normally residential accommodation for more than two such households …"
I wish to ask the Government why they specify two households and not, for example, three. There may be quite small premises where the landlord or landlady is resident and there are two or three separate households there, and I find it hard to say why a case of the landlord and two other households should qualify for exemption as small premises whereas a case of the landlord and three other households should not, as the Bill stands, qualify for exemption. That is the point raised by my second Amendment.
I wonder whether in passing I might ask a question not about line 22, to which Amendment No. 11 refers, but line 23, which says:
"and only the landlord and any member of his household reside in the accommodation occupied by him".
I have been unable to understand why the word there is "member" in the singular and not "members" in the plural. There may be a very good reason for that, but it is puzzling to the uninstructed reader like myself. I would not press for the answer now, provided the point can be looked at.
The third of this trio of Amendments refers to the case where there are not separate households or separate lettings and where a house is, I presume, let off in rooms. In that case there is exemption if:
"there is not normally residential accommodation on the premises for more than six persons in addition to the landlord and any members of his household."
On this point your Lordships will notice that in line 29 the word "members" is in the plural, whereas in line 23, as I pointed out, it was in the singular.
Subsection (3) modifies the limit of six in the first two years and would enact that in the first two years the limitation shall not be six but shall be twelve. I presume that that is there because it is thought that it would be extremely difficult from the outset to enforce or police all these cases, and it would be better if the Board had some time to get its eye in, as it were, before it had to take oversight of all these smaller roomed houses, as they are called. The point I am raising by this Amendment

1337
is whether in fact after two years it will be either possible or desirable to bring the limit down from twelve to six. The Government again may have good reasons for choosing these two particular figures. They appear to me to be arbitrary figures. If in fact the Government think it will be difficult to police roomed houses with accommodation for more than six people in addition to the landlord during the first two years, I cannot help thinking it will be nearly as difficult after the first two years.
It will be perceived that in all these Amendments I am not challenging the principle of Clause 7. What I am anxious to do is to see that Clause 7 is drafted so that it shall be both workable and sensible. All the five Amendments, which in fact are three material Amendments and two consequential ones, are directed to the same general point. They are all directed to trying to get the definitions in Clause 7 both sensible and workable. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for suggesting that we should consider these four Amendments together. Broadly speaking, they are all on the point of rented housing accommodation in small houses and the point at which they cease to be excepted from the provisions of this Bill. I would say at once that, broadly speaking, and taking them collectively, the noble Lord's Amendments would remove a very substantial part of the available housing from the field in which discrimination would be unlawful, and particularly the cheaper rented accommodation, especially in the large towns and the older houses. This, of course, is just the kind of accommodation in which immigrants, are to be found: because it is cheap; because it is in the large towns; because it is in older houses, and some of the houses are larger and can be let off in lettings, tenements or shared rooms. Generally speaking, therefore, the effect of these Amendments would be to reduce the amount of accommodation available in this way, not by reducing the number of houses (you cannot do that), but by reducing the number of houses where it would he unlawful for the landlord to discriminate. We feel that if we mean business over these housing provisions—and we certainly do—there is no justification for excepting pre-
1338
mises in which the landlord does not share any facilities other than storage accommodation and means of access with any of his tenants.
The first question the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, addressed to me was: is it essential to include shared accommodation in the definition of small premises? We certainly think it is absolutely essential, and we think it is only when there is real sharing in this way that the proximity is intimate and therefore justifies the exception in the Bill. If it were possible and workable, we should prefer no exceptions, but we think it is right in small houses, where the landlord with his family shares accommodation, such as bathrooms and toilets, and so on, and perhaps the kitchen, with his tenants, and in really intimate circumstances, that it is right that they should be able, without committing an offence, to choose and to say, No.
The noble Lord said that these are small houses. But we are thinking in terms of a house with three families, because it is the landlord's family and two more families; that is to say three households. In those circumstances they are excepted. The noble Lord asked; why do we not make it three families in addition to the landlord? He said that that would be a small house. But it could not be a very small house if there were four families in all. He said that these should be excepted. The point is, when does a home become a business? Certainly, when it is a business, or at least partly a business, we do not think it should be excepted. I know that it is difficult to strike a balance, but we think we have the balance right in taking the three families.
The noble Lord said that in his view, in a fairly small house, and even if the tenants did not share the landlord's accommodation—even if there were separate bathrooms—it was still quite intimate: because of thin walls, and so on. There are blocks of flats with large numbers of people living in them who scarcely see each other, and certainly do not talk with each other from one year's end to the other. This can be done in houses where there are four households under one roof. There is far more intimacy in some rows of terraced houses, especially back-to-back houses, and similar places, than there is in

1339
accommodation in a larger house where the intimate accommodation is not shared. That is the answer to that point.
It is also the answer to the noble Lord's suggestion that we should remove the provision that after two years the total number of persons in a house for it to continue to qualify as a small household should be reduced from 12 to 6. As the Bill was originally drafted, the permitted number was 4; but it was altered in another place when the Home Secretary undertook to consider the possibility of raising the ceiling of 4 and introducing phasing arrangements. That is why we have the present permitted number of 12, to be reduced after two years to 6. I think this was a major alteration and concession. We went at once, at least for a period of two years, from 4 to 12, and thereby trebled the number. The noble Lord asked, would it be possible or desirable after two years to get down to the 6-person limit? It would certainly be desirable, and I also believe that it would he possible. The noble Lord also asked me about subsection (2)(a), and the reference in it to "any member". The point is that "any member" includes the plural, and can be read as "any members".
We therefore, if I may sum up, get to the point that we feel that, for justification of small households and thereby exception from the housing provisions of the Bill, the essentials are, first, that the landlord must share accommodation with his tenant other than means of access. We think this is absolutely essential. Secondly, there must be limitations as to size; and we think that a total of three households, the landlord's and two others, and a total of 12 persons presently and 6 persons after two years are the right level to exempt from the provisions of the Bill, and for a level of intimacy and smallness which is essential if there are going to be any exceptions at all.
The collective effect of acceptance of all three of the points in the four Amendments would be that a large part of the type of accommodation which in our view will be available to immigrants without discrimination, because discrimination will be unlawful under the Bill, will be greatly reduced if these Amendments are accepted. I am quite sure that that is not the noble Lord's purpose. We
1340
believe this most firmly, and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
7.58 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: I should like to add a word in support of what my noble friend Lord Stonham has said on the question of shared accommodation, simply by drawing the attention of your Lordships' Committee to the fact that the distinction between shared accommodation and occupying part of someone else's premises without shared accommodation is already a well-established concept in our law. If one considers our landlord and tenant law it was always the position under the Rent Restriction Acts that where there was vital shared accommodation with the landlord the tenant did not enjoy the protection of the Act, the reason being that sharing vital accommodation created an entirely new situation. And even though a modified form of protection has now been given to a tenant in such circumstances, whereby he can apply to a rent tribunal, it is still entirely recognised in our legislation that there is all the difference in the world between occupying a portion of a person's premises as a separate entity and, on the other hand, occupying a portion of those premises and also sharing some accommodation such as a kitchen, a bathroom, a toilet, or something of that kind.
I would submit to the Committee that this provision recognises that distinction and recognises that it is really only in the case of that rather special degree of intimacy that occurs where people are actually sharing some essential accommodation that there is any need to qualify the fundamental provision of this Bill that there should not be discrimination in regard to letting a portion of one's premises. I would respectfully support my noble friend when he opposes an Amendment based on eliminating the concept of shared accommodation from the restrictions of the Act imposed in regard to residential accommodation.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for having replied to my Amendments so fully, and I think it was a good plan to discuss them all together. Despite what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, I am doubtful whether the existence of

1341
"sharing" accommodation should be a necessary prerequisite to exemption, but I will not take that further now, nor do I intend to press my second Amendment, three households instead of two. I remain concerned, however, about the type of accommodation that is referred to in subsection (2)(b) and in subsection (3). I do not believe that there is any real evidence that precisely two years after the commencement of the Act it will be sensible or practicable for the reduction to six to be policed and enforced. I see the case for a tapering arrangement; I do not see the case for fixing this at two years precisely.
Indeed, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham said and he appeared to me to be expressing a hope that it would be possible after two years to enforce the reduction to six persons rather than a certainty. I should have thought that it would be wiser, if one is going to accept the same numbers and the tapering arrangement, to provide that the reduction from twelve to six should be made by order at such time as the Government of the day had satisfied themselves that it would be practicable. That might be in less than two years or it might be beyond two years. But it would at any rate give a flexibility which subsection (3) does not give. I should he grateful if the noble Lord would consider that point. I think that subsection (3) is too rigid, but apart from that I do not wish to pursue these matters further, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 10, and I do not intend to move Amendments 11, 12, 13 or 15.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 3, after "daughter" insert "any foster son or foster daughter".
The noble Earl said: For a short moment, and I intend to be very brief, we leave the subject of race and come to the subject of relations. This clause lists various kinds of parenthood; adoptive parenthood, illegitimate parenthood, step-parenthood, and other varieties of parenthood. I believe that the time has come when we should insert for some purposes "foster parenthood". I am glad I have some sympathy from my left.
In moving this Motion I want to say that I am quite aware that it is an incomplete Amendment, there should be a definition Clause, and that definition Clause should be of such a nature as to exclude temporary foster parents while including long-term foster parents. The temporary foster parent is a most useful person and indispensable when there is a crisis in a child's home and a child needs temporary accommodation, but we cannot expect there to be the warm and close bond of affection which arises in the case of long-term fosterings.
I have not attempted to draft a definition clause myself, because I hope that the Home Office will do the work for me if they accept the principle of my Amendment. I am quite certain, that that most efficient body, the Children's Department of the Home Office would devise a far more useful definition Clause than I myself could undertake. By the way, let me express a warm hope that it will remain the Children's Department of the Home Office and not be moved to any other Ministry. I believe that that hope may find some echo in official quarters. The kind of definition I have in mind would be on these lines:
"For the purpose of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be a foster child if, during his childhood, he was for not less than seven years in the custody of a family other than his own."
That would be the lines on which I would like to see foster parenthood defined for the purposes of this Act.
In two capacities I believe I am the right person to move this Amendment. In the first place, for many years I was a member of a case committee which dealt with children deprived of normal home life. I know how much we owe to foster parents, and I believe it to be a proper object of public policy to enhance the status of foster parenthood. My second reason is that I am myself a foster parent, and a very long term one, and I know how very deep a bond of family love and affection exists between the foster parent and the child to whom he has had the privilege of performing parental services. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: We all agree with the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that there are many cases when foster children

1343
live with their foster parents for years, and are treated and almost regarded as actual members of the family: there is a very close relationship. But it is also the case that there are tens of thousands of children fostered out with foster parents for a short period; and however well they may be treated they are not in any real sense regarded as members of the family.
My noble friend Lord Iddesleigh said that he realised he ought to have had a definition of foster son or foster daughter. Presumably his definition would contain some reference to a period of years or something of that kind. I would say to the noble Earl, however, that the point of principle here is that we are providing a limited exception from the provisions of the Bill for the landlord and his family, and the definition of "family" in this clause is identical with the one used in Section 7 of the Leasehold Reform Act which was passed only in 1967. It is intended that the exceptions should be confined to the landlord and his immediate family, and if the definition were extended to foster children it would be difficult to resist extending it to other relatives.
There is another point. The noble Lord asks for a definition, but what happens to the exemption when a member of a family lives apart from the landlord? And if, after all, the foster son or foster daughter then goes to live somewhere else, is he, or she, still a member of the landlord's family? This is a very difficult point, and I do not think I can accept the noble Earl's offer to try to draft something for him in the Home Office on this point because, quite frankly, it seems to me to be outwith the intentions of the Bill, and it would be virtually impossible to meet the noble Earl on it.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like, if I may, to put in a plea for favourable consideration of what the noble Earl says. I would say that fostering is a very ancient practice in our country, and a very important one. It has gone on certainly since the reign of King Athelstan, which is a long time ago. The noble Earl suggested a definition based on a period of, I think, seven years which would meet most of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Therefore
1344
I would add my plea that favourable consideration should be given to this proposal.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: May I add a simple personal plea, on the ground that the noble Earl mentioned the words "immediate relation"? I should have thought the foster child, even for a short time, was an immediate relation, in the sense of being a close one, and if the relationship goes on for a time—which might or might not be definable as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, suggested—it would be seriously worth considering drafting something on this.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I am very grateful for the support that I have received. I will not prolong the discussion. I did not anticipate success with this Amendment, but it was my aim to plant in the official mind certain thoughts which I hope will bear fruit in some later Bill. I am quite certain that this is only the first of many Bills which may be required to deal with this difficult and thorny subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.14 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("an") and insert ("in")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, but not the Amendment which is printed on the Marshalled List. The word I want to leave out is not "an" but "on", and the word I want to insert is "in". This is an Amendment in which I hope I shall have the support of all those in the Committee who are lovers of English and all former Naval persons, because those people, I think, recognise that sailors and their passengers do not live on ships but in ships. I beg to move.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I wish to raise a point which I raised on another Bill a few days ago. I do not want to be pedantic but this Amendment asks us to leave out the word "an" in line 13, yet in line 13 of the Bill the word "an" does not appear. Where are we?
LORD SANDFORD: I began my remarks by making it clear that I wanted to leave out the word "on" and put in the word "in". It is a misprint.
LORD STONHAM: I am sorry to break in on this private argument, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that people travel in a ship. In effect, so far as this Amendment is concerned, there is no real difference. I am really saying that it does not matter whether we say "on" or "in". The Board of Trade have been consulted, and I learn that though "in" is used by purists and is preferred, "on" can also be used in practice—both "in" and "on" are used. There is little to choose between the two words, and nothing would be gained by amending the Bill in this respect. That being so, I would be quite prepared to accept the Amendment but for the fact that it would involve a number of consequential Amendments in similar references in other parts of the Bill. There are some seven of these already in the Bill together with others in Government Amendments which are down in my name for Committee stage. Most references are to aircraft as well as ships, and it is invariably the practice to refer to "on an aircraft".
If the Amendment were accepted, it would be necessary to refer in different parts of the Bill to "in a ship or on an aircraft" and this would be extremely cumbersome. Therefore, although I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this to my notice, and though there is not really a lot in it—in fact with respect there is nothing in it one way or the other—I am sure he would not want me to accept it and with it the need to make perhaps a dozen or more Amendments. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Lord said that the Board of Trade had been consulted. Did he have a word with the Admiralty?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Might I suggest that perhaps we could now adjourn for an hour so that those noble Lords who have been sitting here the whole day and have not been out to have dinner could now do so?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: May I follow that by saying that I fear we are not going to be successful in finishing this Bill to-night? I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will acknowledge that I have been anxious
1346
to hasten the Bill rather than to slow it down. As we shall not finish it to-night it seems to me that it would be desirable to make some arrangement so that those of us who are closely concerned should have some food and that we might resume afterwards, though perhaps we need not continue for quite as long as was originally proposed. There would be a firm undertaking, so far as I can give a firm undertaking on behalf of the Opposition, to finish it within a reasonable period on some day next week.
LORD STONHAM: Has the noble Lord withdrawn his Amendment?
LORD SANDFORD: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his attitude, which I am glad to say is the sort of attitude he always adopts on occasions like this when we are working together. I agree with him that we cannot finish the Committee stage of the Bill at a reasonable time to-night without imposing gross burdens on everybody, not only noble Lords. I should have thought that if we adjourned during pleasure until 9 o'clock, and if the noble Lord was willing to return for another two hours and we conclude it at about 11 and finish the Bill on another day, that would meet noble Lords' convenience.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: It would be very helpful to adjourn until 9 o'clock. I wonder whether it would be desirable to go on as late as 11 o'clock, but perhaps we can see how we get on. The desirable thing would be to adjourn at some convenience point in the Bill, rather than to drop an issue in the middle, and to continue not later than 11 o'clock. We might find some time between 10 and 11 which would be better.
LORD SHACKLETON: I entirely agree with noble Lords. Perhaps we ought not to decide exactly how far we go, but there are limits to human endurance on all sides and I think that my noble friends would be quite happy to adjourn for a bit. I beg to move that the Committee now adjourn during pleasure until 9 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 p.m. until 9 o'clock.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AIREDALE): I have to inform the Committee that Amendment No. 17 pre-empts Amendment No. 18, so that if No. 17 were to be agreed to I should not be able to call No. 18.
9.1 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 20, leave out from ("him") to end of line 23.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to strike out of subsection (7) all the words after "him" in line 20. Subsection (7) says:
"It shall not be unlawful … for any person to discriminate against another with respect to the disposal by the former of his interest in any premises owned and wholly occupied by him.…"
In other words, that is a perfectly legitimate activity. But it is made conditional on two things: first, that the person referred to does not use the services of an estate agent; and, secondly, that he does not publish an advertisement or notice in connection therewith.
I suggest to the Committee that these are provisions of very doubtful wisdom. If you authorise an activity and say that it is legitimate, it is generally very foolish to say that the man who indulges in it must not employ professional services in connection with his lawful activity. On the whole, estate agents are known as a profession with some standards. What will be the effect of saying that a man must not employ them? It will not mean that he will not seek any help, but it may mean that you will drive underground a perfectly legitimate activity and have that activity performed by what I might call a black market. It seems to me that such a limitation will not achieve any object that is really desired by Her Majesty's Government.
The next Amendment, of which the acceptance of my Amendment would preclude consideration, as the Lord Chairman has pointed out, gives one example of a perfectly legitimate cause for consulting an estate agent, but it is not the only legitimate cause. I ask the Government to consider very carefully whether there is good sense in this exclusion of professional help for a man who is in-
1348
dulging in what the Government themselves say is a legitimate activity. I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: As Amendment No. 18 would fall if Amendment No. 17 were carried, it might be to the convenience of the Committee if I were to say a word about Amendment No. 18 at this point. I will not seek to develop my noble friend's argument, but I trust that, whatever they do with the subsection as a whole, the Government will consider the importance of making some sort of exception such as is indicated in Amendment No. 18.
As the clause is drafted, and if my noble friend's Amendment were not accepted, it appears to me that the house-owner would bring himself within the scope of the discrimination law if he simply used the services of an estate agent to advise him as to the price that he should ask for his house, or as to the figure that he should accept for it. I think the Government will agree that there is no element of discrimination there. The Government have accepted that if you are selling a house privately and not through an estate agent, that should be exempt from the Bill; and, if that is so, it seems to me that, either in the words which I am seeking to suggest in this Amendment or in some other words, it should be made quite clear that there can be no question of an owner bringing a sale within the scope of the Bill if he simply consults an estate agent, not about putting his house on the market but about a reasonable price which he might accept for it.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to make only two very brief comments, the first on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. The operative words would surely not be "black market". The other comment is that I have a good deal of sympathy with these Amendments. I do not understand why a man cannot sell his one house and have both the advice and the use of an estate agent. I have never understood this particular clause in the Bill, and I should be very grateful if my noble friend would explain it to us.
Loan STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in moving his Amendment, said that the exclusion of professional help was wholly wrong, and

1349
would agree with him, if that were what the Bill did. But, as I shall endeavour to explain, we do not exclude professional help, as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell surmised—and she is right. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for suggesting that we might consider his Amendment No. 18 at the same time, but he will accept from me that it is not quite on the same point as that of his noble friend, because the Amendment of his noble friend Lord Conesford would exempt from the Bill any disposal of premises by an owner-occupier. Nearly half of all the houses in this country are owner-occupied, and if we exempt nearly half the houses in the country from the provisions relating to discrimination under this Bill then we take an enormous slice of accommodation which would be available to immigrants out of the market, in the sense that discrimination would still be lawful in respect of them. That is something which is quite unacceptable.
Clause 7(7) and Clause 7(8) were introduced on Report in the Commons to provide a limited exception for purely private sales effected without advertising or using the services of an estate agent. As always when in Parliament a concession, a limited exception, is introduced, it becomes an invitation to push the door wide open and let the flood come in. That is something we have to resist. The noble Lord's Amendment goes much further by removing almost all the privately-owned accommodation from the scope of the Bill. We cannot accept that. It is a cardinal principle of the Bill that such accommodation should be covered.
The Race Relations Board Report for 1966–67 said that housing discrimination lies close to the heart of the whole problem of racial discrimination. Nearly half the dwellings in Great Britain are owner-occupied and in 1967 nearly 400,000 mortgages on such dwellings were granted by building societies and local authorities. If we had discrimination there it would mean that many of these houses would not be available to the people we desire to help. The tension we want to relieve we could not relieve, for they could not get mortgages. The noble Lord's Amendment would seriously weaken the effect of the Bill. Much more important, it would seriously damage the country's image and would also greatly damage the legisla-
1350
tion as a statement of principle. Such a wide exception would enfeeble the Bill as an instrument of education and guidance to public opinion. It would be of great concern to immigrants who would hardly be satisfied with a Bill which said in effect that racial discrimination is acceptable in the disposal of owner-occupied dwellings in the open market.
The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is a different kettle of fish. I think the Committee will not mind if, in response to the invitation of my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, I stated whit was the law on this subject. In the Commons my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was asked what the position would be if a surveyor were brought in to make a valuation for both parties. In reply the Home Secretary said:
"The surveyor is a person who is engaged by both parties to give a valuation. He is not a person who, in the words of the Amendment
'… brings together or takes steps to bring together the person proposing to dispose of the interest and the prospective purchaser thereof, or acts as an auctioneer.'
Therefore, the surveyor engaged professionally in order to give a valuation is excluded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 373; 10/7/68.]
That is the point that I was making with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. We do not exclude professional help. We do not say that an owner cannot get professional advice to know what price he should ask for his property.
Now I come on to the estate agent. The definition in the Bill of an estate agent follows, except for an important omission to which I shall return, the definition used in the Estate Agents Bill introduced by a Private Member in the House of Commons in 1966. In the 1966 Bill the definition of an estate agent was
"For the purposes of this Act, practice as an estate agent shall be taken to be, and only to be, the doing in connection with the sale or proposed sale of land of any of the following steps:—
Bringing together or taking steps to bring together the vendor or a prospective purchaser, negotiating as to the terms of the sale with the vendor or a prospective purchaser and acting as an auctioneer."
The definition of an estate agent in this Bill deliberately omits the words. "negotiates the terms of sale" because the Government agreed that a person

1351
who intends to make a bona fide private sale within the exception provided in Clause 7(7) may very well and properly desire to use the services of a third party to give advice as to the value of the property. That is the professional advice about which I was speaking.
For the purposes of the Bill an estate agent means a person who in connection with the disposal of an interest in land brings together, or takes steps to bring together, the person proposing to dispose of the interest and the prospective purchaser thereof, or act as an auctioneer. Therefore a person who desires to make a bona fide private sale within the terms of the exception we provide in the Bill is not precluded from seeking professional advice as to the value of the property, and the Amendment is accordingly unnecessary.
The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is quite unacceptable. I think it is unacceptable to him, because of what it would do in excluding from this field such an enormous number of houses. Regarding the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I believe that the position is covered, but I should be quite prepared, without positive commitment, to give further consideration to the noble Lord's Amendment to see whether it might improve the Bill and remove possible uncertainty. If so we could attend to it on Report stage.
9.17 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for what he has said. I appreciate that subsection (8) may secure the position of the person who simply consults an estate agent about the price, but I have a feeling that unless we put in some such words as I have suggested, solicitors may advise owners that they had better keep clear of estate agents altogether. The kind of case I had in mind was that I might have a house which I wished to sell and I knew a friend anxious to buy it. I did not know what would be a fair price to ask for it and so I would go to an estate agent, not to ask him in any sense to settle the price as between my friend and myself but to tell me what would be a fair price for me to ask. That seems to me an entirely reasonable and sensible thing to do; it is the right use of the services
1352
of a professional man. It would be helpful if the Government would consider whether some words could be introduced to make absolutely clear to all concerned that the law meant to put no restraint at all on that kind of action.
LORD STONHAM: That is exactly what I had in mind—something which would virtually be of a declaratory nature.
LORD CONESFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and I observed very carefully the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The fact that he is prepared to meet my noble friend, or at least to consider meeting his Amendment at a later stage, provides me with ample justification and willingness to withdraw my Amendment at this stage, which I shall do in a moment. But I should like to make two comments to the noble Lord.
He said that this Amendment would take a great deal of property out of the field of discrimination law. That is not strictly true, because the exception from the general law of discrimination is contained in the words that I am not attacking. What I am attacking is the prohibition of the employment of a particular professional service. I remain very dubious whether it is advisable to have such a prohibition, but I am not going to challenge the noble Lord on that to-night, especially as he wishes to meet my noble friend. Valuation is not the only legitimate matter on which the owner may wish to consult a house agent. He may want a report on dilapidations, which is something that he might wish to have for the fairest of reasons. The only other thing I would very tentatively suggest to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor is that he might consider substituting the word "otherwise" for "other". In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.21 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: Concerned as I am with an undertaking which is in daily touch with the problem of providing and looking over accommodation for overseas students in Scotland, there are three

1353
points in connection with this clause that I should like to raise, quite briefly. My task in raising the first one would be made much easier if I knew exactly how the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is going to cope with the problem raised in Clause 1 and Amendment No. 1. In this connection, one noble Lord suggested the word "sole", and my noble friend Lord Conesford suggested a word which was substantially fitting; and if any one of these were incorporated, this point would probably not arise. The problem is this. Should not a householder who is letting furnished accommodation have the right to satisfy himself that a prospective tenant is capable of maintaining the property, including the furnishings and furniture, in good condition? As I say, this would not he necessary if Clause 1 were amended in the way suggested, but it presents a problem to people providing accommodation for overseas students, and it is one that I think might well be looked into.
The second point concerns Clause 7(2)(a). Although this obviously covers what I may call bed-sitter accommodation, let with cooking facilities to be shared, I wonder if the noble Lord would look into the question of whether this also covers the letting of a self-contained flat within a building in which the landlord himself resides.
The third point is much more tricky, and concerns Clause 7(6), to which my noble friend Lord Sandford moved an Amendment. There is a problem where a landlord or a landlady lets accommodation to students, providing some sort of simple study, with cooking facilities, and there is sleeping accommodation with two beds. With a landlord or landlady in that position, fully willing and perhaps anxious to let the accommodation to a coloured student, it is just possible that there might be a complication in regard to the lessee of the other bed. I suggest that this might be looked at under Clause 7(6), and that some such provision as is contained in that clause might apply to this sort of accommodation, which is commonly let to students.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: With regard to the point about the lessee of the other bed, I can only say that a good many years ago I had the experience of entertaining a variety of students in my house, of whom two were of African origin, and the white students competed
1354
fiercely to share the room with the African students.
LORD STONHAM: If I may say so with great respect to the noble Earl, he has the right kind of home and the right kind of friends. But, in reply to the three points of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, may I say that I should like him to read what I said about Amendment No. 1 and the use of the word "sole". Of course, I indicated that I would read the debate, but I think that what I said on this point—in fact, I think I used these words—was that I could hold out very little hope of changing this matter. Indeed, I would say to the noble Earl that, in my view, the insertion of the word "sole" into Clause 1 would make the field of discrimination very wide. I go so far as to say that it would almost drive a barn door through the Bill. That is the fear I have.
May I now come to the three points raised on this clause? He asked first: Should a householder not have the right to satisfy himself that the tenant would be likely to maintain the accommodation? Of course he has that right, and of course it would not be discrimination; it would be a perfectly proper thing to do. There are the kind of considerations that the landlord might have good reason to think that his rent would not be paid, or he might have heard from someone else, another landlord, that that particular tenant had abused his property and that he would be likely to be a bad tenant. They would be perfectly proper reasons for refusing to let the premises to him.
On the question of the self-contained flat, if the dwelling comes within the terms of the Bill as a small house, then the self-contained flat would not be excepted if the other provisions of the Bill applied. But if the landlord, for example, shared accommodation with one household and then the self-contained flat was the third household with whom the landlord did not share accommodation—in other words, it was a self-contained flat—it would be excepted. I am assuming a three-household dwelling, one being the landlord's and two others. With one household the landlord shares some accommodation; with the second household he does not share anything, but it is still excepted.

1355
The third question the noble Lord put to me was virtually answered by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh; it was about the double-bedded sleeping accommodation. I am afraid that there would be no exception there. The only exception would be this. If the boarding house, up to two years after the Bill is passed, had a maximum of 12, it would be excepted; and after two years, six. But apart from that, if it is said to a man of colour, "This is a double-bedded room and you cannot have it because somebody else of another colour has a bed in that room", that would be discrimination.
LORD FERRIER: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, and I would assure him that the points I have raised are all points which have actually arisen in considering the Bill as it applies to conditions in Scotland.
LORD AIREDALE: I have just a small point. Clause 7 begins:
"It shall not be unlawful by virtue of section 2 or 5 … to discriminate against any other person … ".
I think that the word "other" has been inserted by mistake, because Clause 2 says that it shall be unlawful to discriminate against "any person", not "any other person". And Clause 5 says that it will be unlawful to discriminate:
"(a) against any person seeking … accommodation …
"(b) against any person occupying … accommodation …"
and
"(c) against any person in need of … accommodation …".
So I would imagine that the expression "any other person" in Clause 7 needs to be amended.
LORD STONHAM: I should be surprised, but nevertheless delighted, if the noble Lord proved to be right. The "other person" in this respect I think has a relationship to the residential accommodation and the landlord. There is this particular relationship and that is why we have the word "other". I will certainly look at what the noble Lord said and will let him know. If he is right, he will have the pleasure of moving an Amendment on Report.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Exceptions in the case of employment]:
9.31 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 35, leave out from ("apply") to ("to") in line 37.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 is consequential to this Amendment, and I should say at the outset that I have no intention of pressing Amendment No. 19 to-night. I am moving it simply in the hope that I can persuade the Government between now and the Report stage to give fuller consideration to two matters in relation to these exceptions in the case of employment.
The first is what appears to be the undue rigidity of these two-year periods. This was a point to which I called attention on Clause 7. The second is the contrast between the Government's proposals here and the Street Report. I think all of us who are studying this Bill pay a good deal of attention to the Street Report, which was a document of very considerable value, and I think it will shorten my speech if your Lordships will allow me to read a short passage from the Street Report, dealing with this matter of small firms. The Street Report says:
"Many American States exempt employers of no more than four persons. To do so might be consistent with the aim of not intruding in close personal relationships. A seperate question is whether, in the early stages of such legislation the supervisory organisation could reasonably be expected to assume responsibility for employment in small units even though their employees exceed four. It is not suggested that that organisation would have a mandatory obligation to seek out discriminatory practices, nor would it be required to proceed where the burden of establishing discrimination, which might clearly be more onerous for small units, had not been discharged.
For these reasons there may be no need to write in the legislation any provision which initially exempts small units which have more than four employees. Alternatively, the Act might originally apply to establishments which employ more than fifty persons and provide for the subsequent reduction of that minimum, either by stages defined in the Act itself or by order of the supervisory organisation."
Your Lordships will note that there are considerable differences between those outlines of policy produced by the Street Report and the proposals here in Clause 8. That passage in the Street Report assumes that no attempt would be made

1357
to enforce an anti-discrimination law in the case of firms employing no more than four employees. About the difficulty of enforcement with all such small firms, the Report says that to do so might be consistent with the aim of not intruding in close personal relationships. So if one were to apply the Street Report there would be an absolute exemption for firms employing no more than four persons. Again, if one reads the Street Report one finds that it contemplates the legislation perhaps starting with an obligation in relation to firms employing more than 50 persons and then tapering off from that.
All this is very different from subsection (1) of Clause 8 here. It is proposed in Clause 8 not to start with establishments employing more than 50 persons, but to start with employers employing not more, than 25 persons. Again, at the other end, whereas the Street Report contemplates, in line with American practice, exempting firms employing not more than four persons there will be no such exemption under this Bill after the first four years of operation. I personally think that it would have been wiser on the part of the Government to start with 50 and taper downwards from that, rather than to start with 25. I feel strongly that the Government would have been much wiser to enact a permanent exemption for the very small firms, where, as the Street Report says, the intimate personal relationship is likely to be particularly important.
I should like to repeat what I said in connection with Clause 7. I believe the Government are making a mistake, whatever figures they introduce, in fixing these two-year periods. I assume (I do not know whether am right) that this is to enable the Race Relations Board to learn its job, and not to be required to police or enforce the Act, in the initial stages, in the very small cases. It seems to me to be pure guesswork to suppose that after a period of two years it will be practicable and sensible for the Race Relations Board to drop the limits of policing and enforcing from 25 to 10, and that after another two years, no more and no less, it will be reasonable, sensible and workable for them to drop the limit from 10 down to one. I should have thought it would be very much better, whatever figures were introduced, to take
1358
an order-making power in the Bill, a power which could be exercised at the end of two years, it may be, or perhaps four years, as the Board gained experience. I believe that that element of flexibility would be a definite advantage. I said at the outset that at any rate at this stage I was not going to press any of these Amendments, but I greatly hope the Government will give careful consideration to what I have said. I beg to move.
9.37 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: May I say immediately that I appreciate what the noble Lord has said about the necessity for a flexible approach here, and to eliminate rigidity, but I am sure he will agree that there has been nothing absolutely rigid about this. In the first place, the Bill did not provide for any exception it all; it was because representations were made by the Opposition in another place that on Report stage the Secretary of State himself put down Amendments. Those Amendments were intended to bring in a certain amount of flexibility—two years in the first place and then for the 25 limit a further two years for the limit of 10. The matter is not entirely a question of guesswork. I do not think noble Lords would wish to press this definition of guesswork. There is an element of judgment here, and learning from the experience of other people. I gather that, despite the Street Report in the United States, not all States have a permanent limit. In the case of Canada they have now removed their permanent exemption altogether, so that we have a certain amount of experience to go on, and I would have thought that here 25 employees for the first two years, and then another two years for which the exemption is 10, gives the opportunity to live together and exercise tolerance and to enable the Board to acquire experience in the administration of this Act.
I would just add that if there were a permanent exception, as the noble Lord's Amendment would provide, it would mean that 20 per cent. of all employees in the country would be exempted. This seems to me to be rather a wide exemption, and 7 hope that, on consideration, the noble Lord will feel that we, have gone sufficiently far to meet the very reasonable points which he has put forward here and which were put forward in another place.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I welcome the fact of the noble Lord's intervention in the proceedings of this Committee, and I wish to encourage him rather than otherwise. I am bound to say, however, that he did not seem to me to be advising the Committee correctly when he said that none of these limitations was in the Bill as originally presented to another place. I have a copy of that Bill presented by Mr. Secretary Callaghan, and that contains the same type of provisions as in the Bill which has reached us from another place, with the exception that as originally presented the Bill provided for the first two years an exemption for those who employed not more than 10 persons and during the next two years those who employed not more than 5 persons. The rigidity therefore has been there from the beginning.
I realised when I tabled these Amendments (because I had read the proceedings in another place) that if my Amendments were written into the Bill this would exempt 20 per cent., as the noble Lord has said; and I do not think it would be right to do that. That was why I mentioned at the very beginning of my first speech that I had no intention of pressing these Amendments. But I do not think the noble Lord has answered my first point; namely, that it would have been wiser to start with a higher figure than 25, as mentioned in the Street Report; and secondly, that it would have been wiser to give a permanent exemption to employers of not more than 5 persons.
However, as I say, I am not going to pursue these points. What I am much more concerned about is the rigidity of the time limit. I may have used the wrong word when I said that it was a guess, but I do not see how anybody can forecast with any degree of certainty that at the end of precisely two years the Race Relations Board will be able to police and enforce the Act as regards all employers who employ between 10 and 25 persons, or that after another two years they will be in a position to police and enforce the Act in regard to all those exceedingly numerous employers who employ fewer than 10 persons.
It seems to me that it would have been far better to introduce an order making power in the Bill which would not be tied to two years or four years
1360
but might be exercisable sooner or later in the light of experience. In a moment I am going to beg leave to withdraw the first Amendment, and I shall not move the second one, but I sincerely hope that the Government will, between now and Report stage, give further thought to what I have said, especially with regard to the rigidity of these time limits. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.50 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 1, leave out subsections (2) to (5).
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 21. It may be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment is taken with Amendments 22 and 23, and I have the consent of my noble friend Lord Gifford to that course, if it would suit the convenience of the House. I intend to be brief in moving this Amendment, partly because I am so keen that this Bill should be carried and I do not want undue delay, and partly because I have great sympathy with those on the Front Bench who are responsible for seeing it through this Committee stage. Some of us on the Back Benches, who are young and still active, often find the proceedings in this House a burden. I honestly do not know how the members of our Front Bench, who are responsible for legislation and for seeing it through the Committee stage, dealing with Amendment after Amendment, are able to perform their tasks.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BROCKWAY: And because I have some sense of human consideration for them, though I feel very strongly about this Amendment, I will be brief in submitting it to the House.
The effect of this Amendment would be to delete from the Bill the provisions which give firms the power to allocate a certain proportion of their employees on the ground of colour, race, ethnic or national origins. The very fact that they do that is a denial of the principle of the Bill itself. The original definition of the Bill ensured that there should be no discrimination on those grounds. My case

1361
against these subsections has been immensely strengthened through this Committee stage by the acceptance of the Amendment by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, which adds to that original definition that it should apply against any segregation of persons on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origin; and yet the provisions in this Bill, which I am asking the Committee to delete, declare against the principle of the original definition and declare more aggressively against the addition to that definition which was moved by my noble friend, Lady Gaitskell, and which has been accepted by this House. It is quite impossible to say that these subsections which give firms the right to say, "A certain proportion of our employees shall be white and a certain proportion of our employees shall be coloured" are not a repudiation of the basic definition of the Bill as emphasised by the Amendment which my noble friend Lady Gaitskell has moved and which has been accepted.
I want to be reasonable about this matter. As the Committee know, I have been intimately concerned in this whole problem of race relations, and in the course of my contacts in these matters I have discovered that there are firms which have found it difficult, despite all their good will, to employ non-white workers, and they have been able with their tolerant attitude to employ such workers only if in their particular firms they have said, "We will employ only a certain percentage."
I recognise that difficulty. But recognising that difficulty and the need to give firms some opportunity to try to adjust the the different portions of their employees by agreement with their workers, is it possible for any member of this Committee to accept the fact that a Bill which is against discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins should include subsections which actually not only permit, but accept, that a firm shall be allowed, in the employment of workers, to say that a proportion shall be white and a proportion shall be coloured? Is that not discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or national origin? Is it not segregation, which has been ruled out of this Bill in definition by the Amendment which my noble friend Lady Gaitskell moved today and which has been accepted?
1362
May I put this point to the Committee? A firm decides that 50 per cent. of its employees shall be white and 50 per cent. shall be non-white. May it not easily be that there may be entitled to be employed by that firm on his merits, on his on his experience, a white who would be the most effective worker in that employment for the increased productivity of that firm? But no! Fifty per cent. white workers have already been engaged. That white worker, who would be desirable for the productivity of the firm, would be ruled out because that proportion would not be met. Similarly, might it not be that a coloured worker, by his experience, by his skill and by his knowledge, had a contribution to make to that firm which, on his merits, would be most effective, but because of this allocation in the Bill, which is an application of discrimination between whites and non-whites, he would not be employed?
I am submitting briefly, but very strongly and very forthrightly, that these subsections which I seek to delete are a denial of the very principle of the Bill which we are discussing, and which does retain the principle of discrimination. I beg to move.
9.56 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: I did not speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I hope that I may take this opportunity of saying to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I welcome this Bill most heartily. This is a subject which is very dear to my heart and my mind, and my way of life, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Stonham will accept that I believe the Government have done, on the whole, a very good job on this Bill, and if I may say so, a courageous job. I am sure he will take it from me that putting my name down to Amendments, or in moving Amendments to-night, I do so, I hope, moderately and with a purely constructive purpose.
So far as my Amendment No. 22 is concerned, to which I am now speaking, I have great sympathy with the arguments raised by my noble friend Lord Brockway for the complete deletion of these subsections concerning the balar ce of racial groups. In particular, I find it most regrettable that this Bill should refer to such a phenomenon as a "racial group", when of course the whole philosophy of the Bill is that a man should

1363
be selected for a job on his merit and not because of the colour of his skin or because of his racial group. It is therefore unfortunate that this blemish, this phrase "racial group" should appear in the Bill.
As I understand it, the argument put forward by the Government to justify these provisions is that in factories, in particular, up and down the country, there are shifts—or whole factories—which employ a very large proportion, possibly even an overwhelming proportion, of coloured immigrants, and that when the proportions rise to 80 or 90 per cent. the white employees tend to leave, there being problems of communition. It is said that in those circumstances the employer should be allowed to say, "I cannot take any more coloured immigrants, I must take white employees to redress the balance". This argument was in fact put by the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Hattersley, on Report stage in another place on July 9. He said: (col. 399):
"… it is important that they should be encouraged to take their place in a genuine cross-section of industry, …"—
And with that, of course, I agree—
"and that we should avoid some jobs becoming immigrant jobs, becoming thought of as 'black' jobs."
Mr. Ennals, the Under-Secretary at the Home Office, talked frequently of these shifts in these plants which have 85 to 90 per cent. immigrants, possibly not speaking the English language. I accept that the Government have a case in relation to that kind of factory but my contention is that these subsections, as drafted, open far too wide a defence which will be used not only by these liberal employers who have a large number of immigrants in their plant, but by employers who seek to evade the lawful force of this Act.
Let us take as an example, which might be paralleled all over the country, an office typing pool of 30 girls and an employer who employs 5 coloured immigrant girls. I accept that the exception covers only immigrants and not second-generation coloured citizens. Let us assume that when he has employed the five out of 30, the other workers in the office make representations to him and say, "This is enough. We accept
1364
that we must have some of these coloured immigrants, but things are going to get very difficult if you employ more than this". The employer gives way to their demands and says to the next coloured applicant, "You cannot have the job". I should not think that that was striking a reasonable balance, but there would be no doubt that the employer was doing it in good faith. He would be wanting to avoid trouble, and he might say in any action that in the circumstances, with fellow employees very reluctant to have more than a limited number of coloured workers, this was a reasonable balance.
There is no way of knowing how the word "reasonable" will be interpreted by the courts. I do not believe that subsection (3) helps us very much in saying that regard shall be had to the proportions of persons employed. The proportion must be a very small one in which the employer will be seeking to say that in the circumstances of his plant it is a reasonable one. It also says that regard shall be had as to whether an employer has discriminated in the past. It may well be that he has not discriminated, that he has employed this limited number, but then says, "Stop; this is enough". I am sure this is not the kind of circumstances in which the Government wish to see an exemption, but there is a real danger that by the use of the word "reasonable" a wide loophole is created. Mr. Ennals, the representative of the Home Office, said quite frequently during the Committee stage in the other place that the defence in the Bill is not intended to be available to an employer unless he already has a substantial proportion of immigrants in his work force as a whole. That may be the case, but there is no mention of "substantial"; there is no mention of any proportion with any minimum which must be there before this exemption is allowable. The only word used is "reasonable".
My Amendment seeks to reconcile what I believe to be a glaring gap between the intentions of the Government—I accept that the Government have put forward this clause in good faith to deal with the kind of circumstances which I have described—and the use which may be made of this clause. It says that where the purpose is to prevent the work force from being wholly or mainly

1365
composed of one racial group, then it will be permissible to discriminate. In other words, when this situation arises, or is in danger of arising, with the danger of having what has been called a "black factory", then the clause will come into play. But I submit that it is far preferable to have some kind of clear indication that this is to be used only in the circumstances outlined by the Government spokesman in the other place. If we do not have this, I feel that there is a serious danger that employers will employ a token number of immigrant labour and then say, "That is enough. This is reasonable in all the circumstances at my factory. We will not have any more, and we shall be able to get away with this defence with the words of the Act." I am glad that this clause does not apply to any but first-generation immigrants. It seems to me slightly illogical that it does not, but I am glad that it does not. I believe that it will get employers seeking to evade the Act, thinking in terms of racial groupings, employing a token number and then saying "That is enough. We will employ no more." I am sure that is not what the Government have in mind.
LORD AIREDALE: Other things being equal, I have no doubt at all that the words of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, are vastly to be preferred to the words of the Bill, because the words in the Amendment are precise and the words in the Bill, with the greatest respect, can really only be described as woolly. If there is a carpenter's shop containing 15 Englishmen, 7 Pakistanis arid one gentleman from Hong Kong, how is the Race Relations Board or a judge to decide, in the words of the Bill, whether that is
"a reasonable balance of persons of different racial groups"?
How on earth does a judge begin to decide that question?
The words of the Amendment present a reasonable task for a judge. He has only to decide whether the persons are or are not
"wholly or mainly members of the same racial group."
That is something that a judge can get hold of and make a sensible decision about. If the Amendment is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, they
1366
really must try to improve on that woolly phrase
"a reasonable balance of persons of different racial groups",
because I do not know how any judge is going to think that he can do justice in deciding a question of that kind.
10.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Brockway and Lord Gifford for agreeing that these three Amendments should be taken together. It is the case that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Brockway pre-empts the other two, because they are lesser deletions and alterations than his over-riding one. I am also grateful to my noble friends for the general welcome that they have given to the Bill, and for their understanding of the efforts of the Government in this matter. I am quite sure that in general principle, in objective and in intention there is absolutely nothing between us. But I am bound to say, having listened to their speeches on these Amendments and also having regard to my own experience over many years as an employer, that on this point I think their views are impractical and that, very far from achieving the objective which they have so dearly at heart—that of helping immigrants in employment and furthering integration—the effect of their Amendments would be the reverse, and I shall endeavour to show why.
My noble friend Lord Brockway said that if a firm said, "A certain proportion of our employees shall be coloured and a certain proportion white", it was impossible to say that that was not completely contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. That is the basis of my noble friend's argument. He asked: is at not discrimination which has been ruled out by the Bill? My answer is that it is discrimination which, in certain circumstances, is permitted under the Bill for good, constructive and even benevolent reasons. My noble friend used examples such as 50 per cent. and so on. This Bill does not prescribe proportions, either 50 per cent. or any other percentage. It says, "a reasonable balance".
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made fun of that expression and asked what a judge would make of it. I think judges have very much more difficult tasks to

1367
decide than that. But even before a case got to a judge, there is the whole question of conciliation; and the great point about this whole Bill is to avoid discrimination everywhere, and where it occurs, or where it is thought to occur, to endeavour by conciliation to see that it does not happen again in that area. With particular reference to employment matters, even before the conciliation committees and even before the Board, we have the machinery of trade unions and other organisations to look at these matters in a very practical way before they get to a judge.
LORD AIREDALE: I was very careful to ask: how would the Race Relations Board or a judge decide this difficult question?
10.15 a.m.
LORD STONHAM: I did not want to misquote the noble Lord and, though I perhaps paraphrased his words somewhat, I think I got the sense of what he said. The Bill does not authorise or encourage discrimination. It provides a defence for a good employer. My noble friend Lord Gifford said that the clauses as drafted provide far too wide a defence, which will not only help the liberal employer but encourage evasion. In my submission it will not, because if they do not employ—and they can be manifestly seen, because these matters will be investigated—a fair proportion of immigrants, it will be discrimination. The employer would not be able to say, "I must take white people". He would have to say, "I must take people wholly or mainly educated here". That means white or coloured. I ventured to say on Second Reading that I regarded this as one of the most important provisions in the Bill. The phrase "racial group" means people whatever their colour, who are mainly or wholly educated here. This is another great barrier to discrimination which is in this Bill.
My noble friend Lord Gifford said that if we have this sort of provision at all the Bill ought to specify a percentage. In practical terms it would be utterly impossible to specify a percentage which would not be over-rigid and limiting and which would not in fact prevent the employment of a proper proportion of immigrants. It is not only in those cases
1368
where there is a proportion of 80 to 90 per cent. of coloured people that there are problems meriting the use of the "racial balance" clause. There can be problems in a factory where coloured people have never been employed before, and where white workers leave in large numbers when coloured people are first engaged. I do not approve of that: I am merely stating a fact. I am merely stating what the good, liberal, decent employer is confronted with when he begins to do what all your Lordships would like to see him do. An employer needs some facility in this case to phase recruitment of coloured workers; and this is also a justification for not including the term "substantial proportion" in the Bill.
In this, I have had years of experience of actually doing it. In my case, if a white worker had to my knowledge discriminated against a coloured worker, or had badly treated him, he stood in a very great danger of being discharged. There was no question of my permitting discrimination at all. But I remember an occasison when it was almost a matter of life or death to separate different racial groups of black people in my employ. It would have seemed that the only way out was to discharge one lot or the other; but that is not always possible. There must be this kind of provision if we are to achieve and maintain a racially balanced labour force.
I am sorry that my noble friends do not agree with this. I am sorry that they have tabled and moved these Amendments, because in my view the provisions in the Bill about racial balance in employment have been included for one reason only: to promote integration; and integration is hindered if certain areas of employment, or certain types of jobs, are allowed to become recognised as immigrant jobs. This, as my noble friends know, is already happening in a great many places—far too many places—and it happens for two reasons.
One is that immigrants tend to find all too often that the better jobs—jobs for which they are qualified—are closed to them, and they see no alternative but to settle for the less attractive kinds of work. Then, once in it, they find it difficult to change. The discrimination which leads to this kind of situation will be made unlawful by Clause 3 of the Bill. The other factor is that, as experience

1369
has shown, immigrants, especially those newly arrived in this country, tend to seek employment in firms and in jobs where other immigrants are already employed. There are good and natural reasons for this. The result is that an employer finds in time not only that a substantial proportion of his work force on particular jobs, or in particular parts of the factory, is composed of immigrants, but that immigrants tend to become the main, or even the only, persons seeking to be recruited into that part of his undertaking. That is not good. This is the one thing we want to prevent.
The final result, unless the employer takes action to keep a balance, is one which conflicts with the whole spirit of this Bill; namely, a sharp line of demarcation within a single workplace between "immigrant jobs" and "non-immigrant" jobs, or, within a locality, between immigrant factories and nonimmigrant factories. We must avoid this. There must be discretion within the over-all terms of this Bill in order that we can help prevent this over-concentration. It is in the interests of the immigrants themselves to allow an employer to regulate his recruitment so that he can preserve—or, it may be, regain—a balance in his factory or in particular sections of it, and Clause 8(2) will allow this.
There is a case quoted of a factory where the overwhelming majority of workers were Pakistanis and where the employer, who certainly was not a racialist, found it necessary to impose a limit. I would emphasise that this provision is not intended to be available to any employer unless he already has a substantial proportion of immigrants in his labour force as a whole, or in the particular part of his works for which he wishes temporarily to suspend recruitment of further immigrants. There is no question, for example, of an employer being able to excuse himself from recruiting a coloured accountant or engineer on the grounds that he regards himself as having too many immigrant workers on the shop floor. Nor is it true to say that the provision will in some way legalise a colour bar. The essence of the provision is that it will introduce flexibility in an employment situation where the Bill's provisions would otherwise work rigidly and against
1370
the integration of immigrants. I can assure my noble friends that intend to discuss with the Race Relations Board and with both sides of industry the detailed application of the racial balance provisions. We shall make available as much guidance as possible on he subject before the Bill comes into force.
Perhaps I have spoken longer than I should about this. I know how deeply my noble friends feel about it. It is a matter of concern to them and it is possibly the only issue on the Bill where we are at variance—at least I hope so. There must be a difference of opinion. We believe that in this section of the Bill we are doing the right thing. We shall certainly do our utmost to prove that we are doing the right thing. I said to Lord Brockway in 1965, on the occasion of the previous Bill, that if he were right that that Bill was not enough, then we should come back and produce another. We have done so. If we are wrong about this, then we shall admit it and we shall do something about it.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I add a few sentences before closing the debate on this particular clause? Although I have some sympathy with both my noble friends who have spoken, I have not yet completely made up my mind about the racial balance clause. But I believe that, just as some Conservative noble Lords are full of exaggerated fears about the inroads they feel this Bill will make into personal freedom, some of my noble friends exaggerate the fear of this racial balance clause in the Bill. I am not sure that it will give employers, certainly not all employers, a chance to discriminate. I also think that some of the accusations against employers of discrimination refer to something which is not really discrimination but rather a kind of restrictive-practice attitude by the workers they employ. So far as the employers do give way to the workers, it is not a very good thing, but the employers are very often in a position of giving way on all kinds of restrictive practices that their workmen go in for.
10.20 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, not to push this argument too

1371
far at this stage. If there does prove to be injustice, I am sure that the Bill will have to be amended later. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, speaks from practical experience which is very much in line with my own experience. I do not believe that, in practice, this is likely to be a problem, provided that we do not weaken other parts of the Bill. If we can stand firm on the other parts of the Bill, I do not believe that the noble Lords have anything to worry about.
LORD GIFFORD: Earlier to-day, my noble friend Lady Gaitskell and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, pressed Amendments to parts of the Bill where they thought there was a danger of a loophole and that the Bill was inadequately drafted to cover the situation the Government wanted to cover. I think they were right to do that, and they secured from the Government satisfactory Amendments. I hope that neither of them feels that I am doing other than the same thing. I feel, as they did earlier, that there is a danger of a loophole, and I was not proposing to move the Amendment in any spirit of acrimony against employees or the Government or anything of that kind.
My noble friend talked at some length about the jobs, which may he called immigrant jobs, where there is an overwhelming majority of immigrant labour. I hope that he accepts that my Amendment as put forward would still allow that situation to be covered. He said at a later stage that this defence would be available only if the employer already had a substantial (and I hope that he will hear that word) number of immigrants in his work force. I was just repeating the noble Lord's words that the defence would be available only if the employer already had a substantial proportion of immigrants in his work force—I think that those were his words. In these clauses there is no mention of the word "substantial", and in view of the Government's policy as declared by my noble friend I feel that some such word as "substantial" should be inserted. I should be much happier if it were.
In view of the fact that he and his friends in another place have talked about this defence being available only if the employer has a substantial number of immigrants in his employ I would ask my noble friend whether he would at
1372
this stage consider redrafting the clause slightly so that it contained the word "substantial" rather than the more vague word "reasonable". I hope that he will consider that because he has not mentioned it.
LORD STONHAM: If my noble friend means consider it between now and Report stage, I will look at what he says but I cannot give any undertaking because we have provided in subsection (5) for the Secretary of State to repeal these provisions if need be. We must have some experience of their operation before there is any question of repeal. We already have the machinery in the Bill to wipe them out without any trouble, and I think that we are, as it were, backing the thing both ways.
LORD GIFFORD: I am not going to press this matter to-day, I felt I was making a simple point, but since my noble friend in this House and his friends in another place both used the word "substantial" I, and I believe other noble Lords also, would be much happier if some such word as "substantial" were used. I should like to thank my noble friend for his reply and say that I do not propose to move my Amendment.
10.25 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: I will be brief. First, I want to say to my noble friend that I appreciate his own experience in this matter. As he knows, some thirty or forty years ago I had knowledge of the industry in which he is an employer, and I very much appreciated not only the absence of any colour discrimination but also the fact that he had gone very far to provide the workers in his industry with self-government, and indeed was almost a pioneer in that respect. Because I am aware of that, as 1 think my noble friend realises, I appreciate the experience which he has contributed to this debate.
There are two reasons why I shall at the conclusion of these brief remarks be ready to withdraw this Amendment. The first is that I regard this Bill as so important in itself that I should not want any Amendment to the Bill which might be an obstruction to its becoming law to be pressed in this Committee. Far more important than any Amendment is the

1373
great contribution which the Bill itself makes against race discrimination.
The second reason is that in subsection (5) the Secretary of State is given power by Order to repeal Clauses 2 to 4, which is my main reason for moving this Amendment, and I am assuming that he will do this as a result of the experience of the Bill. To introduce an Order, it will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, but I accept so entirely the
1374
dedication and spirit of my noble friend and his colleagues in introducing this Bill, which I believe is going to make a profound change in the whole issue of race relations in this country, that I am quite sure that if experience shows that these subsections are not necessary such an Order will be introduced. For those reasons, I ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.28 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 38, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment with a certain amount of confidence, because it is a technical Amendment. I hope it will be agreeable to take this Amendment with Amendments Nos. 26, 64 and 65. Clause 8(12) makes it clear that British territorial waters are to be treated as part of Great Britain for the purposes of the clause. Clause 8(8) defines "British ship or aircraft", for the purposes of that clause. The references to Great Britain, territorial waters and a British ship or aircraft in the Government's proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 10 necessitate corresponding definitions for the purposes of that clause, and these Amendments insert appropriate definitions in Clause 26 (which contains general interpretation provision) in substitution for those in Clause 8. I bee to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("employment") in line 9 and insert:
("During the five years beginning with the commencement of this Act, sections 2 and 3 above shall not apply to".)
The noble Lord said: This subsection deals with the difficult subject of employment on ships where there have been both white and coloured employees. A little strangely, many years ago one of my journalistic assignments was to make some study of conditions on ships, and I am very familiar with the fact that white workers and coloured workers on ships have the traditional practice of sleeping in different accommodation, of having food in different accommodation and of having different sanitary accommodation. I would say that that is so traditional and so deep-rooted that it is impossible on the passing of this Bill to end it immediately. But one hopes that even on ships with those different conditions, in the new climate of racial harmony which will develop, it may he possible to end those circumstances.
The Amendment which I am proposing does not suggest that this differentia
1376
tion should be ended immediately. The subsection of the Bill does not lay down any time limit, and the purpose of my Amendment is to suggest that during the first five years of the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act one should recognise that these conditions will still prevail, but that by the end of those five years the new experience in racial harmony which we hope this Bill will develop will allow us to end them then. I beg to move this Amendment.
LORD GIFFORD: May I briefly endorse the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I have no experience of life at sea but I appreciate that very particular problems are involved here. On the other hand, this is a unique clause. Unlike the clause we have just been discussing, it is a clause which enshrines a permanent exemption and not just a temporary one, and, unlike the various other exemptions, it does not follow the pattern that the most personal relationships should be left out of account. It was said very frankly by the Home Secretary on the Committee stage in another place that there is a long tradition in the United Kingdom that seamen of mixed races are segregated according to race. That is something which I am sure he deplored, which we all deplore and which is most unfortunate.
But when we are legislating in this field, what is the best thing to do about it? I submit that it is not right to accept that this discrimination exists and give way to the pressure which may come from certain quarters, though not, I believe, the National Union of Seaman, that it should continue, and enshrine a permanent exemption in this form. Surely the best approach is to give a generous time—and I believe that five years is generous—for the shipping industry to adjust to the situation. They should learn, like many other citizens who will find it difficult to adjust to this new Act, what the policy of the Government is. They should by all means be given a period of time in which to adjust to the new situation, but having been given this period of grace I do not see any reason why they should be permanently exempted from the provisions of this Bill.
10.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment and this situation is one which, on the surface, causes a great deal of concern, and my noble friend proposes to make the exception for the Merchant Navy in Clause 8 a temporary exception for five years. This exception for employment in a ship is to avoid persons of different colour being compelled to share sleeping, messing or sanitary accommodation. This is an application of the principle of proximity; that is, where people are living so closely together that it is not unreasonable to accept their right that they should decide with whom they should associate. This is a principle that we have accepted already with regard to domestic employment, which is a permanent exception, whereas my noble friend Lord Brockway is suggesting by his Amendment that this is a temporary difficulty in ships at sea which can be overcome in the space of five years. It can be overcome, in my view, but it by no means can be described as temporary. It is too deep-seated to be described as that, for many other considerations come in which are quite beyond our control, as I should like to point out. In many ships where different groups of persons of colour are employed, they insist on separate accommodation, and they are not citizens of this country.
The National Maritime Board is fully representative of all sides of the shipping industry, employers and employed. It is unanimously and fully opposed to racial discrimination in employment, but because of difficulties perculiar to the Merchant Navy they see the achievement of integration in the Merchant Navy as following their assimilation of the habit of integration ashore, and the policy of the industry to accept for registration and training coloured boys bred in this country, and the implementation through that of effective racial discrimination complaints procedure.
There are two main categories with whom we are concerned in the Merchant Navy: the recruitment in this country of merchant seamen for United Kingdom registered ships and the recruitment overseas of seamen domiciled abroad. Only a small proportion of coloured seamen are in the first category, but nearly one third of all the ratings employed in ships registered in the United Kingdom are
1378
recruited overseas. In the main they are Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, West Africans and West Indians; and of course there are manning scales and rates of pay different from those applicable to seamen engaged in this country. They form whole crews or man whole departments, and on some lines, like the British India Steam Navigation Company, more than half their ships never come to ports in this country; they are going about the seas of the world and they do not come here.
Of the 63,000 ratings at present on the M. & E.A. register, 2,000 are coloured, or about 3½ per cent. This is the home register. Of that number about 400 coloured ratings have been fully integrated with white crews but they have to be born here. Of course, there are specialist ratings, such as Chinese cooks who are petty officers, who are entitled to single-berth accommodation. But almost all the remaining 1,800 coloured ratings were not born in this country, and it is customary for them to be employed on ships in which the ratings of different races are segregated in departments on this basis: catering staff, Chinese; deck ratings, Indians or Pakistanis; the engine room ratings might all be Arabs or Indians. Such segregation facilitates the provision of suitable cooking and living arrangements for members of the different races.
There is no problem with Merchant Navy officers. There are about 450 coloured Merchant Navy officers in service now. But there is a problem particularly with Indian and Pakistani seamen who are engaged under the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act, because a condition of their service is that the shipowner is responsible for their return to their own country, and the detailed conditions of service for them are negotiated direct with the Governments of India and Pakistan and their shipowners and seafarers' organisations by members of the London Committee for Asian Seamen. In other words, it is overseas Governments which are concerned in this matter, and one overriding consideration with these Governments is their desire to ensure that this long-established avenue of employment for their seamen shall be maintained.
If the proposed legislation were to upset these arrangements which have been

1379
very carefully worked out over the years, it is thought that there would be a very serious reduction in the number of foreign seamen employed, which would have quite important repercussions on their home countries. Indeed, the United Nations Committee for Trade and Development has quoted this employment of foreign seamen as an example of the way in which traditional maritime countries can assist underdeveloped countries. All that I have said in relation to what we would like to do must have sounded as reactionary to your Lordships as it sounded to me. But, again, we have to face these facts. We cannot—I am quite sure my noble friends would not want—by changing our legislation here, by completely ignoring, as it were, the facts of life in these other countries, being distress and unemployment to them.
I think that through this Bill, through integration of all immigrants and their children here into our communities, this is the only way in which we can overcome this almost century-old prejudice which exists at sea, and on which in many ways the Merchant Navy has been built and nurtured. I think it is wholly wrong, but it is a fact, and I am quite sure that we cannot alter it in five years, as this Amendment demands. I would hope that, although the intentions of the Government in this matter cannot be doubted, my noble friend will realise that it is not possible to accept his Amendment.
LORD WILLIS: May I ask the noble Lord one question? I appreciate very much what he has said. What would be the position of a coloured Englishman signing on a ship's crew? I am not talking of someone recruited abroad, but a coloured Englishman; in other words, a second or third generation Englishman completely integrated in this country, and to all intents and purposes as English as you and me. What would be his position?
LORD STONHAM: Such people will of course be exactly the same as the white seamen, and treated in exactly the same way on British ships. They are already being so treated. I quoted the numbers that are in fact born in that way.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I just add one word in support of the noble Lord,
1380
Lord Stonham? I have some knowledge of this problem, and I do not think we should forget that the object of this Bill is to promote racial harmony. I cannot think of any worse way of promoting racial harmony than to make a Goanese Christian share a cabin with a Pakistani Moslem. To be quite frank, that is not practicable, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is right in saying that it may be just a matter of history, but I think it will be a long time before that particular lion will lie down with the lamb.
LORD GIFFORD: In view of what my noble friend has said, may I just ask him two questions? First of all, might not a lot of the difficulties, which I do not deny, be covered by the racial balance which we have just been discussing? Secondly, if the list is a test of proximity, may I ask him why the criterion provided for in Clause 7(6), the sharing of a cabin, is not used? I feel that the extension of the sharing of a cabin with that of a messroom or sanitary accommodation is possibly going too far. But perhaps my noble friend will think about one or other of those two points.
LORD STONHAM: We were not discussing Clause 7(6), and this is a totally different thing. I was not asked to look at that subsection, but I will do so. My remarks just now were entirely concentrated on my noble friend's Amendment, and I put the position gravely. I said things that I was reluctant to say, but I thought that they had to be said.
LORD BROCKWAY: I appreciate what my noble friend has said, and I think I recognise the conditions which exist. I would only say to him that among the men who are serving on the ships, both those who are white and those who are coloured—and in this respect I am speaking mostly of the Indian seamen—I think there is a development of opinion towards racial co-operation more rapid than I think my noble friend has expressed tonight. It may be that my period of five years is too early; but, on the other hand, I regard the permanent period that is within the Bill as too late. May I say to my noble friend that I am confident that, just as the 1965 Act has been amended by this Bill, so I am quite sure that experience will show that

1381
we must amend the Bill which is now before this Committee. In that hope, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (12).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I rise only to invite the attention of the Government to the wisdom of what they are doing in subsection (5), where they are securing flexibility of time tinder their own control, the very thing which I suggest they should consider doing in the previous clauses, instead of the rigidity of the time schedule which they have laid down there.
LORD STONHAM: We will certainly bear that in mind.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Charities and acts done for charitable purposes]:
10.50 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 22, after ("object") insert ("or as one of its main objects").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this is an uncontroversial point. It deals with the clause concerning charities. The history of this is that in the Bill as originally presented in another place the clause safeguarded solely charities which were already in existence. My right honourable friend Sir David Renton took a special interest in this clause as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will recollect. As a result of representations by him and others, the Government voluntarily redrafted the clause and on Report brought it forward in this form, a form which not only safeguards acts done to comply with the provisions of an existing charitable instrument but also safeguards (if that is the right word), any future charitable instrument having as its main object the conferring of benefits on persons of a
1382
particular race, particular descent or particular ethnic or national origin.
I have been in touch with my right honourable friend in connection with this Amendment of mine, and it is really a further pursuance of his ideas. He was, I know, very pleased with the Government's action in extending the clause, but it is a little too restrictive. That is why I am suggesting that subsection (1)(a) should refer not only to a future charitable instrument which has as its main object these various things, but also a charitable instrument which has them as its main object, "or as one of its main objects".
Perhaps it will become clear if I give an example. The Government clearly accepted the argument that it was undesirable to put a stop to the charitable action of a man who wished, let us say, to create a trust for some charitable purpose in favour of his own nationals. There was no question of discriminating against anybody; he was seeking to help his own people, and that is entirely preserved by my Amendment. But to take an entirely hypothetical case, let us consider a Welshman who wishes to leave his money half and half as between two charitable purposes, one to assist Welsh boys who are going out into the world with whatever may be their needs, and, secondly, some educational or charitable provision for his own home town. That would be a perfectly reasonable laudable and undiscriminatory purpose. But if Clause 9 is not amended, it seems to me that his lawyer would advise him that if he took action of that kind he might be in trouble with the Race Relations Act. If my Amendment is accepted, and instead of "its main object" we say,
"its main object or one of its main objects the conferring on persons of a particular race",
then that difficulty will disappear. I would remind the Committee that in any case the instrument must be a charitable one, otherwise it does not get the benefit of this clause at all. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that in relation to this clause we all want the same thing. We want to enable some perhaps wealthy Pakistani to be able to provide for the education of

1383
Pakistanis. At the same time we do not want to leave a loophole or enable people racially to discriminate under the guise of charity. The difficulty which we feel about the noble Lord's Amendment is that this would appear to make it possible for a charitable trust to be set up to do two different things. In one clause it might be a beneficial object of the kind proposed; in the next it might be to set up something for the benefit of everybody except Jews. If that were permissible, as I think it would be, under the noble Lord's Amendment, that would be a loophole which none of us would want. A court can be asked what is the main object of the charity, but I am not sure that, strictly, there can be more than one object. The word "main" means "chief" or "principal." I doubt whether it is possible to have more than one main object.
The noble Lord has referred to Sir David Renton, and indeed it was at his suggestion, I think, that the Amendment was made in another place where my right honourable friend the Attorney General put it this way:
"… it protects such instruments and acts done in order to comply with them if they are instruments having as their main objective the conferring of benefits on persons of a particular race, particular descent or of particular ethnic or national origin.
This will, I hope, cover cases of the kind referred to in Committee—for instance, schools for the education of Frenchmen, homes for elderly Jews, trusts in favour of future immigrants from Pakistan. But it will not protect instruments intended to exclude particular sections of the community on the grounds of race, colour and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 9/7/68, col. 245.]
In reply to that (though I must not quote him literally), and immediately following, I observe that Sir David Renton used the words "wise and satisfactory solution." As the clause stands, it covers what was intended by both Parties in another place. For the reasons I have ventured to give I am apprehensive that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord would leave a loophole which none of us would really want.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I thought that he was venturesome in quoting what was said by a private Member in another place in the current Session of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was careful not to quote. I said that he used words.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The noble and learned Lord having perhaps given me a certain advantage in that way, it would not be wrong for me to say that my right honourable friend Sir David Renton, having had time to consider this new clause which was introduced only on Report, has written to me expressing the view that the clause is still too restrictive on this ground, that it may be one of several good objects, but not the main object or the sole object. I entirely accept what the Lord Chancellor says about the undesirability of a person getting away with it by setting up a trust, one of its objects being the desirable one covered by subsection (1) (a) and the other an entirely undesirable one. It would not be impossible to get over that difficulty by better drafting than my Amendment represents. I certainly would not press this Amendment: I am not anxious to undermine the clause in any way.
I hope the Government will agree that it would be undesirable if a charitable trust, acting in all good faith, were found to be in conflict with the Race Relations Act, because it was argued that the "conferring of benefits on persons of a particular race" et cetera was not its main and exclusive object. I have ventilated the matter, and I should be grateful if the Government would be good enough to see whether there is a way round this. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Conduct relating to acts abroad
".—(1) This Part of this Act shall not render unlawful—

(a) any refusal or omission—

(i) to provide goods, services or facilities, other than travel facilities, outside Great Britain elsewhere than on a British ship or aircraft;

1385

(ii) to provide any banking, financial or insurance facilities for a purpose to be carried out, or in connection with risks wholly or mainly arising, outside Great Britain; or

(iii) to dispose of land outside Great Britain;

(b) any contract or term therein the main object of which is to do any act mentioned in paragraph (a)(i), (ii) or (iii) above;

notwithstanding that the refusal or omission occurred or the contract was made in Great Britain or on a British ship or aircraft.
(2) This Part of this Act shall not render unlawful an act done on a British ship while in the national waters or territorial waters of a country outside Great Britain, or on a British aircraft while in, or in flight over, such a country (or its territorial waters) it the act was done for the purpose of complying with the laws of that country."
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Stonham. The effect of this new clause is to except from the provisions of the Bill conduct relating to certain acts done abroad. I am doubtful whether this point really received sufficient consideration originally. Ordinarily, of course, things done abroad are not subject to proceedings here, but in Committee Mr. Hogg raised this question and the Government said they would consider it. It had certainly never been intended that the Bill should extend to discriminatory acts outside Great Britain. This is, after all, a Bill to deal with race relations in this country, and not race relations anywhere else. The Bill as drafted does, however, bite on discriminatory acts done here even if they relate to facilities, services and so on abroad. The only exception to this is in Clause 8(7)(a) in respect of recruitment in this country for employment abroad.
This situation has undesirable effects in respect of contracts made here for performance abroad. As the Bill stands, discriminatory clauses in such contracts would be unlawful, and the effect of this would be that a discriminatory term in a contract would be held to be void and unenforceable; and in certain circumstances the contract as a whole might be unenforceable. As a result, the term or contract would be unenforceable by either party. This could have inequitable results and could be contrary to the interests of the person who had been discriminated against.
In the case of contracts for performance in this country it is possible to provide for the revision of discriminatory terms, as is proposed in a new clause to follow Clause 21. This solution is, however, not available in respect of contracts for performance abroad, since the performance of many of these contracts is bound by local foreign law, and action in our courts would not be practicable. Moreover, such a provision would not provide sufficient protection for our export trade—for example, with Arab countries—and maritime insurance.
It has, therefore, been decided that the only practicable solution to this difficulty is to follow the precedent of Clause 8(7)(a) and make action in this country in respect of the provision of goods, facilities and services and the disposal of land abroad outside the scope of the Bill. This is the effect of subsection (1) of the new clause, except that in respect of the provision of insurance facilities the exception applies so long as they are in connection with risks wholly or mainly outside Great Britain. It has also been thought right that travel facilities should not benefit from the exception so as to preclude discrimination by travel agencies in respect of foreign tours.
Subsection (1) of the new clause does not apply to acts done on a British ship or aircraft, but subsection (2) provides that the Bill does not make unlawful anything done in a British ship while in foreign territorial waters (or in foreign inland waters), or in a British aircraft in flight over a foreign country, if the act of discrimination was done for the purpose of complying with the laws of that country. This subsection replaces the present provisions in Clauses 18(3) and 19(3) which confer jurisdiction on a court in respect of discrimination in circumstances in which it would have had jurisdiction in respect of tort or (in Scotland) delict. The position in tort, in broad terms, is that an action can be brought here in respect of an act done abroad if it would have been actionable if done here and is not justifiable by the law of the country where it was done. The new subsection states the intention with regard to discrimination more clearly, and the references to tort and delict (which now become unnecessary) are to be omitted.
Without a provision of this kind there could be a conflict of jurisdiction when a British ship was in foreign territorial waters or a British aircraft was in foreign airspace. In these circumstances, a shipping company or airline might face the alternative of proceedings under the Bill if they discriminated or criminal or civil proceedings under the foreign local law if they did not. Such a dilemma would be clearly undesirable, and the subsection removes any possible conflict of this kind. I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: May I thank the noble and learned Lord for attending the Committee at this hour of the night to explain so clearly this new clause? I should like to examine it further in the light of his explanation. All I have to say now is that I am sure it is wise that we should solve the problem in some such way as this, and I welcome the new clause.
LORD BROCKWAY: I want to put only one point for the consideration of my noble and learned friend. I appreciate the necessity for these subsections. Would he consider in relation to them British territories abroad, the British Colonies? I do not want to be controversial, but I have in mind another territory which is much in the minds of people just now. Would he consider, in connection with these subsections, whether, in certain of the provisions regarding British ships, aircraft and other matters, it would not be desirable to include some reference to the fact that it might also be applicable where British concerns are affected in British territories as well as in Great Britain itself?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly consider both those points. My feeling would be that, this being a Bill to help us with race relations in this country, in the circumstances which exist
1388
here, it is very doubtful whether it would be likely that the same sort of provisions would have the same effect in territories where the proportions as between races are entirely different and the general social and living conditions are quite different. But I will certainly consider those points.
LORD BROCKWAY: I thank my noble and learned friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: This would seem to be an appropriate time at which we might break. I hope that we might complete the Bill on Tuesday next. In the meantime, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

CROSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eleven o'clock.