Sitting of 5 March 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Atlantic Free Trade Area
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with representatives of Australia and New Zealand on the subject of the proposed Atlantic Free Trade Area.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): There have been no Governmental proposals for an Atlantic Free Trade Area. No substantive discussions have, therefore, taken place, although the subject has come up informally from time to time in general discussions with Australian and New Zealand representatives.
    Mr. Marten: Is it not odd that now that the American Government are doing a feasibility study of this proposal for an Atlantic Free Trade Area, Her Majesty's Government have not had conversations with Commonwealth countries about this? Are not the Government creating a vacuum in foreign policy by not having an alternative to the Common Market?
    Mr. Whitlock: I am not aware of an American feasibility study of a possible Atlantic Free Trade Area. It is true that Mr. Roth made a statement to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress some time ago, but certain words he used were taken out of context. We have no reason to expect that there will be any change in the Administration's thinking on a possible Atlantic Free Trade Area.

    Zambia and Rhodesia (Trade)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what has been the extent and trend of trade between Zambia and Rhodesia since unilateral declaration of independence.
    Mr. Whitlock: According to the figures published by the Zambian Government, imports from Rhodesia for the first nine months of 1967 were valued at £13·189 million, compared with £23·18 million for 1966, and £35·538 million for 1965. Exports, including re-exports, from Zambia to Rhodesia for the same periods were valued at £0·931 million, £2·506 million, and £5·47 million respectively.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Do those figures include services such as electricity, which of course form part of trade? Have any proposals from the Zambian Government reached the hon. Gentleman's Department proposing to further limit this trade?
    Mr. Whitlock: I am not absolutely certain that the figures include the electricity element to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Negotiations have taken place with the Zambians—there were talks last December—and the proposals put forward by them are now the subject of a review; and an announcement will be made at a later date.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it would be the intention of the Zambian Government to limit their trade with Rhodesia very much more if the Zambians could be provided with alternative access to the north? Is he aware of the importance, in this connection, of our reconsidering our attitude towards the Tanzanian railway, where we have so far made no move?
    Mr. Whitlock: The figures I have given show that the Zambians have made substantial reductions in their trade with Rhodesia. With our contingency support, they are continuing to take urgent steps to reduce their dependency on Rhodesian trade. New supply routes and new local coal and power resources are being developed as urgently as possible.

    Export Promotion (Diplomatic Service)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what schemes for training in the sale of British

    203
    goods and stimulation of British commercial influence, he has for commercial councillors and defence attaches about to be posted to or at High Commissions; and what instructions are given to high commissioners and their staffs to foster the sale of British good.
    Mr. Whitlock: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to his Questions of 26th February, which applies equally to Commonwealth countries.—[Vol. 759, c. 224–5.]
    The question of defence attaches, or advisers as they are known in Commonwealth countries, should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Tilney: Before taking up such appointments, do counsellors see industrialists and merchants who are experts in their new areas? Has the syllabus of their training scheme been discussed with the C.B.I. and the export merchants concerned.
    Mr. Whitlock: Yes, Sir. Officers appointed as counsellors-commercial have usually had commercial experience and, in these cases, are given detailed commercial briefings by the Board of Trade and other Government Departments. They also call on various exporting organisations. As for the training programme of those who have not had previous commercial experience this is conducted with the approval of the C.B.I. and other exporting and employing associations. We also have a panel of business men to advise us on the services which the diplomatic services can give to exporters.

    Rhodesia (Royal Prerogative of Mercy)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what reassessment he has made of the constitutional position of Rhodesia and of United Kingdom legislation affecting Rhodesia, since the judgment of the Appellate Division of the High Court in Salisbury on 29th January.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the names of those under sentence of death in Rhodesia for alleged
    204
    political offences; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): With permission I will answer Questions Nos. 4 and 45 together after Questions.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on future constitutional plans for Gibraltar.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the future constitutional relationship between Great Britain and Gibraltar.
    Mr. Colin Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position concerning future constitutional developments in Gibraltar.
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the proposed new constitution for Gibraltar.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now in a position to announce details of the Gibraltar Constitutional Conference.
    Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing at present to add to the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs made on 12th February in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).
    Mr. Wall: Does the Minister appreciate that the suggestions made in Gibraltar are merely palliatives and that what the Gibraltarians want is a constitution which will ensure that they and their children's children remain British?
    Mr. Thomson: All those are matters to be gone into at the next stage of the constitutional discussions. The first stage was useful. The Minister of State had talks with a wide range of people. We are now considering these and I think we ought to await the next stage in the talks.
    Mr. Goodhew: Did not the people of Gibraltar tell the right hon. Gentleman and his friends exactly what they wanted

    205
    in the referendum? Why are they now talking to the Spanish Government when the people of Gibraltar have made their wishes known and so clear?
    Mr. Thomson: I think the hon. Member is on a quite different point; Questions about talks with the Spanish Government are for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but there is no suggestion in Gibraltar itself that constitutional progress is in any way obstructed or held up by talks.
    Mr. Jeger: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the fact that he is answering five Questions on this subject today reflects the uneasiness and uncertainty which exists among the Gibraltarians? Is he further aware that this is added to by the constant procession of Ministers going to Gibraltar and repeating the same parrot-like sympathetic remarks which lead to no action whatever? Will he speed up these constitutional talks?
    Mr. Thomson: I recognise that the number of Questions on the Order Paper reflects the concern both in this House and in Gibraltar about these matters, and a very proper concern, but the Minister of State did not in Gibraltar find the same desire to make a precipitate approach to these very important problems which one sometimes finds in this House.
    Sir F. Bennett: In view of the fact that the Minister would agree that the most generally expressed wish in Gibraltar is for some sort of relationship such as that of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, could the Minister say plainly whether it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that that would prejudice the Treaty of Utrecht? If so, will he let us know about it?
    Mr. Thomson: All these matters are to be gone into in further constitutional talks. I do not accept that the views the hon. Member holds strongly and sincerely necessarily reflect the widespread opinion in Gibraltar which he thinks they do.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman said that constitutional progress is not being obstructed or held up by talks with the Spanish Government. Can he say what is holding them up and what programme he envisages for future progress?
    Mr. Thomson: The programme has been announced in this House. There were preliminary discussions in Gibraltar and there is now a period both in Gibraltar and here in London to consider the results of these, and further talks will take place in Gibraltar in the early summer.

    South-East Asia (Defence Conference)
    Mr. Braineasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet fixed a date for a conference between Great Britain, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand on Commonwealth defence arrangements in South-East Asia.
    Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar question from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) on 31st January.
    Mr. Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the story that talks are to start in May on the initiative of Malaysia? Why has it been left to Malaysia to make this initiative? In view of the fact that this country has changed its policy since last July, does not the initiative rest with us? Why are Her Majesty's Government not making the initiative?
    Mr. Thomson: The reason why the initiative—the main initiative—rests with Malaysia is that the Tunku has taken the leading part in proposing this kind of talks for many months now, both before and after my visit to the Far East. I think that is perfectly proper as it is a country mainly concerned with the consequences of our accelerated withdrawal. No date has been fixed for the talks.

    Francistown Radio
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now discontinue payments for the operation of Francistown Radio.
    The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): This expenditure will be discontinued shortly. The Francistown relay station was never intended to be more than temporary. It fulfilled a

    207
    valuable function in the period immediately following the illegal declaration of independence. However, new aerials now in commission at the Atlantic relay on Ascension Island will make a powerful additional shortwave signal available to listeners in Rhodesia, and with the advent of these more effective facilities for the transmission of B.B.C. programmes we plan to close down the Francistown station in the near future.
    Mr. Goodhew: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there are many who will think this is a white elephant that should have died long ago? Will he assure the House that British money will not be spent on programmes such as that issued from Francistown on 23rd November last year, which was thoroughly derogatory to judges who remained at their posts at the behest of the British Government?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member and the House may be assured that there will be broadcasts of greater strength reaching Rhodesia in the future than there have been in the past. This is a tightening of our propaganda rather than a weakening.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the suggestion in the Guardian newspaper that the Francistown transmitter should be used to jam signals in television and radio in Southern Rhodesia, would be counter-productive and it would be far better for the B.B.C. to concentrate on positive activity in getting the truth to this beleaguered country?
    Mr. Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not wish, as the illegal régime wishes, to censor broadcasts.
    Mr. Mandling: The Minister will be surely aware that the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) is devoted not to the power of the transmission but to the content of the programme? Will he therefore answer that question?
    Mr. Thomas: With pleasure, if the hon. Member will be good enough, as he had not been earlier, to tell me the programme to which he is referring. I am not expected to know every programme which went out on 23rd November last.

    Mauritius
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Mauritius.
    Mr. George Thomson: Relations between Creoles and Muslime in Port Louis are still uneasy and there have been a few minor incidents in recent days. The general situation is, however, much quieter than it was 10 days ago.
    Mr. Irvine: Can the Minister make a statement about the position of British troops after independence?
    Mr. Thomson: Not yet, Sir. No decision has been taken about how long they may stay in Mauritius.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend take note that we should like a situation in which the troops stay after independence? We believe that the gang warfare has been in the port itself and had no connection with political events. We believe that there could be events after independence and we should like to see troops kept there in case there is a future emergency.
    Mr. Thomson: The duration of the stay of British troops must be decided in the light of the internal situation.
    Mr. Braine: The first answer has added to the uncertainty. Surely discussions are going on now about arrangements after independence? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say that if the Mauritius Government request it British troops will in fact stay?
    Mr. Thomson: My noble Friend the Minister of State is at present in Mauritius. One of the reasons for his going there was to discuss the defence situation there—both the Defence Agreement which will be signed immediately after independence, and of course the general security situation.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has made of the effect of sanctions on the Rhodesia economy within the current financial year.
    Mr. George Thomas: I would refer the right hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 5th December, 1967.—[Vol. 755, c. 1109.]
    Mr. Baker: Would not the Minister of State agree that one of the effects of sanctions in Rhodesia has been to cause a diversification of agriculture in the country? Would it not be in the best interests of both black and white residents if imports to Rhodesia of British cattle were resumed?
    Mr. Thomas: No, Sir.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Would not the Minister accept that, whatever the economic effect, the political effect of sanctions has been to remove Rhodesia further still to the Right?
    Mr. Thomas: The economic effect will in due course, I hope, reflect itself politically. In the meantime it would not be a bad idea for some hon. Members opposite to back Britain in this business rather than the illegal régime.
    Mr. Maudling: As the Minister is so anxiou3 to back Britain in this matter, would he give a similar estimate of the effect of sanctions on our economy?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, if the right hon. Member puts a Question down.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further progress he has made in negotiations for a Rhodesian settlement.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals have been received from Rhodesia since his visit to Salisbury.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Rhodesian Government of Mr. Ian Smith requesting a settlement of outstanding constitutional problems; what answers he has given; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to enable the leaders of loyalist opinion in Rhodesia to contribute to reaching a solution in ending
    210
    illegality, and to commence negotiations on a constitutional basis.
    Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27th and 29th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 1229–31 and 1757–99.]
    Mr. Wall: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the report of the Rhodesia Constitutional Commission due this month will mark the end of the road as regards relations with Rhodesia? Has not the Governor recommended the continuation of talks, and what are the Government going to do about it?
    Mr. Thomson: I have heard the end of the road prophesied on far too many political problems far too often ever to believe that kind of prophecy, but I recognise the urgent factors in this situation.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the conversations last weekend between my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and Mr. Ian Smith and Sir Humphrey Gibbs, all of which have been imparted in confidence to members of Her Majesty's Government, what advantage does the right hon. Gentleman propose to derive from these important diplomatic exchanges?
    Mr. Thomson: We are glad to have the report from the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). The Government are studying that report with very great care at the moment.
    Mr. Biffen: Does not every week that passes by poignantly underline the fact that the reality of political power now resides in Salisbury? Is it not much more suitable that Her Majesty's Government took that into account when framing their initiatives in this policy?
    Mr. Thomson: We have constantly to take into account the fact that successive Governments and the House are in the unhappy position of having responsibility for Rhodesia without having the power to exercise that responsibility in exactly the way we would like in Rhodesia. That does not absolve us from the responsibility, and I would have hoped that we should have continued in the efforts which have so far enjoyed support from both

    211
    sides of the House to bring about a peaceful solution to this problem.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the illegal controllers in Rhodesia have already raped democracy and introduced savage censorship and that this, coupled with the recent events, indicates to anyone willing to look at the situation that this State is on the way to becoming a police State? Nevertheless, there are decent people there who wish to be loyal to the Crown and to the principles of democracy. Will my right hon. Friend now make the effort to talk to them and to encourage them rather than the illegal people who have stolen this land?
    Mr. Thomson: I am always willing to encourage anybody inside or outside Rhodesia who is prepared to support the efforts to bring a peaceful end to this rebellion. I do not think that it will be helpful for me to make comments on particular groups inside Rhodesia. It is for the Rhodesians themselves to see the sterility of the path on which they have set themselves and to act accordingly.
    Sir C. Osborne: Would it not be wise statesmanship to raise sanctions for a period of three months to create a better atmosphere so that negotiations could take place to get an honourable settlement?
    Mr. Thomson: The hon. Gentleman is respected in the House for his ingenious ideas in economic matters, but I venture to suggest that that is not one of his best.
    Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pressure being put on him at present to lift sanctions means in effect that sanctions are biting and hurting, particularly in relation to tobacco in Rhodesia? Despite those pressures and economic disadvantages, will he maintain the sanctions until the five principles are accepted by the Rhodesians?
    Mr. Thomson: I think that sanctions are biting a good deal more deeply than a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to accept, and it is certainly true that tobacco sanctions have bitten very deeply indeed. The fundamental fact is that so long as Rhodesia is on her present path she cuts herself off from the kind of development capital she used to have, which gave her one of the most
    212
    dynamic economies in Africa. The sooner she returns to constitutional rule, the sooner she will be returned to a dynamic economy.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how many Members of Parliament have been invited by Her Majesty's Government to pay official visits to Rhodesia since his last visit; and whether he will make A statement.
    Mr. George Thomas: None, Sir.
    Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the present critical situation the Government should make it perfectly clear that any visits by members of the Opposition have absolutely no backing from the Government at this stage?
    Mr. Thomas: If right hon. and hon. Members opposite visit Rhodesia, it is up to them, and they must—[Interruption.] It is very hard to please the Opposition.
    Mr. Manuel: Try to please us. Never mind them.
    Mr. Thomas: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to please my side of the House. If right hon. and hon. Members visit Rhodesia, they must be careful to comport themselves in accordance with the traditions of the House and not to give comfort to the illegal reégime.
    Mr. Maudling: Is it not good that right hon. and hon. Members on this side should visit Rhodesia, if, as a result, they are able to produce suggestions for a settlement which the Government cannot?
    Mr. Thomas: So far as I know, no one has yet produced a settlement and right hon. Members opposite certainly did not do it.
    Mr. Maudling: Did not the Secretary of State say that he was examining the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. But he did not say that they provided a settlement.
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce legislation to extend sanctions to prevent posts available in Rhodesia being advertised in this country.
    Mr. George Thomas: Her Majesty's Government deplore the publication of such advertisements but prefer not to emulate the illegal Rhodesian régime's practice of censoring the Press.
    Miss Lestor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but would not he agree that, whilst this country continues to accept advertisements for posts in Rhodesia, this is hardly likely to give the impression that we are trying to maintain our opposition to the régime there and, in fact, is inclined to give the impression that there is something attractive about it?
    Mr. Thomas: We have not to emulate the undesirable practices of the illegal régime in order to prove our sincerity. We have made it clear to newspaper editors who have approached us that we deplore the appearance of these advertisements and we strongly hope that editors will not accept them.
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of Slate for Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he now has for extending the sanctions on Rhodesia.
    Mr. George Thomas: Means of making sanctions more effective are constantly under review in the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee and elsewhere, but it is not our policy to give the illegal régime advance warning of any conclusions reached or measures in view.
    Mr. Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these have been under review for a very long time? When are we going to get some conclusions from the Committee?
    Mr. Thomas: It is not for me to reveal, even in the House, what are the discussions within the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, but I can say that we support it in all its decisions.

    Zambia (Compensation Claims)
    Mr. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he is yet in a position to make a final statement concerning compensation claimed by Her Majesty's subjects who have been deported from Zambia without warning or reason.
    Mr. George Thomas: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
    214
    Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member on 5th December, 1967, except to say that the Zambian Government have informed our High Commissioner in Lusaka that the claims are still under consideration and that he will be told of the final decision as soon as it is reached.—[Vol. 755, c. 1122.]
    Mr. Baker: Is it not about time that we got a solution to this problem? As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been in correspondence with the Commonwealth Relations Office for at least 18 months about this issue. We must ask for action through the British High Commissioner.
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right: he has been in touch with the Commonwealth Relations Office. He has pursued this matter diligently. Equally, our High Commissioner is pursuing the matter and has on at least three occasions lately—3rd October, 27th November and 22nd December—sent formal reminders about these claims. I myself spoke to the Secretary of the Cabinet in December last. I hope that we shall soon have some information.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will suspend arms shipments to the Federal Government of Nigeria, in view of peace moves at present taking place.
    Mr. George Thomas: No, Sir.
    Mr. Barnes: Are the Government allowing these arms shipments because they hope to see a quick end to the war? Does not my hon. Friend agree that there are signs that the conflict may drag on for a long time? Would not Britain's best interests be served by our trying to regain a genuinely neutral position in this conflict as soon as possible?
    Mr. Thomas: No one dislikes this civil war more than anyone else in the House. All of us deplore it. The question of arms has been gone into very carefully and I have answered Questions in the House before. We have continued the supply of traditional arms, and only the traditional arms, to the one Government that the whole world recognises in Nigeria. There is no other Government recognised in Nigeria. We want to see

    215
    this war came to an end speedily, but I do not believe that this suggestion would advance the cause.
    Mr. Crouch: Does the Minister of State think that the present leaders in Lagos are ever likely to provide the responsible leadership necessary to unite the North, the West and the East again? Does not he consider that the breakaway East—the Biafrans—are at least entitled to some recognition of their fight against vicious oppression?
    Mr. Thomas: I do not want to enter into the merits of this struggle. All our efforts are directed to bringing the opposing sides to the table to talk.
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of my right hon. Friend's negative reply, what positive suggestions have he and the Government to make for bringing the civil war to and end?
    Mr. Thomas: Her Majesty's Government have been very active in pushing peace moves. It is not in the best interests of peace moves to conduct our affairs in public in this matter.
    Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase "the supply of traditional arms". Does "traditional" apply to the quantity of the arms as well as to their quality?
    Mr. Thomas: It applies to both. We have never—I had better be careful, because I do not want to add to the trouble. We have viewed every request for arms with the most careful scrutiny before we have decided what can go.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Commonwealth Secretariat regarding the civil war in Nigeria; and whether Her Majesty's Government will propose through the Secretariat the establishment of a Commonwealth peace-keeping force.
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Commonwealth Secretariat as to the possibility of establishing a Commonwealth peacekeeping force in Nigeria following Mr. Arnold Smith's visit to Lagos.
    Mr. George Thomas: We have been kept informed by Mr. Arnold Smith
    216
    about his initiative to promote negotiations for a cease-fire and settlement in Nigeria, and we fully support his efforts. We have repeatedly declared our willingness to help the Nigerians in any way we can which would advance the prospects of peace. Mr. Arnold Smith is well aware of this.
    Mr. Tilney: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger of the war dragging on because of the fear of the Ibos that they would be massacred even if the Federals won? Surely some form of political compromise must be reached sooner or later?
    Mr. Thomas: I am well aware of the considerations the hon. Gentleman mentioned. But the House must remember that Nigeria is an independent country. All our diplomatic efforts are directed to ensuring a lasting peace with a sense of security for all.
    Mr. Henig: Can my hon. Friend explain exactly how he expects both sides to be prepared to trust this country when we are openly and blatantly supplying one side with the means of war? Does he not share the sense of shame which many of us have that this country should thus be profiting from the continuation of this dreadful war?
    Mr. Thomas: I have already answered that question, and perhaps I had better leave it there.

    Kenya
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kenya about that Government's legislation discriminating against the employment in Kenya of British subjects of Asian origin.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he is aware that Indian residents of Kenya holding British passports are now emigrating to this country; and if he will start discussions with the Kenya Government, with a view to alleviating the problems that give rise to this emigration.
    Mr. George Thomson: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained in the House on 27th February, discussions have been taking place with the Kenya Government for some time

    217
    and we shall, of course, continue to consult them on this difficult subject. The Kenyan legislation distinguishes between Kenya citizens of all races and non-citizens resident in that country.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without wishing to embarrass those very important negotiations, can I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the representations made by Her Majesty's Government include the suggestion that the Kenyan Government might well give some reassurance to a number of very worried people who have served Kenya and its economy very well indeed?
    Mr. Thomson: I appreciate the motives behind the right hon. Gentleman's question. I think that the less I say about the actual content of the present discussions the more likely we are to have the kind of conclusion that both he and I would wish.
    Mr. Biffen: Can the right hon. Gentlehan say at this juncture whether he hopes to be able to report to the House within the next three or four weeks, say, the outcome of these discussions? Would he, in the most temperate and constructive fashion possible, take the opportunity to remind Kenya that she is a major recipient of British aid?
    Mr. Thomson: I think that probably the best way in which we will be able to judge the results of what will be continuing consultations through diplomatic channels between Kenya and ourselves will be from the way the problem of the Asian emigrants from Kenya works out.
    Mr. Fortescue: Are the Government continuing to issue United Kingdom passports to British subjects of Asian origin in Kenya?
    Mr. Thomson: That is primarily a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but the right of people who are qualified to have British passports has not been interfered with by the legislation the House has recently passed.

    Commonwealth Peace-keeping Force
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has made through the Commonwealth Secretariat to other Common-
    218
    wealth Governments for creating a Commonwealth peace-keeping force.
    Mr. George Thomas: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that proposals for creating such a force might be very useful in helping to bring about a peaceful solution to the dangerous and tragic situation in Nigeria?
    Mr. Thomas: If such a proposal comes from both sides, we shall look at it with sympathy.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will inquire into the lack of facilities such as toilets, clinics, drinking water, telephones, schools, and public lighting, provided in Shatin resettlement area Hong Kong, with a view to having them improved.
    Mr. Whitlock: My information is that facilities in the Fo Tan resettlement area near Shatin compare favourably with those in other cottage resettlement areas. Since the list of facilities that are available and to be provided is long I am writing to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the list of facilities I have given him also represents a lack of houses between last year and the year before of 2,000 in a Colony where at present 300,000 people are labelled as squatters? Is not that a problem of the deepest significance for our Government in view of the present state of affairs in the Far East?
    Mr. Whitlock: My hon. Friend knows very well that the housing problem in Hong Kong has been very serious since the war. Much remains to be done, but in the past he has paid tribute to what has already been done. I assure him that the problem will continue to be tackled with vigour. The immediate objective in the cottage settlement he mentioned is to provide permanent housing to meet basic requirements and that the facilities provided there are better than those in existing resettlement areas.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will consult with the Governor of Hong Kong, with a view to establishing the

    219
    urban council as the housing authority for the Colony in order to ensure coordinated planning of house-building.
    Mr. Whitlock: No, Sir. The urban council has responsibilities in relation to only part of the Colony and is not the appropriate body to co-ordinate planning of housing development for the whole of Hong Kong. For this purpose Hong Kong has a Housing Board.
    Mr. Rankin: As the housing authority of Hong Kong is completely failing in its task, will my hon. Friend consider some other authority? Is he aware that the housing authority is appointed and selected? The urban council is elected, and if it became the housing authority housing might become a topic of public discussion in Hong Kong for the first time.
    Mr. Whitlock: The housing shortage in Hong Kong is due to the damage and neglect during the Japanese occupation, the fact that over 1 million refugees have come in from China, and a natural increase in population. Since 1945 the population of Hong Kong has risen from 600,000 to 3·8 million. If my hon. Friend believes that there should be an enlargement of the urban council's responsibilities in this matter, I have no doubt that this will be considered in the current review of local administration.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Have not the Government of Hong Kong done a magnificent job in housing the wave of refugees?
    Mr. Whitlock: I agree that they have done a magnificent job, and my hon. Friend has paid tribute to them.

    Zambia (Aid)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received for assistance in reducing Zambia's dependence on communications to the south; and what action he is taking.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, having regard to overseas aid from Great Britain to Zambia amounting to £24 million in 1967, whether he will make a statement on his negotiations with the team from Zambia recently in London
    220
    seeking additional aid of £70 million to assist Zambia in meeting losses caused by sanctions against Rhodesia.
    Mr. George Thomson: Matters arising in discussions held with Zambian officials in London at the end of last year are still being considered and I have therefore nothing to add to my reply to my honourable Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) and Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 30th January.—[Vol. 757, c. 249–50.]
    Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed Tanzam railway is vital to the future of Zambia? After the survey, details were sent to all Embassies and High Commissions in Lusaka with invitations to submit proposals for construction. What has been our response on this?
    Mr. Thomson: The Tanzam railway does not come under the contingency aid we were discussing with the Zambian Government, to which my hon. Friend's Question refers. Our aid there has been concentrated, most constructively and usefully, on creating the Great North Road, which has been a great help to the Zambian Government.
    Mr. Judd: On a point of order. My Question did not refer to such contingency planning.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Are not all the difficulties Zambia is experiencing due to the misplaced policies of Her Majesty's Government in pursuing sanctions against Rhodesia? Will the right hon. Gentleman cease pointing an accusing finger at me and saying that I approve his sanctions policy, when I have always voted and spoken against it?
    Mr. Thomson: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition either that I point an accusing finger at him or that we are the author of the problems facing the Zambian Government. They are the result of the rebellion in Rhodesia, which creates many complications, many problems and many burdens for many countries.

    Malta (Dockyard)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (1) what progress has

    221
    been made in his negotiations with Baileys (Malta) Limited which have been going on for three years;
    (2) what assurances he has given to the Malta Government about the future of the dockyard.
    Mr. George Thomson: I am at the moment engaged in discussing this problem with the Malta Prime Minister. It would not be helpful for me to make any statement while these discussions are in progress.
    Regarding the litigation with Bailey (Malta) Limited, I have nothing new to report.
    Mr. Digby: While I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, may I ask h an to realise how important it is to determine the ownership of the dockyard and also the ownership of these appalling losses there which are necessarily resulting on the closure of the Suez Canal?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. I am conscious the importance of the dockyard to the economy of Malta as the biggest single employer, and I am earnestly seeking with the Prime Minister of Malta to come to a satisfactory solution of these problems.
    Sir W. Teeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not try to force the Prime Minister of Malta to nationalise the docks, which he does not want to do?
    Mr. Thomson: I am not sure that I have the same repugnance for nationalisation as the hon. Gentleman has. But I do not wish to go into details about our discussions at this stage.

    British Honduras
    Mr. Braiseasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of British Honduras on methods of ensuring that all the people of that territory are given the opportunity of agreeing or disagreeing with the mediator's proposals.
    Mr. George Thomas: There has been no occasion for discussion with the Government of British Honduras recently. We shall consult them as soon as the mediator's report is available.
    Mr. Braine: While the House fully accepts Her Majesty's Government's assurance that the Government of British Honduras will be consulted, why cannot Her Majesty's Government make it plain that, if the majority of the people of British Honduras are against the American Mediator's suggestion of cession to Guatemala, they will respect their wishes?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is using the language of an imperialist. It is not for this House nor for Her Majesty's Government to tell the Government of British Honduras how their people shall be consulted. As soon as the Mediator's report is received, we shall consult the Government of British Honduras as to the best way of finding out the wishes of their people.
    Mr. Henig: Can my hon. Friend tell us whether he has it in mind that, when the report is received, there shall, in British Honduras, as with other former British Colonies, be a constitutional conference, at which one of the conditions of the future constitutional arrangements will be that they are acceptable to all the people or at least the majority of the people?
    Mr. Thomas: I do not think my hon. Friend need be worried on that matter.

    PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION BROADCAST)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will give another television broadcast to the nation to report on progress since devaluation.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no present plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Marten: If the Prime Minister does eventually decide to treat the nation to another television broadcast, will he clear up the impression, certainly gained by the T.U.C., that the Government were going to rely on a voluntary wages policy, and tell the nation clearly whether or not there will be a wage freeze?
    The Prime Minister: My colleagues and I had discussions with the T.U.C. in January, when we went through its report with its representatives, and we indicated

    223
    the situation in which it might be necessary to press for fuller powers than those relating to a voluntary wage policy.
    Mr. Barnett: On the assumption that the recent speech by the Leader of the Opposition was more ill-informed than maliciously intended, might it not be as well to publish the facts in a simple form in a White Paper, together with the independent forecast of our balance of payments figures? Then perhaps would not my right hon. Friend also agree that we do not need psychological measures and that he should not bring in wage legislation likely to be more psychological than effective?
    The Prime Minister: I regret that I did not read the right hon. Gentleman's speech in full but I saw the heavy weather he made of the 3¾ per cent. increase in Government expenditure, ignoring the fact that, in four out of the five years he was a member of the Cabinet, Government expenditure rose by a higher figure.
    Mr. Maudling: As the Government now appear to be estimating that prices will rise this year by 7½ per cent., will the right hon. Gentleman repeat his statement that the £s in our pockets are not being devalued?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, together with his party and Press supporters, has assiduously fostered this legend. In my broadcast I said that devaluation
    "… will mean that the goods we buy from abroad will be dearer … this means higher prices over a period for some of our imports including some of our basic foods."
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will note that.

    DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
    Mr. Hordernasked the Prime Minister whether he will now abolish the Department of Economic Affairs.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hordern: Is it not clear that one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Government's economic policy lies in the fact that two Ministries are responsible for that policy? Who is now supposed to be in charge? Is it the Chan-
    224
    cellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister as head of the Department of Economic Affairs?
    The Prime Minister: The Cabinet is in charge. In accordance with practice, the Treasury is responsible for all matters dealing with monetary, foreign exchange, budgetary, taxation and Government expenditure questions, while the D.E.A. is responsible for co-ordinating the industrial effort of the nation.
    Mr. Orme: Is the D.E.A. in favour of wages legislation? Can my right hon. Friend clear up the question as to whether or not he gave a personal assurance to Mr. George Woodcock that no further legislation on this matter would be introduced?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a week or two ago, we shall be making a full statement on these matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I was asked about the position of the D.E.A. in regard to legislation. I have said that we shall be making a statement on this in the near future. So far as Press reports of my conversations with Mr. Woodcock are concerned, I said to him during the weekend of devaluation, with my right hon. Friends, that we had at that time no present plans for further legislation in these matters. In my discussion with the T.U.C. on 5th January—I have not the quotation here but I can give it if my hon. Friend puts down a Question—I indicated that, in certain circumstances, further powers would be necessary.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Molloy—Mr. Heath.
    Mr. Heath: I think that the Prime Minister will probably recall—
    Mr. Molloy: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the point of order which the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise. I have called, however, the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister will recall that one of his main objectives in setting up the Department of Economic Affairs, which he outlined in his speech at Swansea, was to encourage the production of import substitutes.
    The Prime Minister indicated assent.
    Mr. Heath: I am glad to see that he agrees. As the import of manufactured

    225
    goods has increased by just over 50 per cent since the establishment of the D.E.A., does he not consider this to be sufficient reason for abolishing it?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will realise the very high increase in imports in the two or three years before 1964. The D.E.A. and the Ministry of Technology have been extremely active in encouraging substitutes, particularly in machine tools and in building up our own computer industry, which the right hon. Gentleman had allowed almost to disappear. It was within a few weeks of disappearing altogether when we came into office. The Department and the Ministry have also been active in the chemical industry. The right hon. Gentleman will have cause to be quite pleased with the progress in due course.

    NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made following his recent meetings with the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics towards a Non-Proliferation Agreement.
    The Prime Minister: I discussed the Non-Proliferation Treaty with both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kosygin during my recent visits. We agreed on the need for early action to complete the Treaty, on which there has recently been encouraging progress. We hope that this will now lead to final agreement on the Treaty in the United Nations in the near future.
    Mr. Molloy: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, and appreciating that the non-nuclear Powers will have some guarantee against nuclear attack and nuclear blackmail, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend could say what endeavours are now being undertaken to try to encourage China to sign such a declaration, particularly with regard to the anxiety felt in India and other Asian States?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will not underrate the difficulties of persuading China, and indeed France, to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The first important matter is to get acceptance of
    226
    it at the 18-Nation Committee at Geneva, and then to get it signed under the ægis of the United Nations. The special position of India, and India's anxieties, are naturally receiving a great deal of attention from all her friends in the 18-Nation Committee.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does the new draft, in the Prime Minister's view, give the right to countries like India and Germany to produce their atomic energy for peaceful purposes?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly for peaceful purposes—I do not think that there can be any question about that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been some argument about the safeguards and the means of administering them in respect of countries which are members of Euratom, but the right for peaceful purposes is fully protected, while the right to develop for warlike purposes is fully banned.

    EAST OF SUEZ (ARMS AND EXPORT ORDERS)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what inter-Departmental assessment was made in the examination of public expenditure, preceding the cuts announced on 16th January, of the effect of the announcement of military withdrawals east of Suez on arms and other export orders from the states thus to be deprived of British military assistance.
    The Prime Minister: In reaching the decisions that I announced on 16th of January, the Government gave appropriate weight to all relevant factors, including those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the Prime Minister regard it as purely coincidental that, so soon after the announcement of the decision to run out east of Suez, Britain lost the Saudi armoured car order to France?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that that has anything at all to do with the decision. There is certainly no evidence to suggest it. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know of the talks going on with Singapore and Malaysia for a considerable increase in shipments to those countries.

    SUMMIT MEETING
    Mr. Murrayasked the Prime Minister what representations he has made to President Johnson and Mr. Kosygin to call a Summit meeting in the near future.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mr. Murray: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider this? Would he consider, in view of the difficulties in reconvening the Geneva Conference on Vietnam, with the co-Chairmen, the possibility of a Summit conference being called to discuss Vietnam?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that would help in the particular difficulty of trying to get the Geneva Conference recalled. As fellow co-Chairman we have made very many efforts to do that. The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union met in the summer of last year, without making progress on this. The view of the Soviet Government is that they would be prepared to co-operate in Geneva, or any other agreed place, once the parties to the fighting had agreed to start negotiations. That step must come first in their view.
    Mr. Onslow: If there were to be such a Summit meeting, does the Prime Minister really expect to be invited?
    The Prime Minister: I was answering the question, the terms of which suggested that I took an initiative. Despite all the warnings that we had from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the top table, I am not at all dissatisfied about the meetings that I have had in the Soviet Union and in Washington in the past few weeks and with the continuing contacts with leaders of both countries on the Vietnam question.

    HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the talks with other party leaders on the question of House of Lords reform.
    The Prime Minister: The inter-party discussions are still continuing and I have, as yet, no information to give the House.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend meanwhile give some comfort to hon. Members on this side by telling us that the talks are moving smoothly towards deadlock? In any event will he repeat the assurance that in no circumstances will the powers of the other place be increased?
    The Prime Minister: If that is my hon. Friend's idea of comfort, I can certainly give him no such assurance. To develop further on that theme would be to breach the confidentiality of these talks. As to the position of the powers, I would refer my hon. Friend to what was said in the debate on the Gracious Speech last year.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the Prime Minister not agree that last week the House of Lords came out rather well, in spite of the Government's muddled mismanagement of affairs.
    The Prime Minister: I thought that they came out rather late.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bishop—Sir Frederic Bennett.

    LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord President of the Council in Birmingham on 28th January about devaluation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to similar Questions on 20th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 76.]
    Sir F. Bennett: The Prime Minister will recall that that Answer was, "Yes, Sir". Could he now explain to the House how even his devious mind can possibly reconcile—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—how even his devious mind—[HON. MEMBERS "Withdraw."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Sir Frederic Bennett.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question time is going. Sir Frederic Bennett.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mrs. Renée Short: It is not the hon. Gentleman's turn anyway.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Sir Frederic Bennett.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. I find it quite impossible—[Interruption.]—I find it quite impossible to hear what my hon. Friend is saying. Is it not possible to have conditions under which we can hear what is being said?
    Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should have thought that he was pointing out the obvious.
    Sir F. Bennett: Can the Prime Minister explain how even his devious mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—can reconcile a setback with a giant stride forward? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is not doing itself any good at all.
    Mr. Bishop: On a point of order. I did not hear you call Question No. Q8, Mr. Speaker, which is in my name.
    Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise. I will put the matter right in a moment, I hope.
    Sir F. Bennett: Can the Prime Minister now indicate—[Interruption.] May I have the Prime Minister's attention? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will take note of what I am saying. We all believe in Parliament. This is not helping Parliament.
    Sir F. Bennett: Can the Prime Minister indicate—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. May I ask for your advice, Mr. Speaker? Through some inadvertence, Question No. Q8 was not called. Question Time has now ended. If Question No. Q8 had been called, the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) would not have been called and the House would not have been subjected to his rude remarks.
    Mr. Speaker: I have already taken the blame for failing to call Question No. Q8, but I must just finish with Question No. Q9.
    Sir F. Bennett: I am trying very hard, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister indicate—
    Mr. Rose: Further to the point of order. Earlier this afternoon, when a Question was called, the Leader of the Opposition was called and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) was made to sit down. The same thing has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) was on his feet for at least two or three minutes. As he was not called, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: The Chair is aware of all the circumstances.
    Sir F. Bennett: Can the Prime Minister now indicate how even his devious mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."—can reconcile a setback with a giant stride forward? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must listen to questions to which they object.
    The Prime Minister: I regret that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's question. I very much hope that I shall be allowed to hear it.
    Sir F. Bennett: If the Prime Minister did not hear it, it certainly was not my fault. Can he now indicate how even his devious mind can reconcile a setback with a giant stride forward?
    The Prime Minister: I said in the reply to the previous Question which the hon. Gentleman quoted and to which I referred today that the Answer was "Yes", because this statement did not set out to give any new policy. It began by referring to the fact that it was a personal statement. Apart from that, it contained a certain degree of oratorical flourish which was not inappropriate on such an occasion.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand now that I did indeed call the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop). I call him now.

    INDUSTRY (PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEES)
    Mr. Bishopasked the Prime Minister what is his policy with regard to the establishment of productivity committees in industry in support of the export drive.
    The Prime Minister: The Government support the setting up of productivity committees and I have said on several occasions that such committees could very usefully concern themselves with exports.
    Mr. Bishop: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of communication between management and workers in this matter in view of the fact that recently many redundancies have been declared without those affected by them being informed?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the anxiety because of certain recent mergers. Certainly an early warning system is urgently necessary both as regards informing the Government and the regional planning councils and informing the unions and workers concerned. But on the question of the productivity committees generally, and particularly for exports, I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in a speech in Burnley, a copy of which is in the Library.

RHODESIA (ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF MERCY)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. BIGGS-DAVISON: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what reassessment he has made of the constitutional position of Rhodesia and of United Kingdom legislation affecting Rhodesia, since the judgment of the Appellate Division of the High Court in Salisbury on 29th January.
Mr. WINNICK: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the names of those under sentence of death in Rhodesia for alleged political offences; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): As regards the question by my hon.
232
Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), I do not have full information about all those under sentence of death in Rhodesia or the offences for which they were sentenced.
The Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, and the Southern Rhodesia Constitution Order made under it, lay down with out any ambiguity what the present constitutional status of Rhodesia is, and, in particular, that the régime there is illegal and its acts invalid.
As regards the judgments given in the Rhodesian courts, both in the case referred to by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and in the death sentences case on which I answered a Question yesterday from the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) the final appellate court for Rhodesia is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and it is for it ultimately to lay down what the law is. The views expressed by the Appellate Division in Salisbury cannot be regarded as conclusive. As I stated yesterday, the legal position, according to the advice given to me, is that the delegation of the Prerogative of Mercy to the Governor of Rhodesia in the 1961 Constitution did not divest Her Majesty of Her Prerogative which in this situation She exercises on my advice.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that all the judges ruled that Mr. Smith's Government is de facto and that some of them ruled that it is also de jure? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to obtain the views of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which he has said is the highest authority? May we have its views on this important matter?
Mr. Thomson: I do not think that this is the occasion for me to comment on the attitude of individual judges, but the House will have seen that the Rhodesian High Court is far from unanimous on the matters at issue. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the position in the case to which he refers is that an application in regard to it may shortly be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. For that reason, I would prefer not to go into any detail.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Is it in order for us to discuss the decisions of Her Majesty's judges in Rhodesia?
Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to reflect on Her Majesty's judges in person. It is in order to comment on a judgment. If there is any reflection on any of Her Majesty's judges, it must be made in a Motion before the House.
Mr. Thomson: Further to that point of order. In view of the seriousness and delicacy of these matters, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that I have deliberately sought not to comment in any way on Her Majesty's judges in Rhodesia.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I had no intention of reflecting on any of Her Majesty's judges—quite the contrary.
Mr. Winnick: Even now we hope that the sentences will not be carried out and that the lives of the three Africans will not be taken. Does my right hon. Friend feel that there is a chance that the reprieve will be accepted by the illegal régime?
Mr. Thomson: I can give the House no information which is not already in its possession from reading what has appeared in the Press. I understand that Mr. Smith and his colleagues have been meeting in Salisbury today. But I am sure that it would be the wish of all quarters of this House—and I hope that it will go out to Rhodesia—that the
234
régime will decide not to hang these three men.
Mr. Maudling: Have not the events of the last two or three days brought out in the starkest possible manner the appalling consequences which may follow if a settlement is not reached in Rhodesia? Is it not therefore incumbent on all of us to do everything we can to promote a settlement and to say nothing which may make its achievement more difficult?
Mr. Thomson: As I said yesterday, it is important to keep the delicate issues we are now discussing separate from the political issues in relation to a settlement. I repeat the view of Her Majesty's Government that we remain ready to seek a settlement which falls within the principles laid down by both sides of the House.
Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, if ultimate political responsibility for what happens in Rhodesia lies in this House, it is extremely disturbing that details of those in prison under sentence of death for alleged political offences are not known? How soon can this House have details of the people who are in prison?
Mr. Thomson: There are many aspects of the Rhodesian situation which are very disturbing indeed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEFENCE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [4th March]:
  That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1968, contained in Command Paper No. 3540.—[Mr. Healey.]
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'condemns Her Majesty's Government for having undermined the confidence both of the services and of our friends and allies, and seriously weakened the defence capability of this country.'
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  3.40 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Heath: There are three major Parliamentary debates in the calendar year: the debate on the Address, or, as we sometimes call it, the State of the Nation; the debate on the Budget; and the debate on the Defence White Paper, on which we are now engaged.
  It is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of the defence debate, because the security of the nation, the nation's interests, and the interests of all those for whom we are responsible, including the dependencies and our friends and allies to some degree, are at stake.
  Parliament has a special responsibility in this matter and in the attention which it gives to it, because defence, which is becoming ever more complex in its organisation and more expensive in its operation, is not a matter on which the citizen alone finds it easy to form a considered judgment. Indeed, all too often, when the immediate, nearby threat of danger to him is removed, he turns away in disgust at the unpleasantness of it and the expense involved. In the circumstances, particular responsibilities rest upon the Government of the day in a free democratic society. The first responsibility is to recognise genuine British interests and responsibilities. The second responsibility is to form an assessment of where they are threatened. The third responsibility is to show the House and the country how these interests will be
  236
  respected and the responsibilities carried out.
  Judged by these three criteria, I suggest that the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday was lacking in substance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—as, indeed, was the speech of the Minister of Defence for Equipment, whom also I do not see in his place, though he at least was not lacking in a sense of humour. In his wind-up, he put at the centre-piece of the Government's defence policy a deep-diving seminar which he is organising on 12th March and to which he gave an invitation to all and sundry to be present. It is difficult to think of anywhere more suitable for the present Administration to be consigned than a symposium at the bottom of a deep think tank.
  I found it extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Defence gave the House no assessment of the world situation. The Foreign Secretary is not taking part in this debate and, what is more, he has shown no interest in it. Neither have any Ministers at the Foreign Office. I draw that to the attention of the Prime Minister. All we have had from the Secretary of State is a few complacent words on Malaysia and the Gulf, and mutual congratulations all round. I think that he was within an inch of telling us that really the whole objective of the Government's policy had been designed to enable the Gulf and Malaysia to stand on their own feet in their own way.
  There was nothing about the ghastly struggle in which the major Powers are now locked in South-East Asia and the implications of it for us in Europe. There was nothing about the steady progress of Soviet penetration in the Middle East. There was nothing about the protection of the sea routes round the Cape becoming ever more important to the Western world. nor are the Government prepared any longer, either in White Paper or in speech, to define unequivocally where British interests lie. In the past, they have done so, and I give them credit for it. More often than not, they have done it clearly. They have recognised those interests, and they have been right in what they have recognised. It is not for that that I criticise them.
  In the past, the Prime Minister has often emphasised British interests, and the

  237
  right ones. So have the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary. I do not criticise them for that. What they have never succeeded in doing is matching their declaration of British interests by their deeds in British defence. I criticise them for that.
  It is a British, a Western and a world interest that the United States should not be the sole Western power in South-East Asia. That is quite clear, and the Prime Minister has often said it.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: rose—
  Mr. Heath: Let me develop my point. Laos and the settlement in Laos which my right hon. Friends helped to negotiate showed that clearly, and the meeting which took place between the late President Kennedy and Mr. Macmillan at Key West had a great influence on Western policy in Laos and South-East Asia at that time.
  If one compares the influence exercised in Washington by the British Government, on which perhaps some of us would prefer to take the account of Louis Heren in The Times of 23rd February rather than what we are always told by Government spokesmen, one will know how much that influence has declined as a result of the declaration by Her Majesty's Government on 16th January.
  There are vital British and Commonwealth interests in Malaysia and Singapore. There are vital British and European interests in the Gulf. There are vital British, European, and North Atlantic interests, to say nothing of the interests of so many developing countries, in the sea routes round the Cape. All these interests remain, but the Government no longer declare them. The reason that they do not is because they are no longer prepared to sustain them or even, in most cases, prepared to take any part in supporting them.
  It is this which has dismayed our friends so much. They, too, see very clearly where British interests lie, and they know that very often their own interests are bound up with them. They conclude, therefore, that this Government are not prepared to give or cannot give the British people the leadership which will make the effort necessary to sustain those interests seem worthwhile. Even
  238
  worse, some of them deduce that Britain is so weak that she must sacrifice even the advantages that she has already in those areas.
  Those are the facts which dismay our friends and allies across the world. Some of them are bitter at the broken word. Some are angry and say that they cannot trust Britain's word again. Worst of all, most of them are beginning to ignore us, simply because they do not believe that Britain's power or influence matter any more.
  That is what this Government have brought about by their decisions, and they have brought it about because they looked not at our interests and resources and how they are inter-connected, but because first they fixed an arbitrary sum for the Defence Budget and then succumbed to pressure from their own party to reduce that still further.
  Some hon. Members below the Gangway put forward the alternative proposition that some of the money which has been spent on defence or even all of it should be spent on development in the new countries. I would say to them that for that development to be effective there must be a basic security and stability in the developing world before it can be of use. In that Britain has in the past played an all-important rôle.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: No. Finally the Government in a panic after devaluation made the cuts, which the Secretary of State has told us are still being worked out, let alone being implemented, which have led to higher expenditure this year, a time of the greatest difficulty after devaluation, and will do far greater damage economically to trade, to the balance of payments and to the economy as a whole than any long-term savings which he is able to produce. Purely on the economic profit and loss account, our interests in these areas are far greater than the cost of sustaining them, and the damage will be far greater than any economies which the Secretary of State will be implementing.
  Mr. Frank Hooley rose—
  Mr. Heath: These changes have not helped the £. That, alas, is all too plain

  239
  to see. The reason is that, contrary to the arguments of many, these changes have not been welcomed by our friends overseas, whether in the Far East, the Middle East or in Europe. Almost all, without exception, have greatly regretted them.
  The Secretary of State has now retreated to a purely European posture. But already the pressures are on him and his colleagues in the Cabinet still further to withdraw and demobilise. Hon. Members below the Gangway are shaking their heads in agreement. The Secretary of State may not have meant to convey this impression yesterday, but I fear he may have lent some encouragement to this action when he spoke of moving for a voluntary reduction of forces in Europe between the Warsaw Pact and N.A.T.O. There is certainly no sign of this happening on the Soviet side. Indeed, the reverse is the case. Most observers agree that Soviet armament is better today than it has ever been concerning the forces of the Warsaw Pact. It is a more effective force. The Secretary of State knows full well how quickly the Soviet Union can switch from an Eastern deployment to a Western deployment, should it so wish, whereas we in the West are not in a position to carry that out.
  The Secretary of State must be careful not to encourage his friends below the Gangway to increase their pressure, now that he has reached a purely European position, to go still further and withdraw and demobilise unilaterally. I express the fear that his friends will receive quite enough encouragement when the development of anti-ballistic missiles by the super Powers takes place. This is a matter on which we have heard nothing from the Government at any time. The Soviet Union already has an anti-ballistic missile capability deployed. Whatever one's assessment of its effectiveness may be, it is there. The United States of America has announced its programme, controversial though that may be. What will the position of Europe be when both the super Powers can show the world that they not only have intercontinental ballistic missiles, but also anti-ballistic missiles with a certain degree of effectiveness? Whatever the real strategic or tactical position may be, what will be the
  240
  impact on European public opinion when it realises that the two super Powers have some protection against ballistic missiles, but Europe, lying alongside the Soviet Union, is without any protection of that kind? This is the possibility that we have to face, and it is a very serious possibility indeed.
  The Secretary of State in the White Paper says that the NATO study group is working on this problem. I am delighted to hear it, but he and the Government have a responsibility to tell the House how they see the development of the strategic situation and, above all, the impact on European public opinion and how they will handle it as this development takes place.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
  Mr. Heath: I will not give way. Some would justify the Government's present policy as being a modern European policy. The Secretary of State very largely did this yesterday. He made pleas for greater co-operation in Europe. I support him in this. I have often made them in the past. To some, these pleas seem to come rather strangely from one who was formerly so hostile to most of these concepts and whose first act on coming into office was to wipe out British projects and commit himself immediately to larger American ones. But now, having been forced by his colleagues to abandon them, he turns to Europe again with pleas for co-operation, pleas which he now makes from a position of weakness with nothing to offer from the British point of view in similar projects, rather than making co-operative acts from strength. That is what has resulted from the Secretary of State's policy.
  The conception which the Secretary of State has put forward here and in the White Paper is not my conception, nor that of my colleagues, of a true European rôle either for this country or for Europe. I have not worked in my own way as much as I could to achieve a wider European unity in order to take a lot of little Englanders into a mini-Europe. That has not been my conception. Europe today has wealth and industrial strength. Yesterday the Secretary of State said that he wanted to encourage Europe to do more to help itself. I agree with that, but it is

  241
  essential that the United States presence remains n Europe. Nothing must be done to damage that—
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: For the third time, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath:—for this reason, that the United States—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way"]—for this reason, that the United States nuclear deterrent will not be credible without a United States presence in Europe. That is absolutely fundamental. This lesson to a large degree also applies to us. When we had a presence in the Far East and the Gulf our general capability to reinforce was credible, because people believed we would do it. Now the Secretary of State must recognise, from what he says in the White Paper and what he has said in his speech, that our general intention to reinforce no longer has that same credibility once it is known that the Government are withdrawing. I will now give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: I wanted to ask whether the price of the United States remaining in Europe and backing N.A.T.O. should be equalised with what the United States are doing in Vietnam, and whether the right hon. Gentleman feels that British troops should therefore be supporting the American effort in Vietnam against the Vietnamese people?
  Mr. Heath: I knew that it was a mistake to give way, but I was overgenerous. I am coming on to deal with Vietnam in a later part of my speech and I shall deal specifically with the hon. Lady's question.
  We would like to see brought about the European co-operation which the Secretary of State wants, but the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State should have been prepared to consider and discuss an Anglo-French nuclear arrangement on the trusteeship basis which I have put before the House in the past and be prepared to discuss and negotiate this with the United States of America in the context of the European Economic Community, because we must face the fact that as time passes we shall have less and less of distinctive value in the nuclear sphere to contribute to any such arrangement. If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of Europe playing a greater part in its own defence, which
  242
  we welcome, this is one of the difficulties of the passage of time. This is also true, alas, in the civil sector, particularly concerning accelerators and nuclear reactors. We shall have less and less lead progressively over those to whom we want to contribute.
  In the context of Europe, the Secretary of State yesterday had a lot to say about N.A.T.O. strategy. I found it difficult to understand his argument against my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) concerning the trip-wire. He said that his conception of a tripwire was something which acted automatically. I do not believe that this has ever been the general concept. The acknowledged understanding of a tripwire is something which will delay and hold up while action is taken either to resolve the difficulty, or, if the conflict were to escalate, to allow preparations to be made for it. I would not have thought that there was any difference between the two sides of the House on that. I hope, therefore, that we shall abandon rather sterile arguments of that kind.
  The other argument which I found difficult to understand—both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have used this quotation from time to time—is that there should be only orthodox weapons of enormous size in Europe and that this doctrine is supported by a quotation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Giving the quotation yesterday, the Secretary of State said that my right hon. Friend had argued that what we wanted was
  "an army in being, equal in armament, training and philosophy"—
  the Secretary of State says that this is what the British Army is today; indeed, he says that it has better armament than the other countries of Europe—very good—
  "to any other in Europe and of such dimensions and structure, and supported by such reserves, as to be able, and to be seen to be able, to play an important and continuing part in continental warfare."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 1201.]
  My right hon. Friend spoke of it being "supported by such reserves" as to be able to do what was required. We may differ as to whether the reserves are, in fact, capable of doing it, but, as I understand the Secretary of State, he, too,

  243
  wants a reserve system which will enable the British Army to do it. So do we. But we take leave to doubt whether the Secretary of State's reserve system will achieve it. We are entitled to have that doubt. I fail to see, therefore, why the Secretary of State pursues this sterile argument in an attempt to prove that the defence policy of this Front Bench is wildly expensive compared with that which he himself is carrying through in this respect.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I shall not weary the House by repeating passages from articles which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has written, for example, in reviewing a book by General Beaufre. He has very often given the House and the country the impression that he thinks that we and N.A.T.O. as a whole should be prepared for a very long large-scale conventional war in Europe. That is what I was objecting to. It is not rational, desirable or militarily or politically sound.
  Mr. Heath: If the Secretary of State wants to use other quotations, he had better use other quotations. If, on the other hand, he wants to support his argument by that quotation which he gave to the House, he had better in fairness and frankness say that on this particular point he does not differ from my right hon. Friend.
  I say no more about European strategy in that respect, but what does concern me is that Europe as a whole, with all its wealth and riches, is playing no part, or almost no part, in the outside world. I have always hoped that Europe would come to a position in which it would recognise its responsibilities and that, when it did so, Britain would have kept open for it the opportunities to exercise those responsibilities. But it is those opportunities for the future which Her Majesty's Government are now in process of liquidating.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously arguing that Western Europe should have a military defence rôle beyond Europe, that the French, for instance, should take responsibilities in Indo-China and the Dutch in Indonesia?
  244
  Is that the nonsense which he is suggesting?
  Mr. Heath: I am coming to that point as well. I think that some hon. Members, certainly some businessmen and some members of the public, think that the Government, in carrying out this policy, are emulating the President of France, that he has pursued a similar policy of withdrawal and that this is what a true European policy means. It is extraordinarily ironic that the Government's withdrawal should be taking place at precisely the moment when French policy is moving forward as it has not done at any time since 1945. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). Perhaps he and others had better study French policy in this respect. [Interruption.] I say to the Secretary of State that some of us are trying to have a serious discussion about strategy. I am just coming on to explain what I mean.
  France is an ally. It is, therefore, a friendly Power which is moving forward while at the same time we in Britain lose trade and influence; but in some respects it is the Soviet Union which is stepping in and occupying the vacuum which we are making. France is moving forward in the Arab world. This is quite clear after the Israeli conflict. France is moving forward steadily commercially, moving forward in black Africa commercially, and in South Africa she is moving forward seriously with military supplies as well as commercially. There is no doubt that if South Africa were forced to turn entirely to France as a supplier of its naval supplies it would be necessary to adapt Simonstown to that situation, which, as the Secretary of State knows very well, would imperil the Simonstown Agreement. These are all facts which must be faced in the developing situation.
  On the question of French military policy, this is the moment when the British Government are reducing the number of their Polaris submarines while the French are increasing from three to four, and possibly five; and they are creating their own force, à tout azimuths, as the Secretary of State knows, for all-round defence and for use in any part of the world. This is French policy declared by M. Messmer, the French Minister of Defence. It ought to be taken into account in the Secretary of State's own analysis

  245
  of the European situation. To those who think that in order to follow the President of France in European policy one has to withdraw entirely into Europe, I say that they should now study the movement of French policy, which is into the outer world again.
  The Secretary of State may criticise what I say. He may say that he does not think that it will come about. But to him aid to all such critics I put the question: when will the time come when they stop underestimating the French in modern Europe, the state of their technology, their determination and their willpower to carry through their own national defence policy? The Secretary of State, above all, must recognise the facts.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in his interesting observations, but has he taken account of the decision of the French Government to withdraw their forces from N.A.T.O. and to take part in the Mediterranean without allied support? Is he aware of that? May I direct his attentian to what General Lemnitzer, the Supreme Commander in N.A.T.O., has said about it?—
  "We are, however, confronted with a possible loss of important French land and air forces from the centre region of Allied Command Europe".
  Mr. Heath: I recognise only too well, alas, the French withdrawal from N.A.T.O. I recognise also that there is to be a renegotiation in 1969, with all the possibilities which that holds. But I recognise, too, that General Lemnitzer's view happens to be rather different from what the Secretary of State has given us in the White Paper and in his speech. About these other matters we have heard all too little from the Secretary of State in explanation of the attitude which the Government will adopt.
  I leave Europe now and turn to the influence of Europe in the world outside. The Secretary of State said very little about the position in the Gulf, save to welcome the meeting of the Rulers to form a union. I, too, welcome it. I hope that we shall hear no more attacks on federations from the Government Front Bench after the welcome which they have given to this move. But the question to be faced is whether the Rulers, with their small populations in Qatar, Bahrain and
  246
  the Trucial States, have the people to train and to defend themselves. They have the wealth, but it is their wealth which makes them more vulnerable. Who will influence them in the conduct of their foreign affairs now that Her Majesty's Ministers are withdrawing?
  There is already intense Soviet pressure, political and diplomatic, right through the Gulf today. All the contacts we have with people in the Gulf show this clearly. There is immense economic effort as well by the Soviet Union. This pressure is being brought to bear in Aden, hence the expulsion of the British officers, and throughout the Gulf. British interests there are immense. We have £900 million of investments, and £200 million of foreign exchange income, and in that area there is more than 60 per cent. of the world's oil reserves. Does not this mean that there is an immense stake for British interests in the Gulf, which we were influencing at the really minimal cost of £12½ million.
  The result of the withdrawal is becoming apparent in the claims now being reopened. Iran's claim On Bahrain, the clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which led to the cancellation of the Shah's visit, and the other Gulf claims which have been lying dormant for so long while the British were there are now all coming to the fore and are likely to lead to strife and conflict at the time of the withdrawal. We have lost a £40 million order from the Saudis for Saladins, which has gone to France, and we fear that there are other orders which will also be lost to French manufacturers instead of coming to Britain. The sterling balances, which are large, are obviously endangered by this policy. The United States is immensely worried. She, too, has interests there, but the fact is that Britain is the power with the greatest interests in the Gulf.
  Mr. J. T. Price rose—
  Mr. Heath: No. That is undeniable, and yet the Government give every appearance of failing to look after them. They are endangering that stability, all for £12½ million.
  Mr. Price rose—
  Mr. Heath: No, I am sorry. The Soviet Union therefore has the opportunity of

  247
  penetrating deep. There are signs of her going to embark on the purchase of oil from the Gulf. This will put her in a stronger position to deny oil to the Western world when she wants to do so, and to put a stranglehold not only on our industry but also on our defences. This is the all-important question on the Middle East, about which we have heard nothing from the Secretary of State, or the Foreign Secretary, or the Government.
  Mr. Price rose—
  Mr. Heath: I am sorry. I cannot keep on giving way.
  In that connection the right hon. Gentleman might look at the general question of raw material sources for this country. It is a question to which more and more countries are devoting their attention, and making long-term agreements, not in the old-fashioned way of bulk prices, but on prices which move with world prices. They are securing their sources. We, for all too long, because of the old Empire, have taken them for granted. This country is no longer in a position to do that, and I suggest to the Secretary of State and to the Government that this is a matter to which they should devote their attention most urgently.
  The next problem is that of the Cape routes. These are vital now that the Suez Canal is closed. They are, in any case, vital because of large tankers, but they are becoming more and more necessary because of the large bulk carriers being built, those of over 200,000 tons. What are the Government doing from the point of view of South Atlantic defences to protect these sea routes in case of pressure? I ask that because they are essential not only to ourselves but to Western Europe and to the North Atlantic.
  In his speech the Secretary of State mentioned the N.A.T.O. Standing Naval Force which has been set up, but this is concerned only with the North Atlantic and has nothing to do with the problem of the Cape routes. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we ought to know
  "that sometimes big oaks grow from little acorns".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 65]
  248
  Not under this Government they do not. All that the Government do is to lop them off and let them rot at the heart. This is the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman ought to be addressing himself urgently. He has endangered our position by the refusal to supply South Africa with the arms that she needs for external defence. I am prepared to believe that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to supply these arms because he knows that this could have prevented many changes in defence policy which are endangering British interests not only there but in different parts of the world. In fairness, I am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman credit that it is not the policy that he wants to see carried through, and that he believes it is wrong, but the policy is now in effect and it is proving immensely damaging to British and Western interests.
  It is in the Far East that the major dangers lie, and about these we have heard nothing. It is there that the great struggle between the Powers is now being fought out. We condemn the fact that this awful war is being waged. We all deplore the cruelty and the suffering. This is the first television war in history, and it is bringing home to many people, and to new generations, what war really means in all its ghastly personal horror. But this cannot disguise the real nature of the war, however horrible it is. What started as a civil war, now has the United States directly involved with the South Vietnamese Government on a large scale, with the Soviet Union and China pouring in supplies from North Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese Government intervening on a large scale. It has become a great international conflict in which the major powers are fully involved.
  It seems that there is a considerable amount of evidence that the Soviet Union has now become greatly involved in the supply of arms because it felt that South Vietnam was the cockpit of the modern world for testing orthodox weapons; that this was in fact the Spain of the 'thirties translated to Vietnam in the 'sixties. This is the reason why the Soviet Union is now involved in the supply of equipment to such a heavy degree.
  Mr. Shinwell: That is nonsense.
  Mr. Heath: That is one of the things which makes a settlement infinitely more

  249
  difficult than it was, but what must be clearly seen is that the objective of the last assault is to drive the United States out of South Vietnam.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Why not?
  Mr. Heath: Any lingering doubts which some may have had that the North Vietnamese were unwillingly waiting for peace negotiations must now be dispelled by the savage campaign and the careful long planning which obviously lay behind it which was launched during the Tet truce. They wish to annihilate the United States forces and drive them into the sea.
  I suggest to the House that we should be clear about what the consequences would be were they to succeed. If the South Vietnam Administration were to collapse entirely and the United States were unable to form an Administration there, if the United States' will were to break, the impact on South Vietnam of even further slaughter would be obvious, but the impact on South-East Asia would be just as wide as anybody in this House has ever described.
  It has become fashionable to talk about the old-fashioned idea of the domino theory. The old-fashioned idea has just been affirmed by the Soviet Union itself. Last October in a very important article in Moscow the view was put forward, obviously officially, in these words:
  "Mao proposes to include in his 'Reich', apart from China itself, Korea, the Mongolian People's Republic, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, and several other countries in that region. In the second stage of the 'storm from the East', it is planned to expand in the direction of the Indian subcontinent, Soviet Central Asia and the Soviet Far East …"
  That is the Soviet version of the domino theory of what would happen were the situation in South Vietnam to collapse.
  Looking back at China's history, one can see her desire to have vassal States wherever possible, but where it is not possible, to have weak States which she can influence. Indeed, in many ways she is influencing Burma already. Were it not for Prince Sihanhouk's vitality, she might have greater influence in Cambodia, and certainly there is the means of subversion close at hand as far as Malaysia and Singapore are concerned.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would have tried to intervene a few moments ago, but I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to finish this part of his speech. I was trying to follow his argument when he was referring to the Soviet Union regarding Vietnam as a testing ground for weapons. Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to express the view that the Soviet Union did not want to see an end to the war in Vietnam for that reason? If that is his view—it is contrary to mine—has not he answered it by the quotation from the Moscow journal about China? In other words, has not the Soviet Union every reason, because of the factors mentioned by him, to see a quick ending of this war?
  Mr. Heath: I agree with the Prime Minister, and I do not think that the two are contradictory. I think that the Soviet Union could not see a speedy ending to this war or indeed a means of bringing it about, despite all their efforts from time to time as one of the co-chairmen. Therefore, seeing no means of ending it, they felt that they must themselves provide equipment in this way in this context.
  My other thought is that, once they are in this position, it becomes more difficult for them to disengage than it was before and help the negotiations—
  Mr. John Rankin: In the right hon. Gentleman's survey, he has so far missed out any reference to Thailand. Who is seeking to control and occupy Thailand at the moment and who was doing so before the Vietnam war ever began?
  Mr. Heath: What I am saying is that the consequences, if this were to come about, would be heavy for South-East Asia. I have quoted the Soviet view on that. As to Thailand, it is well-known that the means of insurrection are close at hand there, should this situation arise. No one who has been out there has any doubt about this, no matter to which party he belongs.
  To continue my argument, this shows what the consequences would be. The impact inside the United States would, of course, be a period of bitter recrimination, with savage Presidential elections added to racial problems, alas, which would undermine morale and would

  251
  then affect the United States in Europe. This is where the question comes back to our doorstep, in this country. This is the importance of what is happening out in the Far East, not only to those likely to be affected, but to this country.
  This is the obverse of the situation which arose after Cuba. After Cuba, there was a period of stability and the trouble over Berlin ceased, because of the way in which President Kennedy played that hand. Were the situation in the Far East to go wrong, I believe that the converse would be the result and that the Soviet Union would once again exert pressure on the pressure points. Those two main points would be the Middle East and Berlin.
  That therefore brings us back to the point at which we started—the importance of the N.A.T.O. organisation and seeing that it is effectively organised[Interruption.]—I have never said, to answer the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), that we should send troops to Vietnam and I do not say that now. I believe that it is our job to do what we can to maintain stability in Malaysia and Singapore. It is not economic aid which those countries now want and which the Government will apparently offer them, but security and a degree of stability—and that we have been able to give them in the past.
  What I am saying is that there could not have been a worse time, from the general point of view in South-East Asia or from the point of view of relations with our allies, to announce the premature withdrawal from the Far East, against the wishes of all our friends. We have every wish to see a negotiated settlement, as much as anyone on the other side of the House. I beg leave to doubt whether the 14-Power Conference will be the way to bring that about, but I do believe that the President's position could bring the North Vietnamese to the conference table. What they would discuss there, so long as they maintain that everything inside Vietnam is purely a matter for the Vietcong, I do not know, but at least to get them started on talks would be something.
  We must recognise at the moment the real gap between the two sides in inten-
  252
  tions, which has been shown very clearly in the last few weeks. There is, of course, no inducement to the North Vietnamese to go to the conference table until they see that they cannot win. I fear that they will not reach this conclusion before the Presidential elections, for the reason that they will believe that, by their own military action, they can persuade the President of the United States to change his policy or, failing that, that they will change the President of the United States and get a President with a new policy. Until that situation is clear, I fear that there is little hope of persuading the North Vietnamese that they cannot win but must come at once to the conference table.
  I hope that the House will recognise the great issues which are at stake. I regret that the path on which the Government have embarked gives them less and less influence in these matters which are of such vital importance to the whole world. I would therefore say to the Secretary of State: he has gone back on his own word, he has broken his country's undertakings, he has changed his policies many times. If he thought that he was pursuing the right policy now, he might be able to justify everything else, at any rate to himself, even if not to the whole country.
  But he knows in his heart of hearts, and the Prime Minister knows, as does the Foreign Secretary, that he is not pursuing the right defence policy for the interests of this country. We know, from all that he has been fighting for, that he does not think that the premature withdrawal from the Far East or from the Middle East or the sacrifices involved in the South African arms order are policies in the real interests of this country. That is my condemnation of him, that he is now pursuing policies which he personally knows to be wrong and unjustifiable. That is why he should not stay in his present position and why there should be a fresh start.
  To the Government, I say that they, like every Government, have two foremost tasks, which only Government can carry through. The first is to maintain the value of the currency and the second is to protect the national interest and security. The Government failed last November in the first of maintaining

  253
  the currency. They are now failing to maintain the national security—and that is why we shall condemn them tonight.
  4.27 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): The Leader of the Opposition has made an interesting speech, including a number of what I think are new ideas, particularly some of those relating to the policy of the French Government. He put forward some opinions on Vietnam, where there are, of coarse, no British troops covered by the White Paper or the Votes which we shall be discussing in the next few days. But most of these points he directed immediately above my head to the Secretary of State, who I assure him will be replying to him on these matters later this evening.
  I want to deal with one point which the right hon. Gentleman made, because it is a fallacy which ran through many of his utterances about our possible military presence in the Gulf and the Far East. He said that we were coming out of the Gulf to save a miserable £12½ million a year. I must nail this once and for all. It is not a saving of £12½ million a year but a saving greatly in excess of that sum. The 12½ million is a slight underestimate of the actual local expenditure in maintaining the forces which we have in the Persian Gulf.
  But that is only the tip of the iceberg of the problem of staying in that part of the world. If we have two battalions of troops in the Persian Gulf on unaccompanied tours of 9 or 12 months, we must have three or four or five more battalions sitting here at home to rotate with them. As everyone knows, we pay our soldiers, sailors and airmen what is, in effect, a United Kingdom wage, but expect them to serve overseas, and, in fairness, we cannot expect them to do so for long periods without having the opportunity to serve at home as well.
  I believe that oil companies work on a different basis, paying a very high overseas rate for people whom they expect to remain there for a very long time. However, for just two battalions there the right hon. Gentleman must count the cost of the others in the United Kingdom for rotation purposes. They will have to have home tours here in the United Kingdom. Naturally they may spend such a home tour in B.A.O.R.
  254
  If we had two battalions in the Persian Gulf, as hon. Members who have served in the Army Department will know, one has to make provision in a total year of duty for the other battalions which are going to relieve them. One would have to make provision for the continuance of a carrier force of some kind, and that cannot be done with one aircraft carrier, or even one new aircraft carrier. It will require more than that, and they would have to start building them in due course.
  It also requires the considerable additional back up in the United Kingdom. One cannot discuss the type of military operation one can get involved in with a military presence in that part of the world and deal only with all the troops there at any one moment. We have to provide additional support in this country or elsewhere in the world to support the small numbers of soldiers there if they are attacked by superior forces.
  The £12½ million does not include the cost of providing Royal Air Force aeroplanes. That is the local annual running cost. There are millions of pounds worth of aircraft which would have to be ordered on the Defence Budget all of which would have to be stationed in the Middle East. Let us get away from the idea that it costs £12½ million to stay in the Gulf. It will continue to cost many times more than that amount.
  Mr. Robert Carr: I would like to establish an understanding of the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making. He is saying, is he not—and this is the point I would like him to confirm—that if we do not have these forces in the Gulf, to take his example, we can do without all these other forces in the background. This presumes that the other forces in the background have no other defence duties and can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that saving the two battalions in the Gulf is really going to allow for cutting six battalions off the Army?
  Mr. Reynolds: In saving two battalions in the Gulf and saving battalions in Singapore and Malaysia, as hon. Gentlemen who have served in the Army Department know, there is a certain amount of double counting in these operations. One has to keep more battalions at home to back up those overseas. I would not put the whole cost

  255
  of carriers on the Gulf, but if they came out of the Far East and stayed in the Gulf it would cost whatever it is to carry on the Gulf operation. We have to maintain large stores in this country and employ large numbers of civil servants to run them, and hon. Gentlemen Opposite have been criticising us on the number of civil servants we have.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: What about the general capability mentioned in the White Paper?
  Mr. Reynolds: The general capability is mentioned in the White Paper, but the more commitments we have overseas the bigger the capability required to back them up and help them needed in the United Kingdom. The £12½ million which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is not the entire local cost of physically stationing a given number of men in the Persian Gulf. It is nothing like the total of the cost of commitment of remaining in that part of the world.
  This has been a slightly unusual debate so far. It was only a week or so ago that the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in which he referred to cuts announced by the Prime Minister on the 16th January as being rather bogus. We have now in effect a vote of censure on the cuts as announced on 16th January, which the right hon. Gentleman described as bogus cuts. I find it difficult to reconcile these two arguments.
  An Amendment has been moved by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in one of the most amazing speeches I have heard, a speech that consisted of 30 quotations linked together by a few words which the right hon. Gentleman made up himself. I must plead with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to allow his right hon. Friend to speak his own mind and not tie him down to quoting other people's speeches, to unzip his lips and speak his mind. I am sure it would be more interesting than the scissors and paste job he has just undertaken. He never told us during that speech yesterday what the Amendment meant. It is a vote of censure because it condemns Her Majesty's Government apparently for undermining the confidence of the Services. I would not deny that at the present time there is a
  256
  sense of uncertainty in the Services, particularly about future careers, particularly amongst long service members. That is not because of a deliberate decision to create such uncertainties. It is because of policy decisions which Her Majesty's Government have taken.
  Those decisions are not mentioned in the Amendment. It talks of undermining confidence of our friends and allies but this is the result of deliberate decisions. If this is so why are the facts not mentioned in the Amendment? I cannot understand why this particular Amendment refers to some of the so-called symptoms but says nothing about what presumably in hon. Members' minds is the cause, which I assume they are saying is our decision to withdraw from Singapore and Malaysia in 1971 and from the Gulf at about the same time. Why is this not mentioned in the Amendment? The Services, about whom they are expressing concern, and the allies and electors about whom they are also expressing concern, have a right to know what Her Majesty's Opposition is thinking on these policy decisions of the Government. We have a right to know the views of the Opposition on this matter, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman, who has been appointed Chairman of the Conservative Party, said a few weeks ago that there was obviously going to be a General Election soon and urged Conservative stormtroopers in the constituencies to get ready for it—it was certain that the Conservatives would win that election. I do not think that either of those things is likely, but we have the right to know, if and when they are returned to power, whether they intend to maintain a military presence in Malaysia, Singapore and the Gulf into the 1970s. On that subject we have not heard a single word from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, the Opposition spokesman on defence. No one has told us whether the hon. Gentlemen intend to maintain a military presence until the 70s.
  Mr. Heath: I have made the position absolutely clear on many occasions, including in the debate on the cuts. I would ask the hon. Gentleman what is wrong with doing what he was going to do up to 16th January.
  Mr. Reynolds: Now we are apparently told—would the right hon. Gentleman correct me if I am assessing him wrongly—that he agreed with the policy up to 16th January. Am I right in assuming that until 16th January the right hon. Gentleman agreed with the policy?
  Mr. Healey: He voted against it.
  Mr. Reynolds: We still do not know whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite intend that into the 1970s, if they get the opportunity to do anything about it, they will maintain a military presence or whether they will withdraw from that part of the world.
  Mr. Heath: I made the position clear in the debate before. What I have always said is that I believe we ought to maintain a presence in Malaysia and Singapore and the Gulf and that we are capable of doing this. So long as our friends want us to remain there it is possible for us to maintain a presence there.
  Mr. Reynolds: I will come to that shortly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I will not evade the issue. I will be dealing with that point shortly. At least we have the position somewhat clearer now. I was rather worried by the thought that the Amendment was worded in its present form, in an effort to obtain a unified front in the Lobby tonight, because we know the wide differences of view among hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter.
  We now have it clear—at least, I gather that this is what the Leader of the Opposition was saying—that hon. Gentlemen opposite would wish to maintain a military presence in the Gulf and the Far East for as long as they possibly could into the 'seventies. One must look at the consequences of that. We would need in the Regular Army at least 12 more battalions of troops than are planned at present for the mid-'seventies. That would cost a considerable amount. We would need not just a new aircraft carrier but new aircraft carriers to allow a policy of that nature to proceed. We would need to purchase the F111 or a similar aircraft if we intended to stay in the Far East and the Gulf. We would need to retain literally thousands of civilians in employment in this country
  258
  to provide the back-up for our forces in the Gulf and the Far East—this at a time when hon. Gentlemen opposite are complaining about the number of civil servants, although if the policy of the Leader of the Opposition were implemented, they would need many thousands more civil servants.
  Such a policy would also mean at least—and I stress the phrase "at least"—£200 million to £300 million more on the Defence Budget in the early and mid-'seventies than is proposed in the White Paper. One cannot guess from where hon. Gentlemen opposite would find this sort of money, but presumably there would have to be cuts of some sort in other non-military services. I will only say at this point that I am glad that we at least have a better idea now of their intention, which is to maintain a presence in that part of the world. We can only hope that they realise the grave financial consequences that would be involved in implementing such a policy and the cuts that would have to be made in other aspects of Government expenditure here at home to meet such a liability.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: They are consequences which the Government were intending up to two months ago.
  Mr. Reynolds: I do not disagree, and I will explain why.
  I believe that the decision to withdraw from these parts of the world is right, although I regret that we have had to speed up the withdrawal which was announced in July of last year. This has occurred for reasons which we debated a few weeks ago. The basic decision which we took—and it was the basic decision, and we are still working on it—was announced in July of last year. I believe that it is right and that it is the logical conclusion to the events of the last 30 years.
  In the debate yesterday the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) criticised the Government and said that we went from scuttle in Abadan in 1951 to getting out of Aden last year. In both instances—
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I must interrupt the Minister. We know that the ice under his feet is exceedingly thin, but need he move quite so fast over it?
  Mr. Reynolds: Considering the length of time that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House and has listened to speeches, I am surprised that he has not yet managed to generate the ability to listen to a speech and take it in. I regret that he is unable to take in what I am saying, speed or no speed. Most hon. Members have no difficulty in being able to absorb my remarks.
  As I was saying, we were accused yesterday of saying that we would stay in Abadan and then of getting out, and of saying that we would stay in Aden and then of getting out from there, too. Our decision to get out of the Gulf and the Far East is, I believe, the logical conclusion of what has been happening in the last 30 years. Indeed, we still have a very long way indeed to go to catch up with the number of overseas bases which hon. Gentlemen opposite left when they were in power for 13 years prior to 1964.
  In most of those instances, Conservative leaders said only a few months prior to their leaving that they had every intention of staying. It was, we were told, essential to have Cyprus as a base. But 360 lives later they decided that it was possible to have a much smaller base there. They made an agreement over the Suez base, yet they came out of there leaving behind millions of £s worth of equipment, only a matter of weeks after saying that we would be staying for one purpose or another. They built up a brand new base in Kenya at considerable cost, and then shortly afterwards decided to leave it. They decided in 1957 that the manned bomber could more or less disappear, and then they had to bring it back.
  There have been many changes in defence policy over the last 30 years, many of them involving moving out of overseas bases, giving up our overseas presence and similar decisions. Those decisions were taken, in many cases, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power. We are now progressing towards the end of that stage and it is a logical process that we should give up our presence in the Gulf and the Far East.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a sarcastic reference—I use the word in reference to us and not to the Rulers—to the meeting held a few days ago of Rulers in
  260
  the Gulf area. He said that it appeared that they would be setting up a federation in the Gulf and, sarcastically, he went on to point out that we had condemned federations in the past. Our condemnation of the federations in, for example, South Yemen and Central Africa came about because they were forced upon us. We were the governing power in some of the countries concerned, but we are not the governing power or the colonial power in these areas. This meeting was held freely by the individual rulers concerned and if a federation should arise out of it, I would personally welcome it. It would be different from the deliberately created federation which we set up, completely against the wishes of the people who were living in the area at that time.
  I come to some of the problems, which arise for our Forces, in putting into operation the decisions of the Government which have been approved by this House. I refer to the withdrawal from the Far East and the Gulf. We are now in a position when we would wish to link together the withdrawal from the Gulf and the Far East with the announcement, which has been made, of a rundown in the total of forces of something over 75,000. We will be withdrawing by the end of 1971 from the Far East and the Gulf, and will be bringing home, about 50,000 Service men and their families. While we will be bring home these 50,000 men, we will also, over a slightly longer period, be reducing the total size of our forces by 75,000 men, so that the total reduction will exceed the numbers being brought home. This occurs because one must retain a large number of people at home to back up the forces overseas.
  During the last 18 months to two years we have withdrawn about 30,000 men from Libya, Malta, Cyprus, Germany and Aden. To accommodate those men and their families in this country, we had to purchase about 7,500 houses and refurbish barracks, costing more than £30 million. Last night the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) quoted my right hon. Friend as saying that to save £100 of overseas local expenditure in the Far East we had to spend £500 in the United Kingdom; and that to save £100 in Germany we had to spend £2,000 here. While his quotation was correct, he misunderstood the position. To save annual expenditure of £100 in Germany

  261
  or the Far East means our making capital expenditure once and for all of £2,000 and £500, respectively, in the United Kingdom.
  This will not apply to anything like the same extent to the withdrawal to which I am now referring, from the Gulf and the Far East, for two reasons: First, we decided early in 1967 to purchase about 600 houses more than we required, at that time, for the withdrawals that were in progress, and to bring a few extra barracks nearer to a usable standard than was the position at that time. We did that deliberately, to put ourselves in the position of readiness against possible withdrawals in any other part of the world. Thus, we now have almost all of those extra 600 houses and the additional barracks, most of which are now near a state of readiness. A large number of them are in Edinburgh and in other parts of Scotland and are at present unoccupied.
  The second reason is that we are discussing working out proposals to phase the withdrawals in with the rundown of the forces. As I said, while 50,000 men will be coming back, the total rundown will be of 75,000 men. I hope to give further information about this later in the year. It does not look as if any great requirement for large numbers of additional houses or barracks will arise. There may be some local needs and we may have to provide a few extra barracks in some isolated instances. But, generally speaking, we will be able to phase the withdrawal to fit in with the existing stock of houses and barracks, provided that the withdrawal can be done in an orderly way. I hope to say more about this matter later in the year. I would only add at this point that we will not have to incur this sort of capital expenditure. It has already been incurred and, as the rundown goes on, we will be able to use the capital assets in terms of the further units that are available.
  It is right that at this stage of the debate I should say something on the question of Forces pay, because normally every two years at this time of the year we know the position. On most occasions this has been published before the debate takes place. On one occasion it was announced by the Secreatry of State in the opening stages because he was de-
  262
  liberately deciding to spread the increase over two years instead of one. We are in the position at present of not being able to make an announcement. Hon. Members will remember that a few weeks ago it was announced that the whole matter has been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board.
  My right hon. Friend is in a rather unusual position for a Minister. Because there is no trade union for the Forces, he has to act in a double capacity. On the one hand he signs a paper submitting a case as a trade union general secretary to the Board. Then he has to sit as a member of the Cabinet deciding what will happen to the reply of the Board after the submission. We have made a submission to the Board, which is an independent body. We drew attention to the fact that when the original announcement was made, under the normal Grigg arrangements the Forces would be expecting to have an answer quickly. I am sure that the Board will pay attention to that and will give a decision as quickly as possible. Then the Cabinet can decide on it once it is available.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make an announcement?
  Mr. Reynolds: That is what I have said. I cannot answer because the Prices and Incomes Board is an independent statutory body, and no Minister can instruct the Board to make a report by any given date. What we have done is to draw its attention to the fact that under the previous Grigg arrangements there would have been a reassessment of Service pay and salaries on 1st April this year. I am sure that the Board is aware of the position and will be making a report as soon as possible. One thing we cannot do is to instruct the Board to report by a particular time. It is an independent body. But I have every confidence that it will make a report as soon as possible. As soon as we get the report we shall make an announcement on any recommendations.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the hon. Gentleman say something similarly about local overseas allowance following devaluation?
  Mr. Reynolds: I was just coming to devaluation. When devaluation took place

  263
  we introduced a temporary provision to cover the then existing position. That came to an end on 1st March. Since then I have heard many complaints about the way in which the matter was dealt with. Some of those complaints were justified; not all of them, but some.
  I want to explain the critical position we were in when dealing with this problem. One wishes that things were simple, but it was not just a question of increasing all pay allowances by 16⅔ to offset the effect of devaluation on Forces overseas. I take the case of B.A.O.R. as an example, but the same applies to troops in all areas abroad. Only two-thirds of the total pay of soldiers and officers in B.A.O.R. is drawn across the pay table. It is easy to see why this is. It is because Income Tax is deducted at source in sterling; National Insurance contributions are deducted at source in sterling; and a large number of soldiers make direct arrangements for sums to be remitted home for their wives and dependants in the United Kingdom. They are paid in sterling and they also have to pay hire-purchase debts and for savings of one kind or another.
  For them two-thirds of the total amount of pay that could be drawn is in fact drawn in B.A.O.R. and the same applies in other parts of the world. Of that two-thirds only three-quarters is spent on goods purchased in relation to the Deutschmark. The remaining quarter goes in a number of ways into the United Kingdom account for remittances, savings through the Army Post Office, and things of that nature. What we have to compensate for devaluation is three-quarters of two-thirds of the total pay because that is the amount which has lost some of the purchasing value because of the decision to devalue. We had to allow for the fact that devaluation would have an effect on the standard of living in the United Kingdom. I think I am right in saying that a price increase of about 3½ per cent. was mentioned. We had to make sure that Servicemen in this respect would be no worse off and no better off than citizens in the United Kingdom.
  Working out the total sum, three-quarters of the two-thirds, and making allowance for the increase in cost of living, for the B.A.O.R. is not itself a difficult question of arithmetic, but splitting up
  264
  that money among the 50,000 individuals who are entitled to draw it is very difficult. One has not got the actual machinery within the pay system designed solely to deal with devaluation of the £. So one has to make use of what is known as the local overseas allowance. So we split the amount of money up to make improvements in local overseas allowances, which vary according to rank and marital status, whether there is a family living with the man concerned or at home, and things of that nature.
  Local overseas allowance was designed to make an extra sum of money available to be paid to the soldier in order to make his position comparable to that if he were living in the United Kingdom. Yet individual drawings vary. Some draw all the money and some save a large proportion. This is the only machinery we have, the local overseas allowance, but because some people spend the money very differently, some will have gained; and others, I am afraid, will have lost. But we have no other machinery for dealing with the problem than this rather blunt instrument of local overseas allowance, which was never designed to deal with a matter of this kind. We have tried to make it as fair as possible, but I do not deny that some have suffered in various parts of the world.
  We are, however, speeding up the full review which is due to take place this year of local overseas allowances, to get back to a new starting position in which we can make sure that the allowances are up to date and genuinely reflect the difference between United Kingdom and overseas stations. Any increases in the allowance which are found to be justified will, of course, be back-dated.
  Mr. Powell: Is the fall in the internal purchasing power of the £ which has been taken into account in the revision of the local overseas allowances the fall between November and now, or does it also include a prospective fall for a further period?
  Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that it was announced at the time of devaluation, or soon afterwards, that it was expected over the next 12 months the cost of living in this country would go up by about 3 per cent. That is the figure on which we have

  265
  been working. As one of the Treasury Ministers said the other day, the cost of living has gone up so far by 1 per cent. Therefore we have not taken off the full 3 per cent. because it is coming into operation at a time before the cost of living has gone up by the full 3 per cent., but it will carry on after the increase of 3 per cent. I think it is reasonably fair. I think the whole thing is fair, but there is the difficulty of splitting up the bulk of the sum among 50,000 people.
  I want to say a few words about the run-down of the Services and the redundancy problem. We stated in the White Paper that redundancy would be at the rate of about 2,500 a year. Obviously, because of the shortening of the period and the hastened withdrawal from the Far East, the actual redundancy will now be faster than an average of 2,500 a year. I will give the current figures for this year and next year. In the Navy few if any redundancies will occur until the carrier force goes out of operation. This means no change from the previous arrangement, but nevertheless, it was reduced by 1,800 personnel for 1967–68 and will go down by about another 2,000 in the current financial year.
  In the Army 1,000 men were declared redundant in 1967–68. There will be about 1,750 redundancies in the current year 1968–69, but the strength of the Army dropped by 2,000 in 1967–68 and will drop by 5,000 approximately during the current year. In the Royal Air Force there will be a redundancy of 950 in 1967–68; during the year 1968–69 the redundancy will be about 1,600 men. The reductions over this same period were of 3,250 in 1967–68 and about 4,500 during the coming financial year. I am glad to say nearly all the redundancies so far are from volunteers, except for some 240 senior N.C.O.s in the Royal Air Force, and some brigadiers and quartermaster commissioned officers in the Army. We hope to be able to fill as many as possible redundancies during the run-clown period by volunteers of one sort or the other.
  Whilst redundancies will continue for some years to come, we still need recruits. Some 40,000 men leave the Services each year in the normal course of events and the average length of
  266
  service of all soldiers, sailors, airmen and officers is about eight years. We therefore need about 1,000 recruits each year for each 10,000 serving men in the three Services. Most of the redundancies which will be declared will be amongst older men. This enables us to keep the average age of the Forces down. It is essential to have a majority in the Forces of fit young men by declaring redundant the older N.C.O.s and officers, thus keeping open opportunities of promotion for younger Service men and officers; and to encourage them to stay on when there is the opportunity of a career—as there is in the Forces at the present time.
  To maintain balanced Forces at the present time, and to maintain those Forces in the entire period covered by this White Paper and into the 1970s, we shall need some 35,000 new recruits every year from now into the foreseeable future. That means, in other words, we have to continue recruiting at roughly the present rate in order to maintain the balanced Forces required in the next ten years. We have to continue advertising as hard as we can on television and in other places.
  I would like to mention the advertisement which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, brought before the House yesterday afternoon. I think it is a very good advertisement indeed; it is 99 per cent. correct. The hon. Gentleman has picked on the 1 per cent., and I readily admit that the advertisement does in fact mention "speeding up reductions announced in July", and the White Paper did say the reductions would be rather more than the 75,000 actually announced in July. I apologise for that and that will be put right in any further advertisement of this nature. The rest of the advertisement is completely correct. It says we shall have large Forces by peace-time standards, and that is perfectly true. We shall have very large Forces by peace-time standards. It says the Army will be "strong, with more fire power, a higher proportion of armour and more and better support than any Army we have ever had". It is perfectly true and applies to the other two Services as well. It says that the Army must be ready to go anywhere in the world, will have more overseas training and, most important, our commitment remains the

  267
  main commitment to the NATO Alliance—all factual statements which are correct.
  We shall need 35,000 young men a year who will have to be physically fit, mentally alert and have above average intelligence in order to enable us to carry out these commitments.
  Mr. Powell: As this is a further aid to recruitment, and the right hon. Gentleman and I are on the same side on that matter, can he give any further indication than the very vague indication in the White Paper and the Grey Paper of what this extra reduction is likely to be? He referred to it just now as "rather more"; the expression in the Paper is "greater", and it is unquantified. This is a great difficulty from the point of view of recruitment.
  Mr. Reynolds: It is not really a great difficulty from the point of view of recruitment. We know we shall want a very large number of men. What I am afraid of is that we shall want more than we in fact can get. It does not inhibit us in recruiting at the moment, but I do hope by later in the year we shall be able to put more detailed proposals, concerned with this particular matter and others, before the House. It will be more than 75,000 men; the advertisement in that respect is incorrect and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and the House for it. We shall want these 35,000 men; we shall be able to offer them an interesting and useful career and, in most cases, they will acquire skills during their period of service, that will be of use to them later in civilian life.
  There is, both for officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen at this present moment, whether they come in as adults or apprentices, still, and for many years to come, a good and viable career in the armed services.
  Mr. James Ramsden: Can we have the Army share of the 35,000 figure?
  Mr. Reynolds: I am speaking of the present moment, and it is slightly under 20,000. If the hon. Gentleman takes my rule of thumb and counts 1,000 for every 10,000 this would give him the approximate figure. The figures are in the White Paper.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has there been consideration of the question of de-recruitment from the Army? It is my proposal, which I often put forward, that with the enormous amount of crime there is an enormous need for police and prison warders. I wonder whether the opportunity will be given for the officers and men in the army to de-recruit to defend the civilian population of this country?
  Mr. Reynolds: I am glad this point has been made. We do "de-recruit", as my hon. Friend puts it, some 40,000 men every year from the Services back into civilian life. That is the normal run-out termination of engagement, or if someone leaves for compassionate reasons or is discharged for other reasons. It is a large number—40,000 a year.
  One impression my hon. Friend has and which I know—from letters I have been receiving—others have, is that because there is a run-down going on we can let anyone leave the Services who wishes to leave. I am afraid that is not so. During the whole of the period of the run-down we have to maintain viable Forces, with units ready to go into action and meet any requirement made of them. Whilst the run-down goes on, the actual redundancy will appear only in certain specified ranks, trade and age categories. We are concerned with getting the number of recruits we need into the Forces, even up to the reduced level.
  In conclusion, I must refer to the statement made by two of my hon. Friends in debate some 12 months ago, my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), when they called for a defence budget of below £1,750 million. So far as the White Paper is concerned we are now going further than that, with the necessary reductions of commitments which make such a step possible.
  In the past three years my hon. Friends will realise that we have been able, by reductions in defence costs, to make a substantial contribution to the improvements that have been made during that same period in social benefits of all kinds. With the White Paper as now published, when the commitments that we shall have for our own defence and for the defence of Western Europe, I believe we have

  269
  come virtually to the end of that particular road. With the international situation as it is, I cannot see it is going to be possible for us to make any more large savings in the defence budget. We are striving all the time—and this is something which has always been going on—to make savings insofar as is possible for greater efficiency within the Services, but it is the job of Her Majesty's Government to make sure we have adequate defences. I believe we shall have them to meet our commitments in the early 1970's and I believe we shall then be able to get down to a period of stability so far as the Services are concerned. The growth in the economy of this country will enable us, at the same time, to improve the social benefits which everyone desires.
  5.8 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: I do not intend to follow the Secretary of State for Defence in the details of his speech. I want to look at the wider issue of defence which is covered in such a masterly fashion by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  I was impressed by one line in the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday, when he pinpointed the difficulties of asking the right questions in order to get the right, relevant answers. I should like to ask him whether he has ever asked himself what the purpose of defence expenditure was and on what basis we build our defence posture. On the narrow issue today, of course, as in the past, it is the defence of these islands, but there is far more to it than that, as my right hon. Friend pointed out this afternoon.
  Since the rise of Communism, with our allies we seek to preserve peace for our whole Western democratic way of life. We sink or swim together. It is generally recognised that we cannot get security for this country or exert our maximum strength and influence in concert with our allies merely by manning the beaches or the airfields in the United Kingdom. This has been recognised for many decades. Before the war the late Lord Baldwin created consternation by saying that our frontier was on the Rhine. Today it is said that our frontier is on the Himalayas; and there is some truth in that. For that reason we had, and
  270
  still have today, our system of bases all over the world.
  This defence posture meets our two requirements. First, we protect our own lines of communication, which are of decisive importance to these islands. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) yesterday to point out that to these islands our shipping today is as vital as it ever was if we are to survive. Secondly, by our defence posture today we bring encouragement and help to our friends and allies on the periphery of the Communist world. In recent years there have been many examples of timely military assistance from Britain to our friends. The latest example is Mauritius. This readiness and capability to aid our friends and allies is usually referred to as "brush fire policy". That is one way of putting it. We stop incipient wars from escalating.
  It is enshrined in national policy under the label, "The object of our defence forces is to stop wars from starting". I believe that both Conservative and Socialist Parties subscribe to that. It is a very good policy. I do not think that anyone can logically argue that we can follow this policy if we confine our forces to Britain and to Europe. Although as yet our European friends do not do much overseas, I believe that they recognise the value of what we are doing. De Gaulle may be an exception at present, but he will not always be there.
  Under the latest Government plan which we have had in the last month or two we are making a fundamental change in our defence policy. It is no longer to be to stop wars from starting. That is not all. It was and is recognised that, if one of the free world's defensive segments gives way, in the end all may be lost. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition touched on this point. That danger was well demonstrated by Hitler in Europe in the 1930s. It is one reason why the United States is fighting in Vietnam, has her far flung dispositions outside the United States, has her early warning systems, her fleets all over the world, and has nearly 1 million men in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Today in that strategic conception Britain stands by the side of the United States and her other allies.

  271
  In this context I was surprised to read a statement by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs reported in The Times a few days ago. I imagine that it reflects the Government's thinking. The report said:
  "Yesterday Mr. George Thomson made a spirited counter-attack. He pointed out that the decision to base British defence on Europe—which does not exclude military support for the Commonwealth—is the delayed adjustment to the ending of Empire. It marks the inevitable end of an imperial defence system…"
  If the Government really think that, I believe that they represent the modern Rip van Winkle, because that policy is very much out of date.
  Time is running out. The policies announced by the Government are calculated to destroy our present defence posture and seriously weaken our links with our allies and our overseas friends. As we know, we are to withdraw to Britain and Europe. That has made very clear the importance which the Government attach to this. They have made such statements as this:
  "We therefore intend to make to the alliances of which we are members a contribution related to our economic capability while recognising that our security lies fundamentally in Europe…"
  That statement appears in paragraph 11 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 3515.
  I question that assumption. Is it true at this time? Nobody doubts the great importance of Europe. The military cemeteries demonstrate that only too well, but in the last war Europe went and Britain survived. We survived because we preserved our lines of communication all over the world. I shall not dwell on that, because I want to keep to the wider issues.
  The question, as I see it, is whether, by withdrawn from east of Suez, this country in particular, and the Western democratic world in general, is more secure. In judging this issue we cannot neglect the timing of our withdrawal. We on this side have said many times that we do not intend to stay for ever east of Suez; but is it not clear that there are aggressive and expansionist forces waiting now to take our place?
  We know the Communist's strategy. If held up in one area, they probe another. Sooner or later the Vietnam war will
  272
  come to an end. If there is a vacuum created by our withdrawal from Malaysia or other parts of South-East Asia, the Communists will probe there. India lives under the menace of China and her nuclear bomb. She has already been attacked. The Gulf areas are highly unstable without a British presence at this time. The Government's proposed action will expose an enormous gap from Suez to Singapore in the southern front of the Western Powers.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am trying to reconcile the point of view which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is expressing with the point of view held by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). In a speech made at the Conservative Party conference in 1965 the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "However much we may do to safguard and reassure the new independent countries in Asia and Africa, the eventual limits of Russian and Chinese advance in those directions will be fixed by a balance of forces which will itself be Asiatic and African. The two Communist empires are already in a state of mutual antagonism but every advance or threatened advance by one or the other calls into existence countervailing forces sometimes nationalistic in character."
  The right hon. Gentleman ended in this way—
  Mr. John M. Temple: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to make a very long quotation in intervention?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) will bring his intervention to a speedy conclusion.
  Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman ended by saying this:
  "We have to reckon with the harsh fact that the attainment of this eventual equilibrium in forces may at some point be delayed rather than hastened by Western military presence."
  How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman bring his argument into line with that of the right hon. Gentleman, who unfortunately is not here at this moment?
  Captain W. Elliot: I do not intend to go into all the details of a speech made by my right hon. Friend in the past. I had stressed the vital importance of timing. I hope that what my right hon.

  273
  Friend says will ultimately be so. But at present it is not, and that is why we are there. Look at what is already happening. The Russians are moving into the area. They are now installed on the Suez Canal and are moving south. They have learned the lesson of maritime strategy from Britain and the United States and they are building up their maritime forces. I understand that they are building an aircraft carrier, while we are scrapping ours. When Russia puts out a brush fire war in the future the result will be very different from what it would be if we put it out.
  It is no good the Government talking about a capability to operate in other parts of the world. We just cannot send off plane loads of troops for 10,000 miles. Where are the lines of communication, the supporting forces, and the air cover? Without them we cannot send off those forces. In any case, if there is a Russian presence already in the area it would be folly to send forces there. It would be an incitement to war.
  The whole balance of power is being upset before our eyes, and I believe that as a result war is closer. What should or can be done? First, I recognise that we may not have the wealth we once had to maintain large, self-contained, far-flung bases with the men and arms needed. Second, although Europe is of great importance at present, the danger areas are the Middle East and Far East. In any case, the Government are not withdrawing forces from east of Suez to build up those in Europe. I understand that they are also withdrawing forces from Europe.
  We still have firm, powerful and well-situated base facilities at Gibraltar, Malta and Simonstown, though I do not know how long we shall have them if the Government continue some of their present policies. We must keep those bases. We must keep a presence in the Gulf and Singapore, not forever, but not for any stated period. We want a small presence, and there is all the difference in the world between a small presence and none at all. We can do this at a reasonable cost within our means. Our forces must then be reorganised on the basis of maritime strategy, by which I mean the ability to place a well-balanced force of all arms at a key point and time of our choosing. I do not advocate for one moment withdrawal of our army from Germany. That
  274
  is a good place to have it, and it must be somewhere.
  I do not want to develop today the details of what our mobile force should consist of. An hon. Gentleman opposite made a very interesting speech in which he spoke of one or two technical advances, like smaller, cheaper carriers. To them I would add the vertical takeoff aircraft. A well-balanced mobile force is within our means. At times of growing danger we could split it and have the nucleus of two or more forces. That would give a coherent defence strategy, which is so sadly lacking at present.
  Why have the Government made their present decisions? I believe that they are entirely political in concept. The Government think that they will placate General de Gaulle and smooth our entry into the Common Market. They see no escape from our economic difficulties except by entry into the Common Market. In order to get out of an economic mess the Government are abandoning positions of strength, throwing away solid assets in an area and at a time which is crucial to our security and that of the Western world. For that reason, I shall vote against the Government tonight, with the hope that we shall return to power in time to avert the dangers.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: If the apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) about potential Communist aggression are justified, what is the conclusion? Either we surrender or we accept the responsibility, unilaterally or in conjunction with our allies wherever we can find them, of resisting such aggression. Where does the latter conclusion lead us? It would make a demand on whatever Government are in power for the provision of vast quantities of modern equipment and manpower, all the paraphernalia needed in preparation for war. We must accept that those requirements are beyond our means.
  The alternative which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested appeared to be a kind of fragmentation of our forces, however meagre they are, distributing them all over the world, with small pockets here and small pockets there, parcels of men with available material

  275
  to deal with a situation should it arise. That is completely unrealistic.
  Captain W. Elliot rose—
  Mr. Shinwell: Already? Surely not. Allow me to be warmed up a bit. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman can intervene a little later. I have not the least doubt that I shall be interrupted several times, because the theme I propose to develop may vary substantially from that already embarked upon on both sides of the House.
  What disturbs me about this defence debate is that it seems to be completely divorced from reality. I do not doubt that facts have been stated, but conclusions are not consistent with the facts. Before I develop that aspect of the theme which will occupy the attention of the House—I hope not for very long, but long enough to drive it home, because it is about time it was driven home—I shall say just a word or two about the right hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House from the Opposition Front Bench. What a contrast! This afternoon we had a conventional, orthodox—almost ultra-orthodox speech, amiable in delivery and expression, from the Leader of the Opposition. What a contrast with the speech yesterday from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Far be it from me to be offensive to him but, with the highest respect, I say that his speech seemed to me to be a denigration, a sustained denigration, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Mr. Powell indicated assent.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman agrees. Indeed, I would describe it as a sustained sneer.
  Mr. Powell: Yes, it was.
  Mr. Shinwell: With no qualifications or reservations.
  Mr. Powell indicated assent.
  Mr. Shinwell: As a Parliamentary method, it is up to form, and I raise no objection, because when I look round this assembly in an important debate on defence—the attendance was even worse yesterday—I wonder whether it is possible to survive in an atmosphere of this kind. It has to be livened up, and the
  276
  right hon. Gentleman does enliven the proceedings occasionally. But this is a debate on defence and he said nothing about it. That was the trouble. I will not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of indulging in quotations—that is common form with us. Almost every right hon. and hon. Member does it from time to time. It has been going on for years and will go on for several years longer. But he said nothing about the substance of defence.
  What do I mean by that? Not merely the number of men, the categories, the finance, the munitions of war, the preparations for war, but strategy—by which I mean how we envisage a future war and, if we have some conception of a future war, what kind of strategy we propose to deploy should it confront us.
  Even my right hon. Friend said very little on that subject, indeed, hardly a word. He may have thought that he had, on previous occasions, dealt with the subject, and that therefore it was unnecesary to do so again, but I regard it as what might be described as the solar plexus of the problem, the heart or perhaps the guts of it. We cannot escape from it. We ought to get the facts right.
  First, let us take the Cabinet. There has been a division in the Cabinet for quite a long time. The division is between the Europeans and the Asians. I do not mean the Asians trying to come here but those who occupy a position somewhat different from those taking a European standpoint—those who would prefer not to withdraw our forces from east of Suez. That division has been going on for some time, and the Europeans have won. This is of the essence of the Defence White Paper, which makes it plain what the Government's objective is.
  It can be found at the beginning of the White Paper, which is where it should be. On page 2, under the heading, "N.A.T.O. and the Defence of Europe", it says:
  "We shall thus be able to contribute to the security of N.A.T.O. on a scale corresponding with our efforts to forge closer political and economic links with Europe."
  That is the objective. We are back to square one—the Common Market. All our defence strategy, our defence arrangements, our preparations in manpower

  277
  and the like so far as Europe is concerned are geared to the aspirations of the Government, supported by the Opposition, to gain entry into Europe. That is what it is all about, and let us make no mistake about it.
  I shall venture to demonstrate the truth of that contention. Let us get some of the facts right, and for this purpose I have availed myself, unusually, of some notes on the subject. We talk about capabilities. Today my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration talked about manpower and so on. Consider our capabilities alongside those of a potential aggressor. That is how we get down to brass tacks. What are the facts? I can relate them as regards the expenditure indulged in by the countries associated with N.A.T.O. in contrast with the countries associated with the Iron Curtain.
  This country is spending more than £2,000 million, despite talk of reductions. The expenditure has gone up a little, but there may be reasons for that. I noted yesterday that my right hon. Friend referred to the proposed reductions as being consistent with the expenditure indulged in by France and West Germany. He is quite wrong. I do not know where he got the figures. The fact is that we are expecting to reduce our expenditure, as a result of withdrawal from east of Suez and withdrawals from N.A.T.O., to about £1,600 million. The expenditure of France and West Germany are almost identical at about £1,350 million.
  So even if we reduce our expenditure, we do not reach the level of either France or West Germany. What about the others? Belgium spends £130 million, the Netherlands £300 million and Italy £700 million. The Soviet Union, without regard to expenditure by the other countries associated with the Iron Curtain, spends £30,000 million—more than twice the whole expenditure of the N.A.T.O. countries. Expenditure means weapons, and, to a very large extent, modern weapons. The Soviet Union has modern weapons far more devastating in their effects, if they were used, than anything in our possession.
  Then there is the question of strategy. My right hon. Friend spoke about the old concepts of the trip wire and the brush fire—the terms used by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton. I
  278
  would describe it as a pause in a conventional war of limited character lasting, say, a couple of days or so. That is what all the military experts and the pundits have been saying for years. If it were discovered that our efforts to resist the enemy did not succeed, what would we do? This has been stated deliberately over the years.
  I have here the Defence White Paper of 1955. I shall not trouble to read it out to the House. Right hon. and hon. Members should be acquainted with it. Similar terms were used in the Defence White Paper of 1962 and the same terms have been used by the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. The same terms were used by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), when he was Minister of Defence. They were that they would then use, if a limited conventional attack did not succeed, tactical nuclear weapons. Against whom? A potential aggressor? Why, even East Germany has tactical nuclear weapons—not the whole range of ballistic missiles, continental and inter-continental, but tactical atomic weapons with a range of 150 miles. We have nothing like that in N.A.T.O. What do we have to use against them? If we used tactical atomic weapons there would be a massive retaliation.
  I should like to quote what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in a defence debate last year. He said:
  "If a Western nuclear response to deliberate aggression in Europe is inevitable, the non-nuclear members of the alliance must have some say in how and when the first use of nuclear weapons should be decided."
  That is only part of it. He also said:
  "As I have often told the House, N.A.T.O. would be compelled to resort to nuclear weapons. Within days of an attack; and within days of starting to use nuclear weapons organised warfare would become impossible…In any case, everything we know of Soviet military doctrine, both from books and Soviet exercises, shows that if a war did break out in Europe Russia would use nuclear weapons from the word 'go'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 111–13.]
  The idea that we can avail ourselves of the intentions of the Soviet aggressor to enable us to prepare either for a pause or for a brush fire arrangement or anything of this sort is nonsense. It is not realistic. If there was the slightest danger

  279
  of war, Russia would stand no nonsense and would attack with everything she has. We have not got an earthly.
  What is the conclusion one reaches? All the talk about capabilities, N.A.T.O. and defence, are utterly unrealistic. As I ventured to say to the Leader of the Opposition during his speech, France has withdrawn from N.A.T.O. There is no question about that. L reply to my intervention, the right hon. Gentleman said that he understood that negotiations were proceeding. I would invite hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to read the latest N.A.T.O. Letter and the statement made by the Supreme Commander. He made it perfectly clear. Perhaps I had better read part of it; it ought to be on the record. He said:
  "The French withdrawal from N.A.T.O.'s integrated military organisation and the resultant uncertainty regarding the availability of many important facilities has had a profound effect, not only on our operations but also on the flexibility with which we carry out our operational missions. This particularly affects our dispersal communications and logistic capabilities."
  The fact is that France has done what she has been doing all along—defected.
  How often have I warned the House about this! The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), who was previously Secretary of State for War, must know how, even when I was at the War Office, I informed all who cared to know anything about the subject that it was well known in N.A.T.O. that France, always ready to put something on paper, never implemented what she promised. That has been going on all the time. I can recall when she said that she would assign 15 divisions to N.A.T.O. She never did. She has defected all along the line and now she is almost completely out.
  What is left? We make the most substantial contribution in N.A.T.O. The rest hardly matters. It might be said that Western Germany has 12 divisions. How many divisions has East Germany got? I challenge contradiction on this. If there are members of the Government or experts on the other side of the House with better information, who can contradict what I say, let them do so.
  East Germany has 20 divisions. I am not sure whether they are fully up to
  280
  strength, but neither are ours. We have 24 divisions in N.A.T.O., a few mechanised, a few armoured, a few infantry—24 in all. East Germany has 20 divisions, and I understand has had 10 tank divisions assigned to her by Soviet Russia. She does not need the aid of Soviet Russia if there is a conflict in Europe. The conclusion that I draw from these facts—and if they are disputed, let those who have better information challenge them and give us the facts—is the conclusion that I have ventured to put before the House in defence debates on many occasions.
  It is that if our forces were engaged in a conventional conflict, or used tactical weapons in Germany or Europe, they would be annihilated. I make no bones about this. I would withdraw our forces from Germany, install them in this country and keep them here. I would not necessarily reduce the numbers. I accept a strategic reserve. In parenthesis, although this is probably the most substantial thing that I want to say, I am not one of those—although I often disagree with what some of my hon. Friends think on the subject of defence—who accept the view that we ought to have no defence at all. The country would prefer to have defence, because it may represent to our people, a condition of security imaginary or real.
  I do not argue the merits or demerits of this, but that is how the public feel. That could be said of the general body of people in the country. They want some measure of defence, and it is better to have it here.
  I know that this will offend many people, but I say what I think, and it is about time that it was said: I do not want our troops to be used in order to defend Western Germany, even against Soviet Russia. I see no reason why we should go to their aid. As far as I know, they never came to our assistance in the past. They have caused more trouble than enough.
  Sir Dingle Foot: Has my right hon. Friend never heard of Waterloo and General Blucher?
  Mr. Shinwell: With the exception of General Blucher at Waterloo. That was a long time ago. The Battle of Waterloo was won on the fields of Eton, it is said. I object to British forces being used to

  281
  defend Germany. I see no reason why this should be done. If there is a conflict between East and West Germany, let them fight it out; let them devour each other.
  I want to say a word or two about east of Suez. I have already expressed the view that I thought it was a calcullated risk to withdraw our forces from east of Suez. I accept that it was inevitable. The Government have come to a decision on economic, and to some extent political, grounds and I accept it and will support them. Nevertheless, I regard it as a calculated risk. We are under an obligation to our Commonwealth partners in that area.
  A great deal has been said in this House about complying with obligations, responding to treaties—about our commitments. We have our commitments in S.E.A.T.O. Apart from this, there are commitments to Australia and New Zealand. I suggest that if there is an effort made by Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, or any of the countries concerned in South-East Asia with whom we are allied, to call a conference to discuss the need for military defence in South-East Asia, Britain should take part in it, and I hope that we will. Something should be arranged, something that might be useful perhaps for the purpose of preventing war—a deterrent, if you like. We cannot leave Australia and New Zealand in the lurch. I am certainly not going to be party to it.
  As I do not expect Her Majesty's Government to depart from the decision that they have taken—justified, in their opinion—I accept it but I want the next best, some kind of arrangement of a military character, of an economic, political and diplomatic character, with Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and, if necessary, the Philippines.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a very devoted Commonwealth supporter, but on the question of the defence of Australia, would not he agree that any invasion would automatically bring in American power so that anything we could do would be purely marginal, and is it not extremely unlikely?
  Mr. Shinwell: I was in the Attlee Cabinet when the ANZAM Pact was agreed. I protested against our exclusion.
  282
  I have said that often. When it was decided that the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand should ally themselves in that pact, questions were asked why we were to be excluded, for various reasons which I cannot remember. I protested then for we should have been associated with the pact. We should be drawn in anyway because if Australia or New Zealand were attacked, we are bound in any event to come to their aid in some way. It is perfectly true that America has primary responsibility for coming to the aid of our Commonwealth partners in that area, but why leave it all to the U.S.A.? How could we possibly leave it to them? We are bound to act if there is aggression in the area. I hope that it never happens, but if it does, we cannot run away from our responsibilities.
  The conclusions I reach are these: first of all, we should take our troops out of Europe. There is the question of expenditure in N.A.T.O. I hope right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will study the Defence Estimates. Let them take note of the expenditure on some of the "brass-hats" at N.A.T.O. There are some of them, like Belgian and Dutch generals, and admirals who have nothing to do. They would have no job at all except for N.A.T.O. and what service they render I cannot understand. Therefore, on the ground of expenditure there is no reason why that should go on. We should bring the troops back here and build up a Reserve Army if necessary. I am in favour of that. We could even respond to the demands for the rehabilitation of the Territorial Army. I believe there could be something of the kind as a strategic reserve in this country; and if we have the bombers and the ships we can use that if it should be found necessary. But do not take the risk of a conflict in Europe by defending Germany against Soviet Russia.
  I know that my theme will not be accepted, though its substance may find some acceptance, but I state it and will continue to do so until we adopt a realistic defence policy within our capabilities and our economic capacity. Until we do so, I shall go on repeating this theme over and over again.
  5.54 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I agree with the right hon.

  283
  Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in one important respect at least—that the Government's defence policy has been based very largely on political considerations and not on military ones. I agree with him that we should not leave Australia and New Zealand in the lurch; and, of course, I strongly agree with him about the Territorials. I am afraid I part company with him completely when he seems to indicate that our policy should be, overall, to stand on the white cliffs of Dover with pikes in our hands.
  It is often said that the generals and admirals are preparing to fight the last war or the war before that, but in fact it is the Government who are doing this today. The Government have entirely failed to realise that a completely new dimension in warfare has come about
  Before I develop this theme I would like to say something about this debate and defence debates in general. Defence debates tend to be scrappy and disjointed and are often, unfortunately, not very constructive. To some extent this is true whatever Government are in power, partly because any Government is inhibited by real or supposed considerations of security and partly because any Opposition is frustrated by the lack of information which the present system provides. But this is not the moment to discuss the pros and cons of specialist or Select Committees or any of the various alternatives. I would, however, like to make two points concerning this current debate. If it is even more scrappy and more bad-tempered than such debates usually are, it is because the Government seem to have failed completely to realise the very real worry and concern which their policy of continual cuts, of cut after cut, is causing on these benches and in the Forces, and in the country as a whole.
  The general attitude of the Secretary of State—I am sorry he is not here now; he has not been here much during the debate—seems to be that it is only a trivial matter to stand policy completely on its head, to dismiss careful judgments of a few months previously and to twist and turn in the amazing way he has. For him to appear in sackcloth and ashes and say, "I am sorry, we cannot do what we know we ought to do", would be at least understandable. But to turn up grinning as he
  284
  did yesterday and to present a policy which reverses just about everything for which he has previously stood is an incredible performance.
  Can the Secretary of State really be surprised that he and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister are now no longer believed by anybody in respect of anything they say? Can the Secretary of State himself really be surprised that he has lost the confidence of all the Armed Forces, officers and men, who, to be fair to him, were very impressed by him when he first arrived in office? Now he has lost that. The first sign of contrition we have seen in the Secretary of State was this afternoon, when he sat on the Front Bench opposite. absolutely pinned down by the attack led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. James Dickens: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be joking.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: He was in a fairly serious frame of mind. I could see his face. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could not. Debates on defence cannot be constructive unless the scenario has first been discussed. What the House and the country need during this debate is a logical expression of the overall policy of withdrawal from east of Suez and the concentration of forces in the United Kingdom, and why this is now necessary. This is why the Opposition Amendment is drawn in the way it is.
  To be fair, I have a certain sympathy for the Government in trying to make a defence policy when their economic policy lies in ruins. It is not an easy job.
  Clearly, in those circumstances, all defence spending must be carefully analysed and every penny spent must be justified. But clearly also it is impossible for us to be so completely armed as to be absolutely certain of being able to ensure our own defence unaided in any circumstances. What it is necessary to do is to strike a reasonable balance, to provide sufficient armed forces, to deter aggression and to exert a degree of influence in a world which is far from ready to discard armed forces as a means of settling disputes and to make reasonable provision for the safety

  285
  of our territorial frontiers, interests and commitments overseas.
  But this is a logical process which certainly cannot be done by setting arbitrary ceilings for defence at a level somewhat below that which has obtained in recent years and then to declare, as if by some divine right, that this magic figure represents the best investment in defence. This logical process can be achieved only by looking coldly and dispassionately at the threats which the country has to face. I suggest that these are fourfold.
  First, there is the nuclear threat. In my opinion, this is the least likely threat which we have to face, but we must have a deterrent because of the risk of nuclear blackmail, which affects all the other threats. The arguments for this have often been reversed. The second threat is of a conventional land war in Europe. However, the Government obviously think that this is unlikely, because the Cabinet decided only last week to abolish civil defence.
  The third threat is that of conventional war at sea, of attack or harassment at sea perhaps below the threshold of what is normally called out-and-out war. The threat of war at sea must be taken increasingly seriously. The Soviet maritime build-up cannot be ignored. Today, the Soviet Union has in full commission 10 times as many U-boats as Hitler started World War II with.
  The fourth threat is difficult to describe, but I would call it erosion of western influence east of Suez—what the late President Kennedy called the risk of being nibbled to death in conditions of nuclear stalemate. This is by far the greatest and most urgent threat. Indeed, it is more than a threat: it is the process which is happening today as we sit here. The very ease and comfort of our Western way of life anaesthetises us from noticing the wounds being inflicted on us. This is why we do not take more notice of this threat. This is why I started by saying that the Government have failed to realise that there is now a completely new dimension in warfare.
  The main battlefield now lies not on the plains of Europe but elsewhere. It lies in the steaming jungles of Laos and the ruined cities of Vietnam. It lies in the bazaars of Bangkok and the city council of Singapore. It lies in the
  286
  swamps of Borneo and in the minds of 80 million Indonesians. It lies in the wrangles within the Indian Congress and in the swollen bellies of starving babies in Calcutta. It lies beneath the sweltering sands of Arabia and in the rumour, gossip and intrigue of the small Gulf states. It lies in the alarm to arms now pours out from Cairo radio and from millions of little red copies of "The Thoughts of Chairman Mao". This is the storm from the East to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred today. But all this goes absolutely unheeded by Britain's Labour Government. This is why I disagree with the whole basis of the White Paper.
  The meat of the White Paper is on pages 2 and 3 where the main decisions are summarised. It says:
  "Britain's defence effort will in future be concentrated mainly in Europe and the North Atlantic area."
  Why should it be? The Government stated only last Thursday in the civil defence debate that the risk of war in Europe is greatly diminished. The Secretary of State said the same thing in this debate yesterday. Why withdraw from the places where the threat is greatest and concentrate on the area where it is least?
  The next heading states that the Government intend to
  "accelerate the withdrawal…from Malaysia and Singapore and complete it by…1971. We shall also withdraw from the Persian Gulf by the same date."
  This is grave folly, for very many reasons which I should like to summarise. First, we have specific treaty commitments with Malaysia and Singapore and Australia and New Zealand under ANZAM to which the right hon. Member for Easington referred. We also have specific commitments towards our S.E.A.T.O. partners. For all the fine phrases about consultation and the cynical promises in the White Paper, this accelerated withdrawal is a unilateral abrogation of our responsibilities to those countries.
  On his visit to Canberra two years ago, the Secretary of State said when talking about the Defence Review, which is supposed to be the great declaration of policy by this Government:
  "The Review has been concerned not with the next few years but with the years from 1970 to 1980 and to some extent from 1980

  287
  to 1990. I think that the most important conclusion I am able to communicate to you"—
  that is, to the listening Australians—
  "is that we do intend to remain in a military sense a world power".
  No wonder the Australians and New Zealanders are so disillusioned with us. No wonder Mr. Paul Hasluck, the Australian Minister for External Affairs, spoke sharply at the S.E.A.T.O. meeting in Washington when he said:
  "Lack of interest in Asia today is isolation in its most feckless form".
  No wonder the Australians hooted with derision at a quotation from the Secretary of State last month when he said:
  "The risk of war in South East Asia this year is extremely low".
  They say to themselves, "What is going on in Vietnam?".
  At this point, I should like to say a few words about Vietnam. I think that Her Majesty's Government's policy of "sitting on the fence" over Vietnam is quite shameful in every way. The Americans and the Australians, when I visited Vietnam a short time ago, did not reproach me because we are not fighting shoulder to shoulder with them, although I personally think that we should be.
  Mr. Dickens: Oh.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: What they said was "Why now of all times do you talk about clearing out of the Far East?".
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would not the hon. and gallant Member agree that a very large section of public opinion in Australia and New Zealand does not accept that either New Zealand or Australian forces should be fighting in Vietnam and does not accept his whole thesis?
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I do not agree with the hon. Lady at all. There was fairly recently a general election in Australia which was fought principally on this plank, and it was resoundingly won by the Liberal Party, in favour of continued intervention in Vietnam.
  Concerning Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew made a most powerful plea for Britain to stay in Singapore. Many will
  288
  remember his television broadcasts when he visited London. Many will probably remember what the Secretary of State—I am glad to see that he is here now—would perhaps like to forget, namely, the Defence White Paper of 1965, which said:
  "It would be politically irresponsible and economically wasteful if our bases were abandoned while they were still needed to promote peace in the area concerned…Our presence in these bases. our Commonwealth ties, and the mobility of our forces, permit us to make a contribution towards peace-keeping in vast areas of the world where no other country is able to assume the same responsibility."
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to tell us, either now or when he winds up, what has changed since those days, except the collapse of the Government's economic policies. Has anything else changed?
  Mr. Healey: One thing of great importance which has changed is that our forces brought the confrontation to a successful end.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: That is a perfect example of the sort of valuable work they can do. The Secretary of State is making my case for me. That is the point that the White Paper was making. I am obliged for that helpful intervention.
  We have very large investments east of Suez which must clearly be jeopardised by our withdrawal. I want to think much wider than just protecting our existing investments, and these are the sort of terms in which a man in the high office of Secretary of State ought to be thinking. He should take a look at the population map and see the huge density of population, particularly in North India, China, Japan, Java and so on. It is not surprising that the greatest political and military pressures are generated in Asia. They are far greater than in Africa and far greater really in the last resort than in Europe. One must look further than existing supplies of tin, rice and rubber, important as these are. One must look to the future markets of the world and the trade routes to those markets. As a trading nation we have a vested interest in law and order throughout the world.
  Mr. James Davidson: I am listening with great interest

  289
  to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but is there not a fallacy in the argument that the maintenance of bases in certain areas where we have investments and trading interests can protect those interests? Was this not shown by the recent war in the Middle East? The fact that we had bases and troops in the area did not stop the oil taps being turned off.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: There is no fallacy here. The hon. Gentleman mentioned oil. There are those who say that the oil must come out, that the Arabs have to sell it somewhere; but there was a parallel with the Suez Canal. Nasser cut off his political nose to spite his economic face by closing the Canal, though many said he would not. There is no fallacy in this in the least.
  Another completely separate argument is that the British have a strong moral responsibility towards the under-developed countries. I am sure that hon. Members on all sides will agree about this. It is universally admitted that military force alone is not sufficient to keep the peace east of Suez. Obviously policies designed to relieve poverty and economic difficulties and to redress the imbalance between the "have" and "have-not" countries are the best long term remedy for the problems involved. But freedom from want can never be achieved unless it is simultaneously accompanied by freedom from fear.
  This also partly answers the question from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson). It is useless, in the conditions of subversion which exist in Asia, to think that economic improvements can be achieved for these countries unless simultaneously they are helped to protect themselves from the various external and internal threats which come upon them. It is absurd to see these under-developed countries spend their scanty resources on arming themselves against their neighbours. Confrontation, which the Secretary of State mentioned a moment ago, is a model of the way in which we can help them.
  The ultimate aim must be the one so often proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home); that is to say, art Asian regional security system,
  290
  but it must, in its formative years, be underwritten by the Western Powers.
  The last main conclusion of the White Paper is that
  "No special capability for use outside European will be maintained…"
  I suggest that this is where the Government completely fail to understand the change in the nature of war, about which I have been speaking, and the relative urgency of the threats which menace the peace of the world. This is the eternal Labour ostrich burying its head in the sands of pacificism. This is the 1968 version of the Labour doctrine proclaimed by a leading Socialist statesman visiting the Winchester constituency in 1939, only a few months before the war, who advised the workers: "Do not help the capitalists in their hour of need. Refuse to enlist in the forces if you are asked and refuse to make ammunition if you are told".
  To come up to date, Chairman Mao said,
  "All power flows out of the barrel of a gun".
  This is a terrible doctrine and nobody wishes to agree with it. Certainly I do not. I have seen enough. But, so long as the world in which we live contains nations which believe this sort of thing, we must pay heed to their words and actions and we must prepare ourselves accordingly.
  6.17 p.m.
  Sir Dingle Foot: I begin on a personal note. I have sat in the House for a total, though not an uninterrupted total, of 26 years. During that time I have very rarely found myself in accord with the party opposite. In fact, I have strongly differed from them on almost every major issue that I can recall. However, I am bound to say that on this occasion I share the deep concern which they have expressed at the continuous erosion of our national defences.
  I will not indulge in very many quotations. We had a large number yesterday from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, must have felt rather like Cassius in the quarrel scene in Julius Caesar where he said:
  "All my words took down,
  Set in a notebook, learned and conned by rote
  To cast into my teeth."

  291
  I understand entirely the feelings of my right hon. Friend, but I must remind him of one debate in which he took part and one quotation which the House has already heard. That was the debate on 27th November last after devaluation. My right hon. Friend gave us a long and, as one would expect from him, an extremely lucid review of our defence commitments. He explained that there were to be cuts of £100 million, but that this was the limit and the process could not go any further. I apologise to the House for reading the quotation a second time, but it is important, because he went on to say:
  "I believe, and the Government share my view, that we must, above all, keep faith with our forces and with our allies in making these cuts. We can have no reversal of the July decisions, which revised British's overseas policy over the next decade and fixed in broad terms the rôle, shape and size of the forces required to support it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 59.]
  That was a solemn declaration upon which our forces, our Commonwealth partners and our allies were entitled to rely. It seems to me that only the most overwhelming economic necessity could justify our going back on what my right hon. Friend said in the passage which I have quoted. For my part, as I tried to explain in an earlier debate, I am not convinced of the existence of that overwhelming economic necessity.
  There may have been a case for gradually running down our commitments in the Far East. I do not believe that there can be any case for the sudden change made before 27th November and 18th January. I shall not go over all the ground which has been covered already by many speakers on the question of particular cuts in our defences. I refer only in passing to the cancellation of the F.111. It was made clear last year by my right hon. Friend that the F.111 was needed not just for operations in the Far East. It was regarded also as an essential part of our forces in Europe. How is the F.111 to be replaced? What is to fill the gap which is left now that we are no longer to have it?
  Another aspect of the defence cuts was referred to in passing by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles). My right hon. Friend reminded us yesterday that Europe
  292
  is a peninsula jutting out into water, and he said:
  "We could ignore this while the Soviet Navy was expected to serve as an ancillary to the Soviet land forces, but in recent years the Soviet Navy has become a power in its own right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 65.]
  It is not as recent as all that. For a good many years, the Soviet fleet, or at least the Soviet under-water fleet, has been extremely powerful. I remember vividly, as many of us do, the days of the last war. We lost a good many battles, but there was one battle which we could never afford to lose, the battle of the Atlantic. The Germans began the last war with about 20 submarines, submarines which were not equipped with anything resembling the schnorkel device. Fortunately for us, although they captured that device in Holland in 1940, they never realised its potentialities until near the end of the war. If they had realised them, if we had not been able from the air to attack submarines as they came to the surface, we might well have lost the battle of the Atlantic. Today, however, if we can take the figures provided by the Institute for Strategic Studies, the Soviet Union has 400 submarines, including 335 attack submarines all equipped with the schnorkel device.
  In his statement on 16th January, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
  "There will also be reductions in the rate of new naval construction, for example, in the nuclear-powered hunter/killer submarines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1583.]
  Nothing has been said from the Front Bench about that. We ought to have an explanation, because this is one of the most serious reductions of all. We ought to know what it involves and what is its extent. Perhaps, while he is dealing with that, my right hon. Friend might turn also to page 37 of the Defence Review, where there is a reference to Ikara, an Australian long-range anti-submarine weapon system. Perhaps he will reassure us by telling us how much is expected from that new installation.
  We have to revise our thinking, not merely considering these matters in terms of Europe as a land mass on one side, with east of Suez on the other. More and more, in the coming months, we

  293
  shall have to concentrate our attention on the Mediterranean.
  I come now to the question of our withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and South-East Arabia. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend spoke of what had been happening in the Gulf and referred to the constructive approach of the Rulers in the Gulf to the problems caused by our withdrawal. Be it so. We all welcome the announcement which was made. But what we are concerned with is more than the intention of the sheikdoms and the countries concerned. We are concerned also with their capacity to provide for their own defence.
  Again, I shall not go over ground which has already been covered, but no one can have any doubt about the Soviet interest in this area. If we withdraw before there is full provision for these countries to arrange their own defence, we shall offer a tremendous hostage to fortune, a hostage to fortune of concern to the whole Western world as well as just to ourselves.
  I should like a word of explanation from my right hon. Friend regarding what he said in his television interview in January. The suggestion had been made that the sheikdoms, or some of them, might contribute to the cost of maintaining British troops in the Gulf. My right hon. Friend said that he did not wish to see British troops employed as mercenaries. I do not believe—I say this to him as a friend—that he was doing himself justice when he gave that answer. No one has ever suggested that our troops should be employed as mercenaries in the Gulf.
  Mercenaries are soldiers who are hired under someone else's command. No one ever contemplated that. For example, supposing that my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government were more successful than they have so far been in obtaining offset costs from the German Government in Bonn, that would not transform our troops in Germany into mercenaries. It is an exact analogy.
  Now, South-East Asia. Here I agree with two speeches made from this side of the House yesterday, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams). They referred in particular to the dangers of insurgency
  294
  warfare. We have seen this. On the last occasion when I addressed the House on this subject, I referred to what happened in Zanzibar, where there was a perfect example of insurgency warfare only a month after Zanzibar had attained independence. As hon. Members have said, there are occasions when the developing countries need military aid just as much, or even more than, they need economic aid. Had it not been for the presence of British troops in South-East Asia, Singapore and Malaysia might have already gone the same way as Zanzibar.
  We are told that there is to be a meeting of the five Powers concerned in South-East Asia. Here, I agree with the latter part of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I did not agree with the first part, but I agree strongly with the second. Of course, we still have our obligations to Australia and New Zealand. We ought not to rely on the Americans to take those obligations off our shoulders. We must be in a position to discharge them ourselves. This applies to Singapore and Malaysia, too.
  I put two questions to my right hon. Friend. The first has to do with Singapore. There have already been references to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore. Many of us had the opportunity to meet and talk to him when he came to this country a few weeks ago. He said to us, as, no doubt, he said to the Government, that he fully realised that we could not stay indefinitely in Singapore; he fully realised that Singapore must sooner or later provide for her own defence. But he is the Head of a City State, and he is concerned particularly with the air defences of Singapore.
  Mr. Lee said to us, in effect, "I can train the pilots by the end of 1971. I can buy the aircraft before the end of 1971. But there are various technical skills to be found particularly in operations rooms which I cannot provide by the end of 1971". The request that he made was that that form of military expertise should be available to him after the end of 1971. This seems a reasonable request, and I hope that the Government will accede to it.
  My second question goes a little further. It is one that I asked during the debate on 18th January. I did not receive an

  295
  answer, so I venture to put it again. We are told that we are to stay in this area just for the three years until the end of 1971. If all goes well, we can peacefully withdraw when that date arrives. But supposing it does not. Suppose, as may well happen, there is a continuing deterioration either in the Gulf or in South-East Asia. Suppose there is, as there may be, another confrontation with Indonesia. If circumstances of that kind arise, will the Government then reconsider their decision, and if necessary stay on with a military presence after the end of 1971? If we could have a favourable answer to that question, if not today, then at any rate in the near future, I believe that it would go a long way to repair the damage which has been done by the panic decisions of last January.
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. and learned Friend has a record second to none in this House on matters of individual rights in Africa and Asia. Would he care to comment on the question of British military support for the regime of Harry Lee Kuan Yew which keeps its political opponents in prison without trial?
  Sir Dingle Foot: On many occasions I have protested against detention without trial, and I shall be prepared to do it to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, as I have done it to others in different parts of the Commonwealth. That does not touch my argument. Today we are concerned, not with the liberty of the subject, important though that is, but with defence and with Commonwealth relations.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am glad of the opportunity to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot). I agree with a great deal of what he said. When he rose I was not sure what line he would take, and I was delighted, as his speech unrolled, to find myself in agreement with a lot of what he said.
  I go further than the right hon. and learned Gentleman did in my condemnation of the Government and of the Secretary of State for Defence. As I understood it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if the Secretary of State were to assure the House that if there was another confrontation with
  296
  Indonesia the Government would stay on after 1971 and meet it, this would go a long way to allaying his fears. As I understood the Secretary of State yesterday, he accepted that there would be commitments in the Far East, and that there would be an obligation on the Government to provide forces to meet those political commitments outside Europe if the need arose. The fact is, however, that by then our Armed Forces will be much smaller, and it will take much longer to get them to where they are needed. They will therefore be of much less value and effect than they would be today. This was not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but as I understand it he has accepted that we have a continuing commitment, and that we will send our Forces to help our allies and Commonwealth countries if we are asked to do so in the future after 1971.
  The obligation on the Secretary of State is to provide primarily for the defence of this nation at home, and, secondly, to protect our interests overseas. It has been said during the debate that the fundamental difference between the two sides of the House is that we believe that we have commitments in the Gulf and the Far East which we should honour, and which entail now, and after 1971, the maintenance of a military presence in those two areas.
  By these proposed changes the Government have done enormous and almost irreparable damage, not only to the morale of the Forces, but also to the confidence in us of our friends and allies overseas. I speak with a certain amount of self-interest, because I have a young son at Sandhurst, where he is training to be an officer. I therefore have some idea of the feelings which are rife among younger soldiers. I hasten to add that they are extremely enthusiastic, and keen to make and enjoy a good career in the Forces, but they are bewildered because they cannot see clearly into the future. I shall deal later with some of the things which are causing bewilderment, not only among cadets at Sandhurst, but among young junior officers. The trouble arises mainly from the fact that they cannot see clearly what they are being asked to do.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that we are to have a mainly European rôle in

  297
  the future. So be it. This is the Government's decision, but, within that European rôle, what part is to be played not only by the Army, but by the other Services? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) referred to the question of the Atlantic defences, and the fact that the Soviet Union has an enormous number of submarines operating, or which could be operating, along our sea trading routes. Young officers and ratings want to know how they will be required to deal with this possible threat, a rôle which the Navy traditionally fulfils.
  Men in the Royal Air Force want to know what kind of aircraft they will fly after 1971 and from where they will fly to fulfil the commitments which the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken. These duties will arise from our commitments in Europe, and also in the Far East and Middle East, where it is intended we should go to aid any of our allies and Commonwealth friends who ask for assistance.
  When the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the nuclear trip-wire policy, he seemed to become confused. At one stage he was arguing that we must not have complete reliance on a trip-wire policy, because this means automatically using the nuclear deterrent, and this was a decision which he and the Government would find intolerable to take automatically. I did not think that there was any dispute about this between the two sides of the House. Nobody expects a trip-wire policy automatically to trigger off a nuclear reprisal.
  As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman then argued that because of that situation we must build up our conventional forces so that they could fight a retaining action—and this was our policy when we were the Government—while diplomatic action was taken to resolve the conflict, but if the retaining action was not successful, and our Forces were faced with overwhelming defeat, the nuclear deterrent would be used.
  He then argued that we could not build up a large force with our allies in Europe because we could not afford to sustain it. However, if he does not accept the need to build up a larger and better balanced force in Europe, there would be no question of a retaining action to allow
  298
  diplomacy to be used. This is another difficulty for service personnel to understand.
  The early part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was extremely malicious. I do not want to comment while he is not present, but he argued that we were facing overwhelming defeat by the Russians and East Germans and that the only thing to do was to pull out all our forces back to this country. Coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who has a certain reputation, that is extremely serious, since it is wrong and mischievous. I hope that the Secretary of State will completely refute it, since he must appreciate its effect on unsophisticated people and the younger people in the Services who do not understand these matters.
  Another confusing matter was the reference of the Under-Secretary—
  Mr. Healey: Minister of Defence for Administration.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Things change so much that I am never sure of these titles.
  He put forward the extraordinary argument that two battalions in the Gulf would mean four or five maintained at home, but admitted later that those four or five would be here anyway but that even so this would mean a much smaller saving. The saving of £12½ million given by the Leader of the Opposition was much more accurate. The Minister of Defence was trying to blow this us, and he knows that the cost would not be much greater.
  The pay and careers of the forces are what those who are serving will want to know about. There is no point in going over all the assurances given in the past, which the Government have accepted, about the review of forces' pay. These are well known. On 1st April, there was to be a complete review of Service pay in the light of economic circumstances and increases in the cost of living, and an announcement about pay for the next two years.
  But the Government have referred this to the Prices and Incomes Board and the hon. Gentleman sheltered behind the fact that the Board is independent and probably will not have enough time to report on this in time for a Cabinet

  299
  decision before 1st April. This is the Government's fault; they should have referred the issue to the Board in time for it to report. Now, officers and men wonder whether they will again be "done in the eye" and whether the Government will welsh on them or keep their word. They want to know where they stand.
  If that is the kind of treatment dished out to those serving, no wonder recruitment figures have gone down as disastrously as the Secretary of State said yesterday. I urge the Government to do as much as they can. Of course they cannot direct the Board, but its report must be speedily prepared and the Government should then consider it urgently and announce their conclusions, if possible, at the beginning of April.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the pay difficulties of our troops overseas because of devaluation. I will not go into detailed cases: he knows that I have in mind all those serving in Germany. This has created hardship. I accept that the Government are trying to sort it out, but the difficulty is that people do not always spend at the same level. They have differing requirements in Deutschmarks as in sterling. This has not been worked out, and the Government must do so speedily.
  The young particularly are anxious about what weapons they will use and the career structure which they will have. I will not go over again the changes which the Secretary of State has made in the last three years, but many keen young soldiers and officers are bewildered about the future, about whether their services will be wanted, and, if so, for what. As I said, my son is at Sandhurst and is being taught to handle an assortment of weapons, but he does not know what he will use as an infantry officer, if as I hope he gets a commission. The same applies, I imagine, to the other two Services. I urge the Government not to change their policy again, much as I disagree with it.
  The hon. Gentleman said once again that this is the final figure and cannot be further reduced. I hope so, but we have become so cynical about Government statements that I can do no more than hope. I hope also that he and his
  300
  right hon. Friend will do everything possible to explain that they are firm in these intentions and will not change them for the worse and cut them again.
  Hong Kong has not been mentioned up to now. There is a garrison there, but no one pretends that it can be reinforced and held against real Chinese military pressure. I think that the Government would accept that it is not militarily defensible. It is the only place, however, to which the 6,000 who by 1971 will be left in the Gurkha Brigade—in which I served during my Regular service—will be able to go after 1971, and they will, presumably, have to go with their families. I understand that there is no firm commitment.
  The Brigade is uncertain about the future after 1971 and will want to know as soon as possible. I hope that it does not have to go to Hong Kong, because considerable pressures might then be exerted on the Kingdom of Nepal, which could seriously affect the recruiting necessary to maintain this meagre 6,000 force. I would not like this to happen, and I hope that the Government can make some other arrangements, perhaps, with Singapore or Malaysia to keep this force there. I should have thought that the stationing of them with their families in the garrison of Hong Kong will give the Chinese that extra pressure they want to use to stop the British Government from recruiting even the meagre 6,000.
  It is shameful that the Government should have introduced this latest set of cuts and it is regrettable that, from the defence point of view, the country should be placed in this position. Our Forces are not well balanced and we must do everything in our power to cure the present very low standard of morale. I appeal to the Government to keep to their word and give some hope to our young people who wish to serve their country that they have a future in the Services.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) paid scant attention to the little matter of paying the bill, and it is to this matter that I want to direct my remarks. I believe if we did everything he wanted we would succeed in bankrupting our nation. I think Government spokesmen are beginning to

  301
  act sensibly in certain parts of the world and I would like to see them acting equally sensibly in others. The 40 hon. Members who have tabled an Amendment to the Motion are entitled to be heard. They have been asking for many years for some of the things which the Government are now doing. Therefore, we are equally entitled to be listened to with respect in the further proposals that we put forward.
  On the question of arms reductions we are in a way acting as inverted Oliver Twists—instead of asking for more we are asking for less. The taxpayer should be grateful for our efforts. We warmly welcome the accelerated withdrawal of troops from the Far East, the Near East and the cancellation of the F111. If these things had been done 3½ years ago when we came into office, as we then asked, Britain would not be in the difficult situation which we are facing today and most of the Government's present problems would have been overcome.
  Today there is a renewed run on the £. This results once again from the deficit in our balance of payments which in turn stems from the matter we are discussing. One does not need to be a professor of economics to understand the root of our troubles. As Paul Bareau, a distinguished financial commentator, has said, our commercial relations with the rest of the world show a large surplus. It is Government overseas spending which puts us in the red. This Government spending is largely military spending. If our total spending on the Armed Forces overseas and their arms and equipment were ended it would save £605 million a year. This can be checked by referring to the 1967 Defence Statement, Annexe H. Of this more than £200 million is in precious foreign exchange. That is something near the deficit on our balance of payments. I believe that by cutting this we would be doing something infinitely preferable to cutting our social services. If the Opposition's plans for continuing our overseas expenditure were proceeded with it must be clear to both sides that our balance of payments position would be completely impossible.
  Even when the present measures of reduction become effective our arms spending will continue at £2,000 million a year at cash prices. There is plenty of fat on that carcase which should be de-
  302
  voted to other and better things. It is an illusion to believe that this is, or should be, the end of the road. Take one item, mentioned in the Amendment, that of military research. This amounts to £254 million a year, but there is also a huge amount spent by industrial firms on military research which is not included in this figure. One scientist in five, according to official Government spokesmen, is employed on military research. I believe that indirectly the proportion is even higher. Examination of the 1967–68 Estimates shows that a total Government expenditure of £518 million on research and development contains no less than £271 million on military research and development or 52 per cent. This excludes grants in aid of universities and colleges, where teaching and research are inseparable. From this it is fair to conclude that one out of every two scientists employed by the Government is engaged on war work. They work on such things listed in the Statement as military aircraft, guided weapons, biological and chemical warfare and other horrors. They would be far better employed in medical, industrial or purely theoretical research. The sums devoted to these are small in comparison.
  Next there is the purchase of military planes from the U.S.A.—£755 million over the next 10 years for Phantom fighter-bombers and spares and £185 million for Hercules planes. A few minutes ago outside the Chamber I was challenged by an hon. Member opposite about the accuracy of these figures. They were given in a Written Answer on 21st December, 1967.
  Another major item of expenditure is £200 million on the B.O.A.R. of which just under half is in precious Deutsch-marks. Even supposing the whole of this foreign exchange is covered by offset military purchases from Britain in the year ahead, it is nevertheless a loss, because the money, manpower and materials devoted to this kind of product could have been devoted to civil exports without having to provide £90 million to Germany in exchange. This brings me to the subject of N.A.T.O.—
  Mr. James Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point about the cost of purchasing Phantom aircraft from the United States?

  303
  Although I was one of those who campaigned for the cancellation of the F111K order, does the hon. Gentleman realise that not only is the Phantom fitted with a British engine, but its cancellation would leave the Air Force without any tactical strike and reconnaissance capability?
  Mr. Allaun: I do not accept that these American planes are necessary. If we are going to have these Phantoms at all I believe we should buy far fewer of them. We should build British planes rather than buy American ones. I was in favour of cancelling the TSR2, and even more in favour of cancelling the F111, because it involved a drain on foreign exchange.
  If we genuinely wish to lessen tension in Europe and turn a détente into peace the most likely issue on which to get agreement is one which is in the material interests of both sides. The economic advantages both to East and to West in troop reductions in Europe is clear. So I was delighted to hear the Minister of Defence, with whom I do not always agree, say yesterday not only that N.A.T.O. is now considering balanced mutual force reductions in East and West but also that N.A.T.O. should be willing to proceed by mutual example rather than by formal agreement if we could get the process started.
  This is the lead for which the world is waiting. Since 1922 disarmament conferences have come and gone without reaching agreement on anything, the reason being that the Governments of the world are so suspicious of each other that they are always waiting for the other to act first. I am all for unilateral action to end this vicious circle, but, short of that, limited unilateral action would, I believe, lead to reciprocal unilateral action by the other side. Thus the armaments race could be turned into a disarmaments race. This happened on a minor scale in 1963 when Mr. Khrushchev said, "Whatever the Americans do, we are cutting our arms expenditure by the equivalent of £240 million a year". He did that, and then Mr. Kennedy replied with an even larger cut, equivalent to £360 million a year. Unfortunately in March, 1965, the Americans began to pour troops into
  304
  Vietnam, which halted the process. That is why this process did not continue.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Would the hon. Gentleman care to continue along that path and bring the argument up to date? What is happening in the Mediterranean, where the British have unilaterally withdrawn? Why do we see nothing but an immense increase in Soviet preparations?
  Mr. Allaun: I would not like to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman now because I had no intention of discussing the Mediterranean region. My argument is a fair one.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Bring the argument up to date.
  Mr. Allaun: I believe that the Vietnam situation has influenced thinking about the Middle East. The Middle East and Mediterranean questions will not be settled without America and Russia dealing with Israel and Egypt. The Vietnam situation is poisoning the position even in the Middle East. I believe that it would have been possible to reach agreement in the Middle East if it had not been for the poison injected in the Far East.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is obsessed with the Vietnam position and he brings it into every argument he uses. Would he agree there has been a unilateral cut in arms by Her Majesty's Government? If so, is he now expecting cuts to be made by the Soviet Government and other Powers in Europe?
  Mr. Allaun: I will come to that. The simple answer is that it will need a cut to be made by N.A.T.O. The Minister's present line of thought could produce far bigger and more lasting results than those which were achieved in 1963, and more power to his elbow. The Minister has been talking not merely about getting an agreement between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact Powers, which we very much want to see, but also about N.A.T.O. giving a positive lead. In reductions to encourage reductions by the Warsaw Pact. If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not think that, in such a situation, Russia wants to gain by withdrawing its divisions into its own territories and demobilising them, they do not understand the situation in the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Anthony Royle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his remarks of the last few minutes clash with his earlier remarks? It is clear that he and his hon. Friends really want Her Majesty's Government to get rid of all our defences. Why does not he and his hon. Friends say that clearly in an Amendment?
  Mr. Allaun: That is not the suggestion. In this debate some hon. Members have said that we should withdraw our armed forces east of Suez. Others have said that we should cut them in Europe. We are saying that we should cut them in both areas. That does not mean that we are adopting a pacifist attitude for Britain. It merely means that, in those two areas, we should not pretend to have a world policing or military rôle.
  Recently, General Sir John Hackett, Commander of the N.A.T.O. Northern Army Group, wrote a letter to The Times urging that there should be no reduction in N.A.T.O. forces. I am not tonight discussing the propriety of a general—who is, after all, a civil servant—taking part in public on what is a political and highly controversial issue. However, I ask the Minister to make it clear that he stands by the views he stated yesterday in the House, since it is worrying to find another Government spokesman saying quite the opposite—saying, in effect, that General Hackett's views coincide with the views of Her Majesty's Government. Unfortunately, I am unable to go further and quote the words used because they were uttered by Lord Shackleton in another place.
  Sir John's letter to The Times referred to the danger of allowing, by British troop reductions in Europe, military domination by the West Germans. That was rich. For before he wrote his letter to The Times he applied for permission to write it to his immediate commanding officer. Who was he? None other than General Graf von Kielmannsegg, who already commands thousands of British and other troops in Europe.
  If we ended the four major military commitments to which I referred—B.A.O.R., military research, Polaris and U.S. military planes—we would save £550 million a year, and what could not we do with that mass of money, manpower and materials?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend refers to Polaris. Has he read the latest account of a missile test off the American coast, which cost £1,150,000, equivalent to the price of 10 advance factories?
  Mr. Allaun: I agree with my hon. Friend because if we could save this vast sum each year the problems now facing the nation and the Government would be largely solved. Labour's plans for housing, health, education and pensions, in which we deeply believe, could be over-fulfilled. Industrial re-equipment could surge forward and our contribution to the war on want could become significant. This would be, for most hon. Members and their consituents, something worth working for and it would make politics something bigger than a contest in quotations and misquotations.
  What I have suggested is the vital way to back Britain, instead of by the use of cheap and trivial gimmicks. There would be no need to make a mean cut of £5 million a year on children's milk, or £25 million a year by reimposing prescription charges.
  Apart from all other considerations, this is what the public wants. When the Gallup Poll asked:
  "Do you think that the Government is spending too much or too little on arms?"
  five out of 100 said "Too little", while 58 out of 100 said, "Too much." The others thought the spending about right. My view is, therefore, not only right but popular.
  When the benches opposite are filled, although they are not filled now—[Interruption.]—they are occupied to a large extent by serried ranks of retired generals, admirals, air commanders—the lot. I hasten to add that they are honourable and upright men. I am not saying anything derogatory about them, but when they talk of "making Britain great again" they really mean making Britain militarily great again. They are thinking in terms of the last century when it was possible for Britain to send a gunboat to subdue some small nation. Do not let us think that that is something which is now in the distant past, for it is only 12 years since the Suez invasion, which shows that these ideas are not completely dead.

  307
  These dreams are no longer realisable because there are much bigger sharks swimming around. Even if we quadrupled our present military expenditure and completely bankrupted ourselves, we still could not compete as a great military Power with either America or Russia. I weep no tears about that. If we want true greatness for our country, as I believe we do, it can be achieved only by securing peace, by bringing the Big Two together and avoiding a third world war.
  I will refer to the leading spokesman for the Opposition on defence matters, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I told him that I proposed to do so. On 2nd February he took part in a discussion of the book, "The Iron Mountain" in "The World At One" radio programme. This is what he said—I have the full script and I ask the House to listen carefully to his words:
  "I am strongly inclined to accept the author's thesis that war is, if not in the absolute 100 per cent. sense, essential to the life of human society, at any rate so deeply interwoven with it that policies and behaviour based on the assumption that it is practicable or possibly even desirable to aim at permanent universal peace are self-condemned."
  Whereupon, William Hardcastle, the B.B.C. interviewer, declared—as well he might:
  "Good Heavens, even in the nuclear age?"
  The leading spokesman of the Conservative Party on military matters believes that peace policies and efforts are impracticable or even undesirable. This was no off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of debate. It was the opening statement made by the right hon. Gentleman and clearly thought out in advance. Nor did he say anything later in the discussion to qualify this statement.
  Thanks to televised scenes of the fighting in Vietnam, millions of people in our country have become horrified, even more than before, by the thought of war. They will regard the right hon. Gentleman's words as odious. I believe hon. Members on both sides of this House will reject his viewpoint. The overwhelming majority on both sides of the House put peace first. We may differ, as we have differed in this debate, about the means of securing peace, but I think
  308
  there are very few hon. Members on either side of the House who regard the search for, and pursuit of, peace as undesirable. However deeply we may be attached to obtaining more houses or better pensions, we know that these things are worthless if we are to be involved in a third world war.
  I suggest to right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench that the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's words are very serious. Fortunately I believe the instinct for human survival is strong in our species. People will not only reject as wicked the statement about the undesirability of peace objectives, they will, I hope—despite all the setbacks—reject the view that it is impracticable. Pessimism is the pathway to acceptance and war is something we cannot accept. If we do not end it, it will lend us. We must be eternal optimists because it is these kind of people who get things done.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I assure the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) that, however serried the ranks may or may not be, I am not one of the generals or admirals. I was not able in my somewhat humble military career to get higher than two pips. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was certainly a brigadier. Therefore I would not presume to reply to the attack made by the hon. Member on his views because he is quite capable of looking after himself.
  The hon. Member said how wonderful it would be if we could stop spending so much money on defence and spend the money in other ways. Of course it would be. In my constituency, and the same would be true of constituencies of other hon. Members, we need new primary schools, we need at least one new secondary school, more houses, more hospital accommodation and more facilities for mentally handicapped children. Dearly would I like to see these things provided and bitterly shall we feel the cuts which are being imposed by Her Majesty's Government. But it is no good saying as the hon. Member said—and he has disclaimed any pacifism in his policy—that we shall have some defence, but not enough defence to be inconvenient, to

  309
  deprive us of all the things we would like to have.
  You either defend yourself or you do not. If the defence is insufficient, if the defence is out of date and unbalanced, if we refuse to pay the premium, we will not get the insurance. When the hon. Member said that he was putting peace first although he disagreed with some of us on the best way of achieving peace, he was recommending to the House a course which would assuredly bring war. He spoke of cutting more fat off the carcase—not a very flattering way to describe the Armed Forces of the Crown, despite what has been done to them by Her Majesty's Government.
  I turn for a moment to a speech from the benches opposite which I liked more than the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, East, eloquent though he is. I refer to fie speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot). I nearly said "my right hon. Friend." hope I shall do him no harm by saying how much I agreed with what he said. I agreed with what he said about our broken pledges to allies and Commonwealth partners in the East. I share his fear of a deteriorating situation in those areas from which the Government have announced an accelerated withdrawal. If we name a date for departure it becomes increasingly difficult to keep to the date. That was what happened in Aden. There was more than a deteriorating situation there—there was a disgraceful shambles.
  What was done in Aden, or what was not done in Aden almost puts in the shade the disgrace which again was committed under a Labour Government of abandoning the Palestine Mandate to bloodshed and anarchy and in the process earning us the hatred of both Arabs and Jews. Even that horror has been overshadowed by what happened in Aden. As we debate defence here today, there are people in Aden terrorised—who some say have been tortured—who have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment merely because they served Britain or were friends of this country. I indeed share the fears of the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich that we may experience a deteriorating situation in those areas from which we are to withdraw. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned
  310
  Member for Ipswich is one of the last of the Whig imperialists; he has a sense of mission. He believes that we should fulfil our obligations in the world.
  I have found myself diametrically opposed to him on the issue of Rhodesia, but I understand now much more clearly and sympathetically the motives for his position on Rhodesia. He believes passionately in an obligation there. I can respect that although I disagreed profoundly with him. One of the charms of being in this place is that the more one is here—and I have not been here very long—the more one comes to appreciate the motives of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen with whom one may disagree profoundly.
  Last time I addressed the House on defence and foreign affairs I spoke of the shameful and perfidious folly of the cuts and the decision to accelerate the withdrawals east of Suez. I do not unsay anything I said then, but I am feeling more conciliatory and constructive tonight. I want to confine my remarks largely to Europe and the North Atlantic, taking at its face value what is said in the Defence Statement on the cuts and what is said by Ministers that the British effort will be concentrated, in the future, mainly in Europe and the North Atlantic.
  Whether we like it or not—and if we are not effete I think we ought to like it—we in this country and we Europeans will, in the future, have to shoulder more of the responsibility for our own defence.
  There are tendencies in the United States of a new isolationism. It is becoming evident that the United States of America is even more a Pacific Power than an Atlantic Power. The war in Vietnam imposes burdens formidable even for the richest and strongest super-Power. At home in the United States the Americans face very difficult and dangerous internal problems. They have to meet the challenge of racial conflict; the dollar is no longer so dominant and Americans must be aware that, whereas we in this country spend about 6·4 per cent. of the gross national product on defence, their proportion is 9·2 per cent. When the hon. Member for Salford, East spoke of a run on the £ and the strain on sterling this is partly due, I think, to the position of the United States dollar.

  311
  The United States is no longer, and recognises that it is no longer, able to finance the development of the whole of what is known, optimistically, as the "free world". Those on this side of the Atlantic will not be able to shelter forever under the eagle's wing, and if we nurse that illusion we may have a very rude awakening. I understand the need to conserve our foreign exchange; even after the cuts which we have justly condemned Britain is spending proportionately more on defence than her European allies. We are spending a quarter as much again as France and the Federal German Republic, and considerably more than the Italians. Even so, I wonder whether it is entirely consonant with the new policy of concentrating the British effort in Europe to announce the move of a brigade of B.A.O.R. and a squadron of Royal Air Force in Germany back to the United Kingdom. After all, all is not well in N.A.T.O.; there is considerable disarray.
  Sometimes, however, people are too gloomy about N.A.T.O. Circumstances have changed since 1949 and, indeed, in 1969 the North Atlantic Treaty is to be renegotiated and one can say "about time too". It is becoming urgent to have a real European defence system for the future.
  I think the Prime Minister, who has stood on his head so often, should think again about what he has publicly said concerning the idea of a European nuclear deterrent. He has repudiated the idea, but he was very ready to criticise the Conservative Government for making the Nassau Agreement. The Prime Minister has said that that Agreement and the gearing of our nuclear defence policy to the United States wrecked the attempt of the then Government to obtain this country's admission to the European Economic Community. He is saying now that Europe cannot have its own strategic nuclear deterrent. I am very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, in his admirable speech, repeated his proposal for which he was much criticised on the benches behind the Government, of an Anglo-French deterrent which could be placed on a trusteeship basis at the disposal of Europe.
  We shall have to have somewhat deeper thought about the Non-Prolifera-
  312
  tion Treaty. The Foreign Secretary comes down here, and the Prime Minister was here earlier today, and we are asked to welcome this Non-Proliferation Treaty—usually there is quite a bit of applause from the benches behind the Government, because the general impression is given that this is a treaty which has something to do with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, although China and, I suppose, France will have nothing to do with it. Then again, it is an international instrument so it must be right, but we do not really know what is in the final text; we do not really know the implications of the treaty. I want to know what the implications of this treaty are for the possibility at a future date of a European defence system possessing its own nuclear deterrent. Europe must have balanced nuclear and conventional forces, because we cannot expect to rest for ever under the American shield.
  The Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday that he favoured the search for
  "balanced mutual reductions of the forces of both East and West…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 63.]
  This brings me back to the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, East. He and hon. Friends of his below the Gangway are also in favour of reductions of the Forces, but in the Amendments of the hon. Member for Salford, East and his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), there does not seem to be any mention of balance. Indeed, what they are leading is nothing less than a campaign for unilateral disarmament.
  I agree with the Secretary of State that we should try for truly equivalent reductions in the forces of the N.A.T.O. powers and the signatory States of the Warsaw Pact. I would even welcome mutual withdrawal of Soviet and United States forces. This is something which Sir Winston Churchill hoped for in 1953. There cannot be any safe withdrawal of United States forces, however, unless the European allies of the United States have their own effective conventional and nuclear capacity. Even the French recognise this. There has been some criticism of the French.
  Mr. James Davidson: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports the theory that in due course we may arrive at a total withdrawal of United

  313
  States and Soviet forces in Europe. Does he see the possibility that in those circumstances there would be a mutual guarantee by these super-Powers of European integrity without the need for a European nuclear force?
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whether or not there was a nuclear force, the idea of such a mutual guarantee was in my mind, and the speech of Sir Winston Churchill in 1953 even referred to a new Locarno or a greater Locarno. Sir Winston's conception was of a Europe from which the extra-European Powers had withdrawn but which the extra-European Powers guaranteed. I think that, until the world becomes very different from what it is today, it will be necessary for a European system to have its nuclear as well as its conventional defence.
  I think that the French recognise the situation. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said some very good things about not leaving Australia and New Zealand in the lurch, but I thought that what he said about France was somewhat intemperate, let alone what he said about our German allies. Some people seem to be getting a sort of pathologicial obsession about France and General de Gaulle. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that France is an ally, an ally to be respected, an ally which knows how to assert its own national interest. I sometimes wish that we had a Government who were able to assert the British national interest. It is true that the French members of the allied integrated staff have been taken away. The French have left S.H.A.P.E. and AFCENT.
  On the other hand, it is not quite as the right hon. Member for Easington suggested. There is still a French liaison mission maintained at a high level and there are still French troops under General Massu who are closely co-ordinated with the German forces in Germany. I believe that there is also still an exchange of radar information.
  European defence is not simply a continental matter. As my hon. Friends have said, Europe is not the theatre of main danger. Indeed, the Secretary of State spoke of the danger to the flanks. For European and North Atlantic defence, our strategy must clearly embrace the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, which is by way of being an
  314
  inland sea of Europe. It must also take into account vital interests and positions in both Africa and the Middle East.
  The Soviet Union, ably assisted by Her Majesty's Government, have now achieved an historic aim, which was cherished but not realised either by the Czars or by Stalin, of getting its warm water window. Four years ago there were no Soviet warships—except, I suspect, some submarines—on the surface of the Mediterranean. A year ago there were 12. Now how many are there? Perhaps we could hear from the Government Front Bench. Are there 35 or are there 45?
  The Soviet Union is not imperialistic, so it has no overseas bases; just as the Soviet Union, being not imperialistic, has no colonies it only has subject populations. Not having any bases, the Soviet Union has base facilities. It now has those base facilities in Alexandria, Port Said, Mers-el-Kebir, and probably in Aden and possibly in Perim. The 6th Fleet—50 or 60 ships, aircraft and Polaris submarines—is more than a match for the Soviet fleet; but we are not thinking in terms of a collision, of great fleet actions. What the Soviet fleet is doing is showing the red flag and bolstering Arab extremism against Israel and the West and making more difficult the task of Arab/Israel settlement. It has the great objective of the oilfields of the Middle East and North Africa, which are so vital to Europe's economy and Europe's defence.
  Ironically, the Russian arrival to fill the vacuum is throwing the British Government back more and more upon the goodwill of countries such as South Africa and Portugal. It was ironic that it fell to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy to say that Her Majesty's Government has given increased responsibility for the defence of the sea route round the Cape to the South African Navy.
  I therefore ask the Government to weigh very carefully the words of the South African Minister of Defence, Mr. Botha, regarding Simonstown. We cannot kick allies in the teeth and then expect them to look after our interests indefinitely. It is neither logical nor honourable to expect the South African Navy to discharge this great responsibility for our security and that of Europe and

  315
  the West and deny them the means of carrying out that responsibility, namely the ships, aircraft and arms. The policy of bans and boycotts in Southern Africa is against reason, it is against Europe, and it is destructive of Britain's interests and security.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. Roland Moyle: I hope that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) will forgive me for not following his argument. I want to deal with some other matters concerning defence. I spoke in the equivalent debate last year and then indulged in a rather global sweep of broad strategic principles. I do not intend to follow that line this evening except to make two points. Obviously the Government were not entirely impressed with the wisdom of what I said last year. But I believe that we were spending far too much on defence matters overseas, that this was a major distortion of our economy, and that we were right to cut it. I am only too happy that the cuts were made.
  This is where I disagree with the Opposition Front Bench. We heard a very interesting speech today from the Leader of the Opposition in which he attempted, I thought rather inadequately, to square the circle by explaining just how he would manage to maintain British forces in all the areas of the world where they were maintained when the Labour Government came to office. I put the point to the right hon. Gentleman—I am sorry that he is not here to take it—that there is no evidence, as far as I can see, that the Germans, the Italians or the French have the slightest desire to maintain any forces outside Europe. The right hon. Gentleman made a great play with French expansion. but fundamentally it is commercial expansion. Even where the French are selling arms, it is expansion based on the commercial sale of arms and not military expansion. I hoped that we should have a great deal more realism from someone who hopes to be leader of an alternative Government.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: The French hold on in Djibouti, while we have abandoned Aden. They have an Indian Ocean squadron.
  Mr. Moyle: I am aware that the French have an Indian Ocean squadron, but
  316
  Djibouti is not exactly one of the major bases in the world, and the squadron is not maintained really for a military purpose.
  Fundamentally, my thesis is absolutely true, that the Western Europeans will not commit themselves in great numbers outside Europe. It is living in cloud-cuckooland to believe that they will. However, I do not want to develop that theme, since I want to raise a number of more limited points on defence.
  First, it seems to me that from now on the Rhine Army will be this country's major land force. It therefore follows that if there ever were another European war the British Army would be contributing from Day 1 to any latter-day Passchendaele. This must be faced. There may be very good arguments for making the commitment. I do not want to go into them now, but it would do a great service to the country and the people if that fact were brought to their notice. I do not see how a first-class European enemy can ever be defeated without at some stage a Passchendaele or Stalingrad, whatever latter day form it might take. Therefore, we are inexorably committed to it.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was very fair when he spoke about the Rhine Army in his speech yesterday. He said that it was a very well equipped, professional, highly-trained force and I am sure that it was so. He also said that it was the only European Army which had had fighting experience in recent years. I am sure that that is also true, but it seems to me that one must have mixed feelings about that and hope that its battle experience becomes somewhat less as the years go by.
  If it does, its training assumes ever greater importance. Ten to 15 years ago, whatever the political and strategic arguments for a Rhine Army, there was an argument from the military training point of view. One of the criticisms of our Armed Forces when we entered the last war was that very few of our generals had had any experience of handling large formations of troops. One of the great advantages of the Rhine Army 10 to 15 years ago was that it gave British higher commanders a chance to handle fairly large bodies of troops in conditions as nearly resembling modern warfare as

  317
  one could attain in peace time. The training areas in Germany were much larger than had ever been provided in this country. German farmers were much more tolerant of their chickens being taken by hungry soldiery and their potato and cabbage patches being dug up by tanks, and so on.
  But over the past few years we have put infantry battalions into armoured personnel carriers. Taking an infantry battalion out on exercise nowadays is very similar to taking a tank regiment out 10 to 15 years ago. The damage to the country and the space needed are comparable. We must face the situation in the Rhine Army that the amount of land available for training is rapidly contracting compared with the space needed effectively to practise the handling of modern forces. If that is not so at present, that situation is likely to develop very soon. Therefore, we must look at alternative training grounds, and I am glad to see in the White Paper that that will be done more and more, probably outside Europe.
  It may be, therefore, that there is an operational argument for maintaining the Rhine Army at its present strength in North-West Europe, but I do not think that this can any longer be true. We see in the White Paper that a Rhine Army brigade has been withdrawn from Germany and brought to this country at a saving of about £4½ million in foreign exchange. The interesting thing is that it will remain at the beck and call of the commander-in-chief of the Rhine Army. Apparently it can be shipped to Germany at short notice, and will go there from time to time in the summer to train. If it is a practical project for one brigade to be handled in that manner, it may be practicable to handle a much larger formation in that way.
  We are approaching negotiations with the Germans on an offset agreement. It seems to me that the prospects for a successful conclusion, however one judges them, are not as bright as they might be. Certainly the way in which we tend to beat our new-found European breasts in public has not encouraged the German Government to believe that they are in a weak bargaining position when they meet us round the table.
  If we do not manage to get an offset agreement we are committed to a very
  318
  substantial expenditure of foreign exchange in the years to come, and it is questionable whether it is really a sound investment for this country. The figures quoted, which may be around £80 million a year in foreign exchange for the Rhine Army, are very large sums to spend on the maintenance of a British high commander in the high ranks of the N.A.T.O. armies. That goes far beyond putting the generals in the same class as first-division footballers who, up to now, have been the only ones who have claimed a substantial fee for the transfer of their contract services from one organisation to another.
  This side of the matter needs to be looked at seriously. We have a situation where a brigade can be placed in this country and yet used in Germany at short notice, according to the White Paper. I am not saying that we could develop this situation very rapidly, in view of the large numbers of troops returning from other parts of the world. But we must consider that what is sauce for a brigade goose may well be sauce for a three divisional gander in the long run, and we may consider concentrating the whole of our forces here. The argument that we must have British troops in Germany in order to maintain the British share of the command structure in N.A.T.O. is not logical if we can have a brigade in this country which is committed to the commander-in-chief of the Rhine Army.
  I should like to raise two points on the subject of the Far East. First, we have the problem of the Beira patrol. At present, I understand that it depends on Singapore for rest and recreation and, from time to time, on the servicing of the ships taking part. I understand also that it depends on the aircraft carrier being maintained in the area, and that this second point has been resolved as a result of my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday. Nevertheless, it is a source of worry that the main base for rest and recreation will be wound up after 1971.
  Mr. Healey: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Mombassa has been used a great deal for rest and recreation for those ships.
  Mr. Moyle: I agree. I probed my right hon. Friend in the House the other day, and that is the answer he gave me. The

  319
  question must be posed in rather pessimistic terms: what is supposed to happen after 1971 to the Beira patrol? I ask not because I am particularly interested in the patrol after 1971, or likely to be, but it is very important that we should not give the Rhodesians the impression in the next year or two that they have only to hang on a bit longer and the pressure of sanctions will be relieved. My right hon. Friend therefore has some obligation to spell out in far greater detail just what arrangements are to be made for maintaining the Beira patrol. I should be grateful if he would do so.
  I understand the Government's position to be that we are still committed to the same commitments to our allies in the Far East as up to now. Their argument only is that we do not need large forces in the area of South-East Asia nor large fixed bases there in order to meet those commitments. I agree with that proposition. Just as Australians and New Zealanders came to assist us in the two world wars without maintaining fixed bases and large forces overseas, so we should be able to do the same for them.
  If this position is to be broadly credible, several points must be answered. One is that British troops could not be expected, if the ultimate emergency arose, to go from this country to South-East Asia, with its very different climatic conditions, and straight into action at short notice. There will have to be a core of British forces acclimatised, or who have had some experience of conditions in that part of the world, if our claim that we can help the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Malaysians and the Singaporeans is to be established. As yet, nothing has emerged as to how that operation is to be carried out.
  Hong Kong does not provide the entire answer, although it might help in the acclimatisation sense from the point of view of circulating British forces through it and giving them experience of the climate. But it will not help with experience of living in the jungle, which will also be necessary for operations in that part of the world. This is something the Government must clear up if some of the points in the White Paper are to be firmly established in the minds of our allies.
  320
  There is one final aspect I wish to raise about the White Paper. We have in it a new theme—the peaceful uses of military forces. I can see that there may well be a big future for this, particularly when we get more and more of our troops stationed here. I notice that my right hon. Friend has begun a study of the peaceful uses of military forces, the results of which will come out at some time not specified. I look forward to that report.
  If we are to have peaceful uses of military forces, it might be a good idea if the study group bears in mind the suggestion that officers too junior normally to command operations should be given a chance to command forces when used peacefully to assist the civil power. After all, the consequences of any mistakes they might make would be less drastic than in war and their experience in command might be valuable training.
  I appreciate that such a commonsense attitude is not always easy to apply in practice because, in a peace-time atmosphere in the Services, where everything has to be signed for and accounted for, there is a greater tendency for rather more senior officers to be in control of this sort of operation in peace time than in war. But this is a wrong tendency on the whole, and it would be useful if this study group took the point about training of junior officers in the formulation of their proposals.
  7.25 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radcliffe: The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) made an interesting speech and put some questions which I hope the Defence Secretary will answer satisfactorily, notably with regard to the future of the Beira patrol, which arouses great emotions in some parts of the House, and also with regard to how we acclimatise troops who are to go into action in completely different climatic conditions after they have been flown direct from England.
  Listening to the Defence Secretary and the Minister of Defence for Administration, I was in some respects reminded of the dance of the seven veils. Each time they took off a garment, more was revealed—except that, in the dance itself, what is revealed is, in theory, more attractive, whereas, each time the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman

  321
  made another statement, what was revealed was more alarming.
  Great play has been made with the word "redeployment". What has clearly emerged so far is not that there is a vast amount of redeployment in getting out of the Far East and coming back to Europe but that for "redeployment". one should read, in large part; "demobilisation". It is clear from what has been said in relation to barrack accommodation that the intension is to have demobilisation down to the level of the barrack accommodation available. This implication is clear.
  It is against this background that I ask what is the meaning of the statement that we shall retain a general capability for British forces use outside Europe. Our friends and allies in the Far East and in the Gulf should know whether or not that statement is meaningless. He would be a brave man who suggested that, in South-East Asia, things were entirely peaceful. The Foreign Secretary, almost exactly a year ago, told the House:
  "Many countries do not yet feel safe enough to stand alone. They need us to help them build the stability which that area has not yet found."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol 742, c. 288.]
  If that was true in February, 1967, I find it difficult to believe that events in the Far East during the last year have made it less true today.
  I know that we can fly troops almost anywhere within reason, but we have to have somewhere for them to land—an airfield held by our allies. Even if we land in a crisis, only for a short time can we continue to supply a force with ammunition or stores by air. We have to have some base somewhere from which one can supply the heavy equipment.
  In relation to this rather vague commitment of retaining our capability for the Middle and Far East, how does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that we can retain any capability without a base or aircraft carriers? Once we have got out of Singapore, I would not relish the prospect of being Commander-in-Chief, Hong Kong, should anything go wrong there, or supplies are cut off from the mainland, and reinforcements have to be flown out from England, particularly if the right hon. Gentleman is still Secretary of State.
  322
  Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent about the Persian Gulf, with the Rulers of Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States getting together and working out a sort of embryo defence agreement. He said:
  "The House may well ask itself whether these great and constructive strides towards greater unity and self-reliance in the Gulf would or could have been taken so rapidly and successfully had the British Government not announced its own decisions on the Gulf in January."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 57.]
  He takes great comfort from that. All those arguments were just as valid in November when the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs went out to tell the Rulers in the Gulf not that we were to go, but that we were to stay for a while. So much for the argument as to how well it has all turned out—but for our sudden decision to go this would not have happened. It is a complete non sequitur, unworthy of a Minister of State, and still more unworthy of the logic of a don. It is the most extraordinary argument.
  He says that we are discussing our treaty relations with the various Rulers. If one wants to renegotiate treaties both signatories sit down and discuss it. They either reach agreement, in which case all is well, or they do not. But the British Government have abrogated, contracted out unilaterally from their part of the Treaty and then said to the Rulers of the Gulf "We are sorry about this. Now you can get on with the other part." That is exactly what has happened.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said in the debate of 28th February last year in answer to an interruption from his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew):
  "Before we fix a date in this way, we must have an idea of what will happen when we go. We must give our diplomacy a chance to construct a different basis for the security of the countries which we are leaving."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742. c. 395]
  There was not much idea about what would happen in Aden. What has happened since? We did not even negotiate with a Government. Look at the economics. I do not know what the alleged saving was, but I know that we handed over £30 million in stores and equipment and paid the now Government when we got out £12 million by way of aid. So far all that they have done is to throw out

  323
  the military advisers that we left behind and arrest a number of former Federal Ministers on the grounds of their being pro-British. They have probably let the Russians into the base. If this is economics, thank goodness that I am not an economist.
  When the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues behave this way in that part of the world it is not surprising that there is not much confidence in them. There is still money being spent in Bahrain and Sharjah. We were ready to spend £14 million to £15 million and building is still going on. There must be air-conditioned houses. These are still being built. No doubt just when all the installations and the buildings are complete in about 1971, we will get out.
  When the Rulers asked if they could bear a part of the cost involved in retaining our presence in the Gulf the remark on television by the Minister was not only very offensive and inept, but it showed a complete, abysmal ignorance of either the customs or conditions of that part of the world. It violated almost every traditional courtesy which the Rulers of those States always show to us. I am very glad that he was obliged to apologise for what he said.
  Having taken the plunge, thanks to pressure behind him, and got out of Aden and Singapore, I can think of nothing more irresponsible than deliberately to jeopardise the whole of the Simonstown Agreement. This brings me to the Navy. I will not attempt to compete with the right hon. Gentleman about the technicalities of the Navy. I was only an incompetent wartime soldier, thrice evacuated by the Navy, and very well. It seems now that we have the presence of the Soviet Union as a maritime force in the Mediterranean there will need to be a complete rethinking of a great deal of N.A.T.O. strategy.
  N.A.T.O. is not, as some hon. Members seem to think confined purely to the Northern seaboard of Europe. N.A.T.O. is also concerned with the Mediterranean. Greece, Turkey and Italy are both N.A.T.O. and Mediterranean Powers. The whole of the N.A.T.O. maritime armaments and position must be affected by the Soviet pre-
  324
  sence in such great strength in the Mediterranean. The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word about that.
  Mr. Healey: Yes I did.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: All that the right hon. Gentleman said was that our own naval programme was running down. He made great play of the fact that we were contributing one frigate out of five to the N.A.T.O. frigate force, not in the Mediterranean, but in the North Atlantic. What will be left of British naval forces in the Mediterranean by the end of 1971? The right hon. Gentleman said that big oaks fall from little acorns.
  Mr. Healey: Grow from them.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Very well, grow from little acorns. To continue the forestry analogy, the right hon. Gentleman has committed the unforgivable crime of felling hardwood and replanting softwood. That is what he has done to the Navy construction programme.
  With the run-down of the Armed Forces, our men will come home from the Far and Middle East. They will then be demobilised, to a figure for which there will be barrack accommodation. Supposing that the Americans, under considerable pressure from commitments in the Far East and Vietnam, wish to thin out of N.A.T.O. a little, which is not entirely unlikely. There might be an extra pressure in Europe, and we could well be asked to reinforce B.A.O.R. If we did that what would be left in these islands would be almost nil in the way of a Regular force.
  These islands would be left with no Regular troops. There is to be no Territorial Army, no Civil Defence Corps, and no organised body of disciplined men of any kind to deal with any eventuality or crisis—and I do not mean a war, but serious flooding or some disaster of that kind. This seems to be extraordinarily unwise. The Government are a thoroughly disorganised body, quite incapable of dealing with any crisis, as has been shown, and it is high time that they gave way to someone else.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Colin Jackson: I hope that the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe)

  325
  will forgive me if I do not follow him through the various courses of his contribution, on the Simonstown Agreement and the question of our position in Europe. I would like, however, to refer to his views about the Persian Gulf and the British Government's future plans there.
  It has always seemed to me that had we continued with the plans to increase our forces in the Gulf and to make a permanent military station in Sharjah we would have been contributing not to the peace of the area but to disturbance, and inviting very considerable political chaos. Arab nationalism has always considered foreign forces in the area detrimental to their interests, and, incidentally, the Russians need not imagine that they will be treated in any different fashion from the British, French or Americans, though in this sense the Russians may find if they want a permanent base in Mers el Kebir that it may in the end be a graveyard rather than a staging post for them.
  Whether or not one agrees with the kind of speeches made by Cairo Radio or the sentiments of students in Beirut or Tripoli, Arab nationalism has this hostility towards foreign bases, and if after we moved out of Aden we had got deeper into the Persian Gulf it would have been an automatic attraction for all the wildest voices throughout the Middle East, from the Moroccan coast to the Persian Gulf, and we would not have been able to secure the increasingly good relations between ourselves and the Arab world which enabled us, for example, to make a very useful contribution to peace in the November, 1922 Security Council Resolution.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I hope, therefore, that when the decision was taken to get out of Aden the hon. Member objected to his own Government's decision to build up bases in Bahrein and Sharjah.
  Mr. Jackson: I did indeed. I urged hon. Gentlemen to read a pamphlet which was written about that time entitled "When Britain Goes". It would not be correct for me to name the author, but I thought it was exceptionally well written and something which has stood the test of time. I mention in the pamphlet the fact that in the Persian Gulf—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows this area—there never have been
  326
  permanent British garrisons. We have had the Trucial Omanate States, but, with the traditional culture of the people there, it would have been extremely unfortunate to see large numbers of British Service men going when off duty into Dubai where they would have been an easy target for Arab nationalists. I am very pleased, therefore, that the Government have reversed what I believe was an unwise decision to build up forces in the Gulf.
  Secondly, I cannot understand the Opposition's view, generally that we should promise an indefinite commitment in the Gulf. An indefinite commitment attracts an indefinite hostility. As with any increase in the pay of Members of Parliament, there is never a right time; but I believe this as good a time as any. With peace in the Arab world, with the Yemen quieter, and with the British conflict in Aden disappeared from the headlines this is as good a time as any to try to plan for a long-term settlement of the Gulf situation.
  I regret as much as anyone the words that have passed between the Governments of Iran and the Saudi Arabia, because I believe that in the long run the stability of the Gulf depends on good relations between those two Governments. To anybody who knows the geography, this makes common sense. But also we have, as a result of the decision to withdraw within four years, seen more progress in the last two months with these States moving towards unity, than we have had in the last 50 years. It is absolutely natural that the Trucial Omanate States should come closer. It is absolutely natural in the long run that they must be on better terms with Saudi Arabia; and it is natural that Kuwait should be a useful and positive force in the Gulf. With four years to go, it is about the right timing for the completion of the job Britain has done but which she could not and should not be expected to do indefinitely.
  It is not exactly within the scope of this defence debate, although it comes on the periphery, but I have spent a good deal of time wondering what kind of security force we could have in the Gulf after the departure of the British Forces; whether, for example, the Trucial Omanate States Scouts could be organised with their own joint command structure from,

  327
  for example, the Arab States on the southern side of the Gulf. Or we could have the example of the Kuwait exercise when Iraq threatened Kuwait, of an Arab League operation. But I still cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition party that we should promise an indefinite extension. It seems to me that that would be inviting trouble.
  May I refer to a remark I find equally incomprehensible made by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that European powers should be extending their military influence outside Europe and with particular reference to France which, the Leader of the Opposition stated, was increasing its Polaris total and its nuclear capability. If the Opposition benches are suggesting that Britain should model her military policy on the military and political conduct of France, I believe this could be a national disgrace—a country such as France which has refused co-operation with N.A.T.O. and has flouted her allies. To copy such action would be putting us back half a century. Then on purely practical terms, if France thought she was going to increase her influence in the world by an extra Polaris submarine or extra nuclear capability in the modern Afro-Asian world she would be mistaken. France, in fact, would be weakened. To be fair to France, however, I believe her ambitions are more on the political, economic and cultural side than was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
  The other main area, apart from Europe, which has been the subject of discussion in this defence debate has been South-East Asia. Here, again, certain hon. Members opposite have in their assessment of the situation had a fundamentally false idea of the threat of Communism in the area. The Leader of the Opposition made a reference to the domino theory, alleging that this had been referred to in a Russian magazine. It would make me even more depressed if the Russians had been fooled by the domino theory in the same way as the Americans have been fooled, when it would be imperative for Britain to take a lead in clarification and understanding.
  Indonesia could have fallen two years ago without a single shot being fired, through a coup d'état in Jakarta. American soldiers could have been fighting in
  328
  Vietnam. B.52 bombers could have been flying and 100 million people in Indonesia could have slipped into the Communist camp. The domino theory of movement step by step is a totally false theory for South-East Asia. In fact, I believe we are now getting, with regard to Vietnam, a counter-productive effect of the American military defence threat. Certain statesmen in South-East Asia, while they are prepared to accept a limited American force in the East, feel that the savagery and brutality that has happened in Vietnam is having an effect on their own people in directly encouraging them towards Communism. I do not think we have yet paid enough attention to all the possibilities of the Asian States Association.
  Reference favourable to this treaty has been made from the Opposition benches but with the proviso that there must still be Western backing for a certain time as a long stop behind the treaty. Four years is long enough. If a sense of urgency is not created, people will not get together. The visit of the Prime Minister of Malaysia to Jakarta forms an important contribution to the progress of defence arrangements in South-East Asia. I have become slightly tired of hearing the suggestion today that Britain should be invited to discussions in the area between Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand, leaving out Indonesia. If one wants that country to be prey to neutralism or Communism, a good way of going about it is to leave out this country which has undergone a significant change and which now has, from my personal knowledge, a friendly Government in Jakarta.
  I do not believe that Australia, which had good relations with Indonesia before the worst of Sukarno and which has good relations with Indonesia today, would want Indonesia to be left out of South-East Asian defence talks. With proper aid for radar and ground control in Singapore, with the maintenance of training facilities, I can see an Asian States Association performing a vital protective rôle in South-East Asia. The Chinese will not come down, as the Japanese did in 1941, in their serried hordes. If they did, they would meet not only the resistance of South-East Asia but the collective indignation of the world.

  329
  Not once in this debate have I heard mention from the Opposition benches of the United Nations. Not a single reference has been made to the rôle of the United Nations in peace-keeping around the world. The Leader of the Opposition talked about force going out of Europe. The best force which has gone out of Europe in the last 20 years, excluding our own country, has been made up of Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Irish troops doing a peace-keeping job in the Congo and Cyprus. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) raises his eyebrows, but he knows as well as I do—he knows the area well—that if the United Nations were not in Cyprus today there would be a blood bath.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: What about the Congo?
  Mr. Jackson: I thought that that was coming. That is why I mentioned the other territory.
  As Britain winds up her principal responsibilities in South-East Asia, there is no reason why the Government of Singapore should not invite a United Nations small presence. It would be a very good thing to discourage predatory forces of varying nations in the area. There should be less talk in defence debates about vacuums which need to be filled and big power politics here, there and everywhere. There should be much more emphasis on international security. Britain's reputation in supporting the United Nations—for example, sending our troops to Cyprus—is a good one. This is one aspect of defence policy which we should keep in the forefront of our mind.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) is Vice-Chairman of the Anglo-Thai Parliamentary Association. I am the Chairman. I was very sorry that in his tour d'horizon of the extreme Orient he did not mention the country which we both of us have so much at heart.
  Mr. Colin Jackson: I must apologise for that omission. I intended to include Thailand in the Asian States Association.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I shall mention Thailand rather more freely and at greater length. It is relevant to discuss its posi-
  330
  tion in the context of the so-called cutting of our commitments in the Far East.
  There is a legend that what has happened in the last few weeks is that not only our troops in the Far East but our commitments have been cut. The Secretary of State, in previous debates, took great credit for saying that in the various changes of policy he had always ensured that when our forces were cut our commitments were cut, too. Therefore, I inquire, in this vital matter of our obligations to our ally Thailand, exactly what commitment has been cut. Certainly our ability to fulfil that commitment has been enormously reduced. But I cannot see that the commitment has been changed at all.
  I have here the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty dated 8th September, 1954. I assume that the Secretary of State and the Government do not just write it off as an engagement entered into by a previous Administration. It is extraordinary that one should have to raise this point. However, the Home Secretary, in another context, on television only last week said that "no Government could bind its successor". The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) is a distinguished international lawyer. He would be the first to confirm that in treaty matters a Government binds its successor.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker indicated assent.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's corroboration. Governments are bound by what their predecessors have signed for them under international law. But it is necessary to make the point and to be reassured on it in view of the speeches made by some members of the Government.
  Article 4(1) of the Treaty states:
  "Each party recognises that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the parties or against any State or territory which the parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate would endanger its own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes."
  Their obligation is to act in the case of aggression. It is true that in a subsequent Article there is an obligation merely to consult in the case of subversion. But in the case of aggression from outside—

  331
  for example, aggression by North Vietnam against South Vietnam—the obligation is to act. For that reason it is a most solemn and binding obligation signed by ourselves and many other countries in that area.
  Article 2 goes further. It pledges us, and we have sworn:
  "In order effectively to achieve the objects of this treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack and to prevent and counter subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability."
  In other words, all the parties, including ourselves, have jointly and severally pledged themselves to maintain and develop their individual capacity.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has the Treaty there, will he confirm that under Article 1 there can be no action unless there has been a breach of the Charter of the United Nations and can he maintain that North Vietnam has been guilty of such a breach? Secondly, under Article 6, is it not the case that there can be no legitimate action unless all the parties have agreed, which has never been the case regarding Vienam?
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes. I am not citing this Treaty for the purpose of suggesting that we have an obligation under it to go to the help of South Vietnam, because I do not think it applies. To that extent I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am citing this Treaty as a potential obligation of ours in the case of Thailand. It is a very serious and, I believe, real obligation which might at any moment confront us. This is a serious commitment out of which the Government perhaps ought to get, but they have not. I suggest that the legend that is put about, that our commitments in the Far East have been reduced, is not true. All that has happened is that our ability to fulfil those commitments has been seriously reduced. To the extent that we have pledged ourselves to maintain and develop our individual capacity, the Treaty has been somewhat breached.
  Like all other such Treaties, this one has provision for an escape by giving a year's notice. Article 10 provides:
  332
  "This treaty shall remain in force indefinitely, but any party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines"—
  who are the Secretariat for this sort of purpose.
  In other words, it is possible to reduce our very large commitments, but we have not done so. We have not done this concerning any of our obligations in the Far East. We have not fulfilled the boast of the Secretary of State for Defence that when our capacities are reduced our commitments are thereby reduced. Why, in that case, is he so intent upon his "general capability"? We do not know very much about it, but he always says, "Of course, we shall be able to fulfil our obligations or commitments by means of the general capability. This means that instead of having our troops present in bases in these far off places they will be flown or transported by water to fulfil these obligations." He is insistent on that point. I am sure that he means it, but it only shows even more that our commitments are not reduced. It just makes it much harder for us to fulfil them.
  In a way it is a deception on the people in the Far East not to reduce our commitments if in fact we are reducing our ability to fulfil them practically to zero. Therefore, I suggest that, particularly in the case of Thailand, we should support her. Thailand is under immediate and permament threat not only of subversion—a matter touched upon today by the Leader of the Opposition—but also of armed aggression from the north. Thailand has done a great deal in the way that everybody is always adjuring countries of South-East Asia to do; that is to say, to look after their own defences and put their own houses in order. Thailand is a very great country and an example to the East. It has committed itself firmly on the anti-Communist side and I think that we should support it. On the other hand, it would be quite wrong to let Thailand, as so many other places, think that we would support her if ever the dread moment came when she could rightly invoke our aid under the Treaty if we do not really intend to do so.
  I hope, therefore, that the Government, for their own sake, for the good name of the United Kingdom, and above all for the sake of this potential victim of Communist aggression, will let Thailand

  333
  know what their intentions are. Do they intend to withdraw from the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, as they can under the Treaty, or do they intend to leave the obligation vague, floating and grey, which in all international affairs is the worst of all possible worlds?
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. James Dickens: In his interesting speech, the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made an effective point. I accept that the logic of the Government's defence policy in the Far East is to give due notice that we intend to leave the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. This must be seen as part of a policy on the part of this Government to reappraise Britain's post-imperial rôle for the remainder of this century and beyond.
  The fact that we are now debating the fifth Defence Review in just over three years is a sufficient indication of the difficulties which the present Government have had to face in arriving at their present position, when, after 13 years in opposition—I think it fair to say this on reflection—they had failed to devise a policy or strategy which came to terms with Britain's position in either a military sense or a banking sense. In a military sense, we are now, at long last, seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. We have not yet arrived at that point in our world banking rôle,, with its international reserve currency obligations.
  It is a matter for congratulation that the Government have now, in 1968, reappraised our military rôle. I begin by saying to the Government that, as one of their critics on defence matters since my election to the House in March, 1966. I warmly support their decision to leave Singapore, Malaysia and the Persian Gulf by the end of 1971 and to abandon the F.111 contract. These decisions have an overwhelming economic justification, as I shall seek to show.
  Throughout this debate, the Conservative Opposition, in all their speeches, have totally failed to face up to the economic realities confronting this country today. The simple fact is that this country was and is living well beyond its means in defence spending. As a nation, we are still, in 1968–69, spending 6 per
  334
  cent. of our gross national product on defence, the highest figure of any European country outside the Soviet Union. I take issue with the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday that the British figure was now roughly equivalent to that of France. According to the Institute for Strategic Studies document, "The Military Balance—1967/68", Table 3, France was spending in 1967–68 4·4 per cent. of gross national product on defence as compared with a figure then of 6·4 per cent. for Great Britain. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us how France's figure has been increased from 4·4 to approximately 6 per cent. in one year.
  The countries of the European Economic Community are spending, on average, about 4 per cent. of their collective gross national product on defence. If we had a figure roughly equivalent to that, it would mean that British defence spending next year would be about £750 million lower than it will be. This would mean for Great Britain a massive reallocation of resources from defence to national investment, the social services and many other sectors of Government spending. I want to see the Government moving towards that position. It is not at all unreasonable or over-ambitious to urge that, by 1970–71, they should be in a position at which we spend about the same as the E.E.C. countries are spending on defence. I want to see the level of defence spending reduced much below that in the Defence Review, although I welcome the reductions there envisaged.
  Before I deal with some other effects of defence spending on the economy, I would like to have one item cleared up in connection with our defence spending in South-East Asia. In the Defence Review, at Chapter 2, paragraph 20, the paragraph on Malaysia, there is a discussion on the British defence commitment in Malaya, and our overall defence spending there. There is, however, no discussion of the function of the British Jungle Warfare School at Johore in Malaysia. On 6th November last, when I questioned my right hon. Friend about the functions of this school, I was told that since 1964 we had trained about 1,035 South Vietnamese, and 240 American troops in jungle warfare, at a cost to the British taxpayer of about £132,000. This is, as

  335
  it were, an underhand British contribution to the American and South Vietnamese war effort in Vietnam. I want to see that contribution brought to an end immediately, and I would like my right hon. Friend to answer this question tonight. Is there any obligation now in Malaysia for the further training of South Vietnamese or American troops at the British Jungle Warfare School, and will there be any expenditure in respect of this in 1968–69?
  I believe it to be necessary for us properly to phase our military withdrawal from Singapore, from Malaysia, and from the Persian Gulf. I am not, therefore, basically unhappy about the decision to do so by the end of 1971. I think that this is a responsible attitude to take to this perplexing problem.
  I turn, now, to consider the fact that even with these cuts in our defence spending we shall still, post-1971, be spending about £2,000 million per annum on defence. This figure is far too high. Indeed, looking back over the past 20 years, one sees that since 1948–49 this country has managed to spend £32,000 million on defence, almost the equivalent of one year's total gross national product. In the forthcoming financial year, despite the Government's attempts to make reductions, our defence spending will work out at 15s. 6d. per head of the population per week. Our defence spending in the forthcoming financial year, of £2,271 million, may be compared with a spending on our health and welfare services of about £1,650 million, and on housing of about £1,070 million.
  Our military research and development budget next year will total £254 million, a derisory reduction of only 2 per cent. compared with £260 million in the current financial year. This figure of £254 million may be contrasted with the budget of the Medical Research Council for the forthcoming financial year of something less than £15 million, or slightly more than 5 per cent. of our total spending on military research and development.
  Again, we see in the White Paper that our spending next year on nuclear submarines and Polaris missile systems will total about £70 million. This is broadly the equivalent of the cost of 150 new large comprehensive schools, or the construc-
  336
  tion of two new towns of the size of Crawley. Let no one, therefore, underestimate the immense strain on the British economy even of the reduced defence expenditure to which the Government are committed.
  I have yet to hear one hon. Member opposite mention that a basic weakness of our balance of payments has been the continual rise in the foreign exchange costs of overseas military expenditure. This, coupled with the net flow of private direct investment abroad, has been primarily responsible for our balance of payments deficit. The present Home Secretary, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, was indiscreet enough on 8th November, 1964, when a "fresh man" in office, to admit in an interview given to the German journal Der Spiegel that if this country had not had such heavy overseas defence expenditure it would have had no balance of payments problem in that year.
  The foreign exchange costs of defence have risen from £125 million in 1951 to £200 million in 1960 and almost £300 million in 1966–67. That figure must come down and I welcome the indications in the White Paper that at long last the Government are moving in this direction. But still, the cost of defence expenditure in terms of foreign exchange next year will be considerable. Annex H brings out the fact that they will still be £144 million, excluding the cost of the British defence commitment in West Germany, which we estimate at about £90 million.
  Mention has been made of the offset arrangements intended largely to deal with the drain of £90 million caused by the British Army of the Rhine and our defence commitment in West Berlin. I put it to the Secretary of State that negotiations for new offset arrangements in 1968–69 will obviously be very much tougher than in preceding years, because of the American Government's determination to make considerable economies in the costs of their forces in West Germany. I should be grateful if he could tell us, first, what the total offset arrangements out-turn is for 1967–68 in West Germany, and, second, the prospects of negotiations for 1968–69.
  I do not take it as axiomatic that we have any lasting commitment to keep 57,000 British troops in West Germany and Berlin. I want a phased withdrawal

  337
  on the same sort of basis as our announced withdrawal east of Suez. In short, by the early 1970s I want a total withdrawal of B.A.O.R. from Germany and a withdrawal from West Berlin. This would contribute significantly to disengagement in Central Europe. We are at present committed to spend £212 million in West Germany next year. We should remember that, not only do we have 57,000 men there, but we also employ over 32,000 German civilians to service those forces. As part of a phased exercise, we should move towards substantial British reductions in West Germany.
  The time is now propitious for a political settlement in Central Europe and I can think of no better initiative for this Government than an announcement that we intend now, as part of the N.A.T.O. study of reductions of troop levels mentioned in the Defence Review, to make a token withdrawal of about 10,000 men in the coming financial year. This could be the first step towards the withdrawal of all foreign troops from West Germany—British, American and the remaining French forces—coupled with the phased withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
  This would take us back to the position which we as a party held in 1958, when we argued for disengagement in Central Europe, and could lead towards a general European security arrangement to replace the present N.A.T.O. arrangements in the West and the Warsaw Pact arrangements in the East. It is this towards which we must look.
  I now turn to the question of manpower and manpower cuts. We have 417,000 men under arms in Britain, serviced by 380,000 civilian, and the Government expect that by 1974 we shall have reduced the armed forces to something like 320,000 men and 300,000 civilians. These figures, though a much welcomed reduction, must be cut still further. There is no justification at all for an army 150,000 strong stationed primarily in Britain when one hopes for diminished defence commitments in West Germany. I want to see the British defence forces reduced to less than 300,000 men at a date around 1971 and 1972.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Would the hon. Gentleman continue this inter-
  338
  esting argument and say what those men would do?
  Mr. Dickens: As part of the overall strategy of this Government, one would hope in an expanding economy that there would be ample opportunities for peaceful employment for those demobilised. However large the armed forces, I can see no significant problem in that. After all, the Government envisage a fall of 75,000 between now and April, 1974.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I was talking about the men left in the Services.
  Mr. Dickens: I can see no basic problem of adding, say, 50,000 men as an additional number to the figures envisaged by the Government over a shorter period.
  On the question of research and development expenditure, as I said earlier, we are spending £254 million on military research and development, 52 per cent. of all Government spending on scientific research and development. It is one of the highest figures in any advanced industrial country. This must come down. It is interesting to note that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in a recent Report drew attention to the fact that whereas in Britain, of our total research and development spending we spent 40 per cent. on defence and only 51 per cent. on industrial research generally, West Germany spends 17 per cent. on military research and development and 62 per cent. on industrial research; Japan spends literally nothing on defence research expenditure and 73 per cent. on industrial research, and Japan and Germany have a very much more impressive economic performance in recent years than this country.
  Thus I endorse the Government decision to withdraw east of Suez, and the decision to reduce the level of manpower by 75,000 over the next five years. I want to see further defence reductions by a withdrawal of the British Army of the Rhine and impressive cuts made in military research and development expenditure. We can, if we decide on a change of policy on the lines I have outlined, get to a position in the early 1970s where the British percentage of defence spending is no higher than that of our trading rivals in the European Economic Community. This should be our short-term aim.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Carr: The Minister of Defence for Equipment last night suggested rather charmingly—I hope that his hon. Friends thought that it was done charmingly—that the Secretary of State would tonight be knitting together the ends of this debate. We have seen the Secretary of State do his knitting before, and I beg him not to go in for it tonight.
  Above all, we want the right hon. Gentleman to attempt some serious answers to the fundamental points which were put forward today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. How do the Government see the strategic position developing throughout the world? What is their analysis of future British interests for example, over access to raw materials and the means of getting them to this country? How do we protect those interests and how do the proposals in this defence policy match up to an adequate protection for those interests?
  As my right hon. Friend said, it is the duty of the Government, and every Government, to give Parliament—and, therefore, the country—their assessment of these matters every year in the Annual Defence Review and debate. They are—or, at least, they should be—the main determinants of what our defence policy needs to he. But so far, neither in their printed Statements nor in Ministers' speeches, have the Government carried out their duty. We therefore ask the Secretary of State to do that duty when he makes the final speech in this debate.
  In winding up for the Opposition, I do not wish at this late stage to attempt to add any new thoughts or arguments. Nor do I wish to go into great detail. My job is to sum up and try to bring into focus, under a number of main headings, the reasons why we cannot approve the Government's current Statement on Defence. Rather than approving it, we think it necessary to censure the Government
  "…for having undermined the confidence both of the services and of our friends and allies, and seriously weakened the defence capability of this country."
  and to show why the Government's actions are, in our opinion, threatening the long-term security and prosperity of our people. We do not believe, as some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to believe, that one can separate the long-
  340
  term security of the nation from the long-term prosperity of our people.
  I wish to sum up, too, the reasons why we believe that the Government's actions have dishonoured Britain's word to some of those countries who had the strongest right and need to depend on it, and why they have undermined throughout the world the reliance which can be placed on Britain's constancy of purpose and policy, with the result, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that we will be increasingly ignored instead of listened to in the councils of the world.
  The first reason for our censure stems from the fact that this Defence Statement is but the latest in a long series of decision and counter-decision which has gone on in the last three-and-a-half years. It is the fourth regular Annual Defence Review or Statement introduced by the Labour Government—but, of course, there have also been a growing number of irregular or supplementary statements coinciding with each successive economic crisis into which the Government have blundered.
  One common theme has run through all these Defence Statements. Each one has contradicted the one before. The only other consistency running through them has been that they have all been introduced by the same Secretary of State.
  In 1966 we were given not a Defence Review but "the" Defence Review. We were told that the major decisions had been taken, that the whole panoply of planning had been brought to bear and that the broad course for the future was charted and certain.
  It is true that the Secretary of State said that the Defence Review would now be a continuing and permanent feature of government, and that was presumably the concept of the "rolling programme"—a sensible and extremely valuable tool of management and policy control—but what we have had is not a rolling programme but a somersaulting programme, with the somersaults becoming more and more frequent as time has gone on.
  This, as has been pointed out by many hon. and right hon. Members, is the fifth major defence announcement in 53 weeks—February, July and November, 1967,

  341
  January and February so far in 1968, and still another to come in the summer of 1968 because, as is stated in print in this defence statement, it claims to be only an interim one. After all the finality, after all the panoply of planning, this is only an interim statement.
  I put one question to the Secretary of State to which I hope he will give an affirmative answer and a promise. It is that this year the next supplementary statement on defence in the summer shall not be introduced only one week before the Summer Recess. Parliament must have a chance to consider and debate it properly before we rise. An hon. Member opposite laughs, but I fear that there is justice for this in the light of experience.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: I was not laughing at the right hon. Member's joke.
  Mr. Carr: I cannot quite hear the mumblings of the hon. Member, but I am not very interested in whose joke it is. What matters is that the country should have a chance to give proper consideration this time in the next statement.
  There is no need to, nor do I want, to recall all the somersaults of the last years which have been mentioned in this debate, but I must recall those which have taken place since devaluation because whatever might be the rights or wrongs of devaluation or the arguments whether it could or should have been avoided, it was a cataclysmic experience. If the Government after devaluation had made a sudden roundabout change in policy, one might have understood it, however much one criticised them for creating the conditions in which it was necessary.
  We have had a reversal and a somersault since devaluation. That proves the panic and wanton lack of any reasonable contingency planning for which this Government deserve to be censured. After devaluation we were first told that defence would have to be further cut at the rate of £100 million a year. Only two months later, on 16th January, the Prime Minister announced these additional severe cuts. On 27th November, the Secretary of State for Defence told the House—I am sorry to quote once again words which have been quoted
  342
  many times in this debate, but they are the key to this censure:
  "I believe, and the whole Government share my view, that we must, above all, keep faith with our forces and with our allies in making these cuts. We can have no reversal of the July decisions…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 59.]
  I do not think I need quote the rest. He went on to reinforce that point,
  "We can have no reversal of the July decisions."
  He added that the Chancellor had said last month that the reductions must be made from within the framework of the defence policies announced last summer. That was after devaluation. His statement, last summer to which the Secretary of State's and the Chancellor's remarks referred, seemed at last to be the rock bottom, but now they have proved not to be the rock bottom. How can a Government with any vestige of responsibility go back on the programme which they stated after devaluation was the minimum requirement to keep faith with our allies and our forces and to secure the interests of this country? How can the Secretary of State be party to this somersault and still remain in office?
  We cannot help contrasting the Secretary of State's action with that of the present Home Secretary who realised that he could not continue in his previous office once his fundamental policy had been upset. He knew that, whatever the necessity for that policy might be, its credibility and hope of success would be irreparably damaged if he remained the Minister in charge of carrying it out. We cannot understand, and I do not think the country can understand, that, having made that solemn declaration as I believe the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) called it this afternoon, of what was needed to keep faith with our forces and our allies and to secure the interests of this country, the same Secretary of State should carry on in his office.
  The second main cause for our censure of the Government flows directly from the first. The Government have let down friends and allies who had every reason and need to depend on us and whom it was, and still is, in Britain's own national interests to support.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends, in too many speeches to mention individually, have given chapter and verse for the

  343
  ways in which the letter and, still more, the moral obligation, of our commitments have been dishonoured in the Middle East, in Asia, Australian and New Zealand. The House should take very seriously the remarks my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made a few moments ago, when he questioned how much the former commitments had, in fact, been cut. It is even more dishonourable to pretend to maintain commitments but to remove the resources which alone can enable their fulfilment. In this connection the humbug of this Government seems to know no bounds. They now present as virtuous and right the surrender of commitments which, only a few months ago, they were presenting as being essential to British interests and our contribution to world peace.
  I have in mind particularly parts of the speeches of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 18th January to this House, of the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday, and of the Minister of Defence for Administration this afternoon. If all that the Minister of Defence for Administration told us this afternoon was right, what gross miscalculations the Government must have been guilty of up to two months ago. They really cannot have it both ways.
  I am going to recall, in order to highlight this humbug, one of the examples given in this debate about the Government's falsification of commitments, namely, our commitment to Australia. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) reminded the House yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence said in an interview which he gave to the Sunday Times in January this year that the Government still accepted
  "the same moral obligation to help Australia and New Zealand, if they are ever under direct threat, that they accepted in our case in two world wars".
  But, as my right hon. Friend also reminded the House, this obligation is, by the Secretary of State's own testimony, now impossible to fulfil. It is humbug.
  The Secretary of State told the House on 1st May last year, when talking about the need for the F111, which has now been cancelled:
  344
  "It is difficult to think of any contribution which we could make to Australia's defence which would not require us to have this type of capability in our armoury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 112.]
  Those two statements cannot be married together with honour. In our view, this retreat from responsibility, this dishonouring of commitments, both actual and in the sense made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen—that we have given up the means of fulfilling those we are nominally keeping—is not required by economic necessity. We are convinced, on this side of the House, that even in the present economic situation we could still hold at least to the positions maintained in the Government's defence statement of last July, which the Government themselves, after devaluation, promised they were going to maintain and said they had to maintain. We believe the country could bear that burden, even in our present economic situation.
  The economic need following devaluation, as Ministers never tire of pointing out, and rightly, is to get a quick release of resources, to reinforce the capacity of the export-earning and import-saving industries. But, by their own admission of the obvious, these further defence cuts can have no effect in the immediate future. Indeed, in the short run they add to our burden to some extent. The release of resources which flows from them is in the much longer term, as the Government have admitted. The Prime Minister himself said this in his Statement on 16th January.
  Are the Government really expecting us still then to be on our knees economically in the early 1970s? Is that the message that they are giving to the country and to the world? I hope not. Nor do I believe that that is the Government's real reason. No; the main motivating reason for the Government eating their post-devaluation promises of November is one of internal Labour Party politics. The Government never gave way to the strong reasoned arguments of men like the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). They may disagree with them, as we do, but they never gave way to them. Right up to and after devaluation they kept on rebutting those arguments and holding at least to the minimum essentials of their previous policy.
  It was only during the political horse-trading of the Christmas Recess that

  345
  Britain's interests and commitments were sacrificed to provide a sugar coating to the economic pill. The Government have not bought off the Left Wing, just as blackmail never can be bought off. As the Amendment in the names of hon. Members opposite proves, the appetite of the Left Wing for defence cuts is still voracious and this was made even clearer by the speeches we heard today by the hon. Members for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens). Make no mistake about it: the Left wing of the Labour Party, having got us out of Asia, will not rest in its attempts to get us out of Europe as well.
  Mr. Shinwell: I think we should get out of there, too.
  Mr. Carr: I admit that it is not only the Left wing that has this desire, but I regard the right hon. Gentleman as a rather distinguished anachronism in this matter.
  The third main reason for our censuring the Government is, in the words of our Amendment, the undermining of the confidence of the Services.
  Mr. Roebuck: Rubbish. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is so false. Surely he recognises that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) wants us out of Asia. I do not particularly want us to go, but the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does.
  Mr. Carr: Before the hon. Gentleman takes up the time of the House in interruptions of that kind, he should read carefully what my right hon. Friend said. Some of it was read this afternoon. They ought not to omit the critical word "eventually", which my right hon. Friend used. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem to regard this matter of timing as a mere peccadillo, a mere detail. As I shall show later, it is so important as to be a matter of principle.
  I was saying that the third main reason for our censuring the Government is, in the words of our Amendment, the undermining of the confidence of the Services. That, too, is a point which has been brought out over and over again with irrefutable clarity in many speeches. In winding up, all I need do to bring the
  346
  point home is to recall, as has already been recalled, another statement by the Secretary of State in last November's debate in which he specifically repeated what he had said in July. This is what he said:
  "the Forces need, above all…a period of stability in which they can plan manpower and careers and adapt their equipment, training and support programme to changes in their size and shape…
  Service men and women are usually the last to complain…That is all the more reason to provide them with the basic reassurance to which they are entitled regarding their futures…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 77.]
  That was regarded as essential by the Government last July. They repeated it after devaluation. This was their final word, their solemn pledge. It has now been broken and upset; and all again is uncertainty. Therefore the confidence of our services has been undermined, as has been shown by many speeches from this side of the House in the debate.
  The fourth reason for our censure is that the Government's decisions leave vital gaps in the equipment of our services in the 1970s. Ministers now talk loudly and proudly about the strength, efficiency and fine equipment of all three Services. That is true for the next few years, due more than anything else to the procurement decisions taken some years ago by the Conservative Government. Nearly every one of the main weapons or weapons systems so often repeated, Polaris, Chieftain, Harrier—Kestrel, as it was called—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Front Bench must contain itself.
  Mr. Carr: There would be no Harrier today if we had not built the Kestrel.
  What cannot be denied is that on the testimony of the Government the Services are now doomed in the 1970s to be without important items of equipment which until a month or two ago the Government said were absolutely vital to their needs. Two of the most outstanding examples in the Royal Air Force are the F111, which, apart from its continuing rôle, was claimed to be vital to bridge the gap between the phasing out of the Canberras and the coming into service of the A.F.V.G., and the A.F.V.G. itself, which was to have been the core of our future programme, operationally and industrially.

  347
  The fifth reason for our censure is the effect of the Government's vacillations on equipment on the industrial capability of this country, particularly in the advanced technology essential to defence. Of course, Britain can no longer make for herself the whole range of vastly complicated technological equipment required by modern defence forces. We must buy some from other countries, including the United States. We must make as much as possible on a joint venture basis, particularly with our allies in Europe. But we must also maintain our own independent industrial capability, and that is what is now in danger. The present chaos in the aircraft industry is the clearest example of that danger. It also reflects on our overall industrial and economic strength for peaceful purposes.
  I would never advocate for one moment a policy of deliberately going in for immensely expensive defence projects merely for the benefit of technological fall-out throughout the rest of our economy. But if a country must have modern defence equipment, as we must, it should get as much benefit as possible from that necessity. In other industrial countries in a similar position the defence effort is made an integral part of the country's industrial strength and is seen to be such. When we cancel or fail to go ahead with some of the most advanced technological projects required by our defence effort we not only impose on ourselves a serious balance of payments problem but also a positive handicap on our technological strength, a mistake not made by other countries in similar positions. It is nonsense to suggest that Britain is no longer large enough, strong enough or rich enough to maintain that independent capability. Sweden, for example, which has no pretence to be in the first league of world powers, finds it economically as well as politically worthwhile to maintain her own advanced aircraft industry.
  Finally, underlying and encompassing all the other reasons for our censure of the Government is our condemnation and rejection of the defeatist and narrow view of Britain's rôle in the world implicit in the Government's latest policies. We harbour no delusions of grandeur. We cannot dominate the world or any part
  348
  of it as perhaps we once did, nor do we want to do so. The old nation States like Britain are not in the same league as the super-powers of the modern world. But we do reject utterly the opposite outlook of "little England" and the concept of "fortress Britain." Such a concept would meet neither the needs nor satisfy the spirit of the British people, and if it were necessary for the British people to make some short-term sacrifice to avoid that concept, I believe that they would do so if that question were put to them.
  Equally, we regard as inadequate and dangerous the concept of "fortress Europe". It surely ought to be part of Britain's rôle in the modern world to stimulate an increasing interest and participation by Western Europe in Asia and Africa, certainly not to sink herself inside an inward looking Europe, which is the course we fear the Government have embarked upon.
  However that might turn out, Britain, unlike perhaps some other European countries, can only maintain her present population in prosperity by being active and involved in the world—trading, investing, getting our raw materials and making sure that we get them here. At least for the time being, that must require a limited but specific defence contribution outside Europe. How long that commitment will remain cannot be forecast. It may be—and no one would be better pleased than we on this side—that the time is only for a few years. But we cannot with certainty say when it will end. We cannot forecast, for example, as the Government are doing, that it can safely and suddenly end in 1971 or any other arbitrary date fixed years in advance. Meanwhile, until it does end, we must work through our alliances in our own interests as much as those of the interests of our allies, and, therefore, we must be believed to be constant and dependable allies and must make the effort and, if necessary, the sacrifice to be so.
  In these circumstances, there are three essential purposes which our defence policy must meet. The first priority, of course, is our own immediate security, and that has to be based on Europe and N.A.T.O. To this extent, we agree with the Government and also with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Europe becoming more self-reliant in providing

  349
  her own defence in the years ahead. But the second and third of these three purposes are to protect our wider interests throughout the world—the sort of interests referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—and to make some contribution to maintaining peace in the world outside Europe in places and circumstances where it is much better and safer that the superpowers should, if possible, not be directly involved.
  It is these second and third purposes which the Government are now throwing overboard and for which we censure them, because, as my right hon. Friend made clear, these wider interests are not purely British interests. They are also the interests of Europe as a whole. They are too, of course, the self-interest of the countries in the Middle East and Asia and other parts of the world.
  Of course, it might therefore be argued that the burden should not rest on Britain so much as it does but should be more fairly shared. But that is one of the inheritances of our past which we cannot just slough off when we wish to. Of course, it would be fairer and better if other countries shared more of the burden with us. Of course, we want these countries in the Middle East and Asia to become more self-supporting in their own defence. All this is agreed. But this is no reason for creating a vacuum there. It is no part of our policy to want to stay in these places for ever. But, as I have said, timing is not just a matter of detail; it is so important as to be a matter of principle, and one cannot forecast precisely in advance when the timing will be appropriate to relieve ourselves of some of our present burdens.
  So we must honour our commitments as long as we have them. We must play our part, which includes a defence rôle in promoting security, stability and self sufficiency, and I quote for the last time what the Secretary of State said in our defence debate a year ago. He said:
  "In South-East Asia during confrontation, as in East Africa on a much smaller scale during the Army mutinies of 1964, British forces helped to create a situation in which the local people were able to achieve peaceful settlement of their problems on their own…There would have been chaos in East Africa and in a large part of South-East Asia if we had not been willing and able to perform this rôle"
  350
  He went on:
  "This achievement…was only possible for certain reasons. First, we were operating from a secure base in Singapore and Malaysia, with support not only of the local government, but also of the local population."
  That was a condition of our ability to prevent the chaos of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, and it is a condition which he is now to nullify, and for this we censure him. What will happen when this is nullified?
  I continue the quotation:
  "…the purpose of our is to foster developments which will enable the local people to live at peace without the presence of external forces…"
  He developed that as the purpose of our policy and said that in the meantime our forces would help. He ended:
  " In my view, to renounce all capability for this type of action now would be not only to violate formal obligations, but also to abdicate a precious power which we have to contribute to world peace and to prevent needless human suffering."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 116–17.]
  "Precious power." We agree. That is what, under this Government, we are now giving up, and that is why we are censuring them.
  9.27 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With the leave of the House I will speak again. We have had many thoughtful and constructive contributions from the back benches over the last two days, and I will certainly reflect on the interesting points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Horn-church (Mr. Alan Lee Williams), and Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) on our rôle outside Europe, and on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) on N.A.T.O. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) will forgive me if, much as I appreciate his personal support, I do not follow him all the way on Europe.
  I can assure my hon. Friend for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) that, as I said yesterday, we look forward to joining our Commonwealth friends in a five-Power conference on the problems of South-East Asia within the next few months. One subject likely to be on the agenda is the provision of an air defence system for Singapore and Malaysia. I

  351
  hope that that will go some way to reconcile my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) to some of the decisions that we have recently taken and debated.
  As to the Opposition Front Bench, its speeches today were at least a good deal more relevant to the nation's defence than the speeches yesterday. I must confess that during the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) I dozed off and at one point I dreamt that he was making the speech that we heard in this House six weeks ago. Then I woke up and found that he was. Even worse the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), when he wound up, made the same speech once again, though I confess that, from the purely histrionic point of view, his studied gestures added something to it.
  For much of his speech the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) made the same speech once again, but I agree that he made it in a much more measured and moderate tone, and added some interesting, important and positive comments at the end.
  I do not object to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, to quote the Daily Telegraph this morning coming:
  "…to the fray laden with faded Defence White Papers, old copies of HANSARD, yellowing newspaper cuttings and transcripts of television programmes."
  But it would be nice now and again to hear something new, even if we have to give up all hope of hearing anything constructive. On the other hand the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a speech this afternoon which was full of important and constructive ideas, though some of what he said about Vietnam may not appear directly relevant, either to the Motion we are debating or the Opposition's Amendment.
  He asked me if I would say something about the problems which might face the European members of N.A.T.O. if the Soviet Union and the United States proceeded to deploy a comprehensive antiballistic missile system. He went on to argue that Britain should seek to pool its nuclear forces with those of France. I should like to deal with those issues at a little length, even if it means leaving some other questions raised by hon.
  352
  Members to be dealt with in later debates during the separate Service Estimates.
  I want to begin by talking about the anti-ballistic missile problem. I must tell the House that the problems we have to discuss here have quite horrifying implications. I hope I will be forgiven if I appear to discuss them more coolly than ordinary people would wish and, indeed, if I fail to discuss them as adequately as I would wish because I have only half an hour altogether at my disposal and there are other matters to discuss.
  Let me first say that although the Russians appear to be deploying an A.B.M. system to cover part of European Russia there is as yet no firm evidence that they intend to deploy this system so as to cover the Soviet Union as a whole. The United States Government have declared their intention of deploying a light A.B.M. system, primarily as a defence against a Chinese missile attack during the early years of the next decade, but they have so far indicated that they do not propose to extend this system so as to give them comprehensive cover against an attack on a scale such as the Soviet Union might be able to mount. Therefore, we do not at the moment have clear evidence of a decision by either of the major nuclear Powers to deploy a comprehensive system.
  The second point I should like to make as a background is that the effectiveness of the type of A.B.M. system which the Russians and Americans are now deploying, even in the area it can cover—which is limited—is nothing like 100 per cent.; and such systems could not prevent an unacceptable level of destruction if the enemy improves the penetrability of his offensive missiles or is able to saturate them with the number of his offensive missiles. And, of course, an A.B.M. system, as we now understand it, could be evaded either by very low-trajectory missiles or by low-flying aircraft. Another interesting thing at present, although it is not likely to be true for more than another 10 years, is that there is no effective defence at strategic level against an aircraft in very low flight.
  Nevertheless, the development of A.B.M. systems and their deployment, even on a scale of which we now know raises some disturbing questions. Ever since the first explosion of nuclear weapons such protection as the world has enjoyed against nuclear war has

  353
  depended on mutual deterrence. That is, the ability of a country which is threatened by nuclear attack to convince the potential aggressor that he has the power to inflict unacceptable damage on him with his surviving nuclear capacity, even after absorbing a first attack. There has always been, therefore, a fear that if any nuclear power could produce an invulnerable protection against nuclear attack the stability of existing balance of mutual deterrence would be destroyed since that country would have the ability to attack its enemy without fear of retaliation in kind; which is why the right hon. Gentleman was right to treat this problem very seriously. I am glad he has given me an opportunity of saying something about it.
  The N.A.T.O. Governments have, of course, been considering ever since they first received indications that the Russians might deploy an A.B.M. system, whether that moment may now be on the way. This problem has been a major item at meetings of the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. during the last 12 months in which I have been attending them. But we have unanimously reached the conclusion that nothing at present known about A.B.M. systems need upset the balance of nuclear deterrence, since a country which might fear attack by a country which has A.B.M. could saturate any A.B.M. system now available by increasing its offensive power, which would be very much cheaper than the cost to the other side of deploying A.B.M.s.
  As many hon. Members will know, this argument was made at some length and with great force by Mr. McNamara in a speech which he made in San Francisco on 18th September last year and in his annual statements to Congress. I should like to take this opportunity to say how much all members of the Alliance will miss his wisdom and energy in our counsels.
  When the Nuclear Planning Group first discussed this problem, we all felt that the force of Mr. McNamara's arguments made it unlikely that the United States would react to the Soviet deployment of A.B.M.s by deploying A.B.M.s herself. In the end, however, the United States did decide to deploy the light A.B.M. system which they call "Sentinel" primarily for a temporary protection against an infant
  354
  Chinese missile capability. They recognise that it would not be much use against the Chinese threat developed in terms of numbers or penetrability.
  The Nuclear Planning Group discussed the implications of America's decision at its meeting in Ankara last September. Since it has yet to reach a final conclusion, although I hope that it will do so at our meeting in The Hague next month, perhaps I should confine myself to giving the views of Her Majesty's Government, although I believe that they are broadly consistent with those of our European allies.
  In principle, we feel that to the extent that some A.B.M. capability renders the United States less vulnerable to nuclear attack herself, it should strengthen the allied deterrent by making her more ready to use nuclear weapons in support of her allies in case of need. But we were also conscious of the risk that if Russia and America now enter into a new round of the strategic nuclear arms race this may have damaging consequences for the prospects of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons since many non-nuclear countries believe that vertical proliferation among the nuclear Powers—the creation of A.B.M.s, the F.O.B. system, and so on—may be as much a danger to peace as horizontal proliferation among the non-nuclear Powers. I agree with them. There is also the risk to which the right hon. Gentleman referred that unsophisticated opinion in Europe may feel that the United States is trying to build a Maginot Line behind which it can retreat to a sort of Fortress America.
  For these reasons, there is no doubt that the whole of N.A.T.O. shares America's hope that she might yet be able to reach agreement with the Soviet Union against the deployment of A.B.M. systems on either side. The House will know that the American Government have been trying very hard to reach such an agreement with the Soviet Union for at least the last 12 months.
  We have also considered whether in the present situation or in the situation as it may develop there may be a case for Europe to deploy an A.B.M. system for its own protection. We have decided, however, that there is no place for this in circumstances which can now be foreseen, and I shall tell the House why.

  355
  First, given the proximity of Europe to the Soviet Union and the very large number of Soviet medium range ballistic missiles, and, in addition, given the very large number of Soviet bomber aircraft, no A.B.M. system could save Europe from totally unacceptable damage in nuclear war. On the other hand, an A.B.M. system would cost an enormous amount of money, and this money would inevitably, in the real world in which we live, have to be diverted from areas of defence where the need for strength is far more urgent—the lower end of the spectrum.
  There is another reason which is not sufficiently understood by the public. The missiles and the warheads which are used in an A.B.M. system have, for all practical purposes, the same capability as offensive nuclear missiles. They have the same thrust and the same explosive power. The only difference is that the warhead goes off in space instead of on or just above the ground. Since they would have to be fired within seconds of warning that a nuclear attack was on the way, the problem of pre-delegating the authority to use them might well be insuperable.
  It certainly raises the most difficult problems. Most important of all for the Soviet Union, a European A.B.M. system might be as provocative as a European offensive nuclear system, and it would be far more costly. I hope that I have said enough to answer the right hon. Gentleman's points about the A.B.M. system, but I want to pass on to the related question that he raised, as he has on several occasions in the last two years, that Britain should seek to pool its nuclear forces with those of France.
  Mr. Neil Marten: The right hon. Gentleman referred to low-flying aircraft and we mentioned the TSR2. He said he would deal with that. Will he deal with it before leaving this part of his speech?
  Mr. Healey: I will deal with that immediately, but there will be a chance to debate the question in full on Thursday in the Air Force debate. Concerning strategic nuclear systems, none of us in N.A.T.O. believes that low-level bombers are a necessary increment to the overwhelming capability which the West al-
  356
  ready has in this sphere. It was never our intention to develop the F.111 in this particular rôle.
  Mr. Heath: I think it would have been helpful if the right hon. Gentleman had given us this information yesterday afternoon, so that we could have thought about it and debated it. It is a matter of great importance. The Secretary of State could have volunteered the information without being asked for it. We will obviously want to think about this very carefully. I should not like the Defence Secretary to think that we accept all the arguments which he has put forward. I should like clarification upon one point. When the right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, says that an A.B.M. deployment as at the moment constituted could be saturated, is he accepting that in Europe at the moment the power is sufficient to saturate, or would he follow the McNamara policy of increasing the power in Europe now?
  Mr. Healey: McNamara does not want to increase the strategic nuclear power in Western Europe. That is not necessary. Nor indeed does Mr. McNamara believe that any steps are now necessary to deal with the A.B.M. threat beyond what America intends. With respect, I do not think I ought to go into this in greater detail. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read Mr. McNamara's so-called posture statement this year in which he deals with this in great detail.
  On the question of raising this matter yesterday, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, there have been two meetings of the N.P.G. on this question, both followed by detailed Press briefings. If I had been given any indication by right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite that they wished me to deal with this matter I would have been glad to do so. We have not had any questions about it, although during my speech yesterday I was interrupted 12 times, making my speech 18 minutes longer than necessary, entirely on questions which had nothing to do with this. It does not lie with the right hon. Gentleman to make that complaint.
  I will now deal with another question which the right hon. Gentleman has never before raised in the House. Had he done so, I would have dealt with it yesterday.

  357
  He raised the question of the pooling of our nuclear forces with those of France. This is something that he has raised outside, because I have heard him. I assume that he means we should pool our forces with France within the N.A.T.O. framework, because he has stressed many times, and did so again this afternoon, that Europe must retain a credible nuclear guarantee from the United States. On this, at least, I fully agree with him. Would he say whether he means it within the N.A.T.O. framework?
  An Hon. Member: He will let the right hon. Gentleman know tomorrow.
  Mr. Healey: With respect, if the right hon. Gentleman wants me to comment on these remarks he will have to tell me what he means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Help him out"] The right hon. Gentleman has clearly thought a great deal about the problem, but I cannot understand how he believes his proposal is a starter, at any rate in the sort of world in which we live now, or indeed why, if he does believe in it, he did not propose it when he was negotiating with France for Britain's entry into the Common Market when French opposition was the major obstacle we had to overcome. I would be delighted to have a debate on this issue later in the Session.
  I will explain why I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is a starter. In the first place, for Britain and France to set up a nuclear condominium within Europe would be quite unacceptable to countries of comparable size like Germany and Italy. The Germans and the Italians welcome the existence of Great Britain's nuclear forces so long as they are fully integrated as part of N.A.T.O. with America's nuclear forces. But France is not prepared to be a part of N.A.T.O. in any field, least of all the nuclear one.
  Indeed, it is a cardinal principle of President de Gaulle's strategic thinking that the very existence of nuclear weapons has ruled out for France the very possibility of integration in defence. This has been made clear again and again by President de Gaulle himself, and most latterly by his chief of staff, General Ailleret in an article to which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman referred. As the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed
  358
  out, General Ailleret has recently, with President de Gaulle's endorsement, described French nuclear policy as defence à tous azimuths, at all points of the com-pass, and he argues that, because no one can possibly know who will be France's allies or enemies in a future war, France must endeavour to constitute a system of defence which will be world-wide and at every point of the compass, but a nuclear system of defence, thus enabling her
  "during future crises which may rock the world freely to determine her own destiny."
  It is impossible to conceive of integrating nuclear forces with a French Government so long as that Government hold these views, and even less possible to do so within the N.A.T.O. framework. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who, clearly, had not thought the problem through because he was not prepared to rise when I challenged him on it, to think about it a little harder.
  To take the next point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, and setting it against this background, I cannot regard what he called France's recent moving forward in the world in quite the same light as he appears to do himself. It certainly provides no hope for fruitful military co-operation between Britain and France outside Europe. I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) on that. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of France's present policy in the Arab world. Whatever one may think of that—there are strong views about it in Israel—it does not involve new military commitments in the Arab world. On the contrary, France is shortly to leave her base at Mers el Kébir, as she left Syria and the Lebanon 20 years ago. Nor can the right hon. Gentleman just brush aside French activity on the Quebec issue in quite the way he did today. This is a matter of deep concern to the Canadian Government, who are our partner and ally in both the Commonwealth and N.A.T.O.
  The final answer to the right hon. Gentleman on this point is that President de Gaulle has repeatedly made clear, in public and in private, that he is not prepared to consider Britain even as a candidate for membership of the Common Market so long as she retains a worldwide military rôle, and, according to

  359
  recent newspaper reports, his Government regard even Britain's presence in the Mediterranean as inconsistent with her entry into the Common Market.
  I hope very much that all this will change. I hope, too, that Europe as a whole will be prepared in future to accept wider responsibilities in the world than she does today. I certainly want to cooperate with France wherever possible. Under this Government, we have started co-operation with France in four major new projects, and a fifth from which the French themselves withdrew. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that intimate co-operation on defence strategy requires prior agreement on foreign policy. The right hon. Gentleman said that I did not take France's growing power seriously enough. I beg him to accept that I take it very seriously indeed. But his weakness—it has been a weakness for many years—is that he does not accept that General de Gaulle is President of France, and he does not accept that de Gaulle is de Gaulle.
  If I may pass to the less constructive parts of the Opposition's contribution, so far as I could identify the grounds—
  Mr. Heath: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has finished that part of his speech, may I remind him that, far from not thinking this through, I have been thinking about it for many years. He does himself less than justice is being so dogmatic about this matter, because the words which I used were that the Prime Minister should have been prepared to discuss with President de Gaulle an arrangement in the nuclear field. There is no doubt that this should have been done, and an arrangement can cover, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a wide variety of possibilities which are not limited in the way in which he himself has described.
  Mr. Healey: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I was interested in what he said this afternoon so I read again his speech at a conference organised by the Institute of Strategic Studies about 18 months ago. On that occasion he expressed the view that the French attitude towards integration was changing completely, and he was quite hopeful that they would shortly accept political integration in the Common Market. That
  360
  shows that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the basic instincts which dominate French policy as long as President de Gaulle is there.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman ought not to quote from memory in this way. He ought to have the text before him. When I was talking about internal political integration in the Common Market, I said quite specifically "after the period of the present President of France".
  Mr. Healey: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman did not do so. If my hon. Friend will get the quotation, I shall give it later.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. If someone quotes from a document, ought it not to be on the Table?
  Mr. Speaker: It depends on what the document is.
  Mr. Healey: I pass to the less constructive parts of the Opposition's contribution to the debate. So far as I can identify the grounds for criticism of the Government, they seem to be as follows: First, that we have changed our policy more than once in the last three and a half years. But the right hon. Gentlemen opposite should be the last to criticise the Government for changing their policy. After all, the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), who, unlike all the Front Bench spokesmen in this debate, has direct personal experience of these matters as a Minister, was honest about this yesterday, and said:
  "Nobody who has served in a Conservative Administration can pretend that there were never Defence Reviews in the past…I went through a few of them, when I was at the Admiralty…It is easy to forget what a tremendous rundown there has been over the past eleven years in the defence Services. How many bases have gone? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 90–1.]
  The hon. Gentleman then reminded us that his Government had handed over Simonstown to South Africa—with the defence of the Cape routes—Trincomalee to Ceylon, and closed the Royal Dockyards at Hong Kong and Malta. As I said in the last debate, the Conservatives tended to change their Defence Minister every time they made a major change in policy.

  361
  I have now received the text of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which I referred earlier. He said nothing about President de Gaulle. He said:
  "I am not at all certain that the present French attitude towards integration is going to remain unchanged. I always have a feeling in the back of my mind that the French have been so successful in the Community in every economic argument that they will before long"—
  the right hon. Gentleman may try to ride out on "before long"—
  "draw the conclusion that they could be equally successful in the political sphere were the Community to move on to political development."
  The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about President de Gaulle. To hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking in this debate, one would think that they never cancelled 30 major aero-space projects, and set Army recruiting targets bouncing up and down like a yo-yo. It does not allow them to criticise us for changing policy.
  The question is whether the changes were right and necessary in all the circumstances. We believed that, for economic reasons, further defence cuts were necessary. In that case, we had to cut our commitments too. I cannot understand whether the Opposition believe that it is wrong to cut any commitments or that we have cut the wrong ones.
  The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has been telling us for years that we should get out east of Suez, that we have and can have virtually no military influence in South-East Asia—I am quoting him—and that our presence in the Middle East can do nothing to protect our oil supplies. How can the Leader of the Opposition, who keeps the right hon. Gentleman in his post as defence spokesman, reconcile this with his view that we should stay in the Gulf and the Far East to protect our interests?
  I will answer a question put by the right hon. Member for Mitcham. I believe—I have said this many times in the House—that it is scarcely ever wise or possible for a country in the modern age to seek to protect economic interests in foreign countries by military force. I should have hoped that the experience of the party opposite in Suez, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Whip, would at least have taught them that.
  362
  Access to raw materials, trade and investment—these are things which must be separated from military force or they will suffer and not gain.
  The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), whose general approach his right hon. Friend has likened to that of Rip Van Winkle or a retired Indian Army Colonel, believes that we should cut our forces in Europe in order to do more east of Suez—
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman is, as usual, misquoting from memory. I specifically said that we might, after consulting the N.A.T.O. Council, feel that, from the allied point of view, it was better that some of our forces might be deployed outside Europe.
  Mr. Healey: I quoted the right hon. Gentleman verbally yesterday and he did not object—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Healey: The behaviour of the Opposition is very good training for my visit to Cambridge on Friday. Hon. Members opposite who do not like the way in which some students voice their protests would do better not, every time we have a wind-up speech on a censure Motion, to behave like superannuated members of the Hitler Youth—
  Hon. Members: Resign.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting a little too European.
  Mr. Healey: We have taken these decisions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]—Exactly. There they are: the beatniks.
  The Government have taken the decisions which we are debating because they believe them to be economically necessary, because they believe that all our national problems for a generation and more, not only in defence and foreign policy but at home as well, can be summed up in the single phrase, "We have been living beyond our means". By the steps which the Government have taken in the last few months, we have demonstrated the determination of this country at last to live within its means. It is for that reason that I ask the House to approve the Motion.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 316.

  Division No. 82.]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Murton, Oscar

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Astor, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Gower, Raymond

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Awdry, Daniel

  Grant, Anthony

  Nott, John

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Balniel, Lord

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Grieve, Percy

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Batsford, Brian

  Gurden, Harold

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hall-Davis, A. C. F.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Percival, Ian

  Biffen, John

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Peyton, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Pounder, Rafton

  Blaker, Peter

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Boardman, Tom

  Hastings, Stephen

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Body, Richard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hay, John

  Pym, Francis

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Braine, Bernard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Brewis, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Bryan, Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Robson Brown, Sir William

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hornby, Richard

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Royle, Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Hunt, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Carlisle, Mark

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Jopling, Michael

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

  Clark, Henry

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Clegg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Smith, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Stainton, Keith

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neil

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Stodart, Anthony

  Cordle, John

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, s.)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Costain, A. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Lambton, Viscount

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Crouch, David

  Lancaster, col. C. G.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lane, David

  Temple, John M.

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Tilney, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dance, James

  Longden, Gilbert

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

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

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Doughty, Charles

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Wall, Patrick

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Walters, Dennis

  Eden, Sir John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Emery, Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Marten, Neil

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Farr, John

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mawby, Ray

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wright, Esmond

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Monro, Hector

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Mr. Jasper More.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Albu, Austen

  Finch, Harold

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Alldritt, Walter

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Allen, Scholefield

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Anderson, Donald

  Foley, Maurice

  Luard, Evan

  Archer, Peter

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McBride, Neil

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Freeson, Reginald

  McCann, John

  Barnes, Michael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  MacColl, James

  Barnett, Joel

  Gardner, Tony

  MacDermot, Niall

  Baxter, William

  Garrett, W. E.

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Beaney, Alan

  Ginsburg, David

  McGuire, Michael

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mackie, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Booth, Albert

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Boston, Terence

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Boyden, James

  Grimond. Rt. Hn. J.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hamling, William

  Manuel, Archie

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hannan, William

  Mapp, Charles

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Marks, Kenneth

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

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn, Richard

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

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Buchan, Norman

  Haseldine, Norman

  Maxwell, Robert

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

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hazell, Bert

  Mellish. Rt. Hn. Robert

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Henig, Stanley

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Molloy, William

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hilton, W. S.

  Moonman, Eric

  Chapman, Donald

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Coe, Denis

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Concannon, J, D.

  Horner, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Conlan, Bernard

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Murray, Albert

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Neal, Harold

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Newens, Stan

  Cronin, John

  Howie, W.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hoy, James

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Norwood, Christopher

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Hunter, Adam

  O'Malley, Brian

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Hynd, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur

  Orme, Stanley

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

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

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Padley, Walter

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Paget, R. T.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Park, Trevor

  Dell, Edmund

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parker. John (Dagenham)

  Dempsey, James

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

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Dickens, James

  Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Dobson, Ray

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, west)

  Pentland, Norman

  Dunn, James A.

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kelley, Richard

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lawson, George

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Probert, Arthur

  Ellis, John

  Ledger, Ron

  Pursey, Cmdr, Harry

  English, Michael

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Randall, Harry

  Ennals, David

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Rankin, John

  Ensor, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rees, Merlyn

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  366

  367

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Snow, Julian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  White, Mrs. Eirene

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

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Whitlock, William

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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Swain, Thomas

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roebuck, Roy

  Swingler, Stephen

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Rose, Paul

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Ryan, John

  Thornton, Ernest

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Tomney, Frank

  Winnick, David

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

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

  Varley, Eric G.

  Woof, Robert

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Yates, Victor

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wallace, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Slater, Joseph

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Small, William

  Weitzman, David

  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 220.

  Division No. 83.]

  AYES

  [10.10 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Albu, Austen

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Alldritt, Walter

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Hamilton,. William (Fife, W.)

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hamling, William

  Archer, Peter

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Hannan, William

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Harper, Joseph

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Haseldine, Norman

  Barnes, Michael

  Dell, Edmund

  Hattersley, Roy

  Barnett, Joel

  Dempsey, James

  Hazell, Bert

  Baxter, William

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Beaney, Alan

  Dickens, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Dobson, Ray

  Henig, Stanley

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Doig, Peter

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hooley, Frank

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Eadie, Alex

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Booth, Albert

  Edelman, Maurice

  Horner, John

  Boston, Terence

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Boyden, James

  Ellis, John

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  English, Michael

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Bradley, Tom

  Ennals, David

  Howie, W.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Ensor, David

  Hoy, James

  Brooks, Edwin

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hunter, Adam

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

  Finch, Harold

  Hynd, John

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Foley, Maurice

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Cant, R. B.

  Forrester, John

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fowler, Gerry

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Chapman, Donald

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Coe, Denis

  Gardner, Tony

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Garrett, W. E.

  Jones. J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ginsburg, David

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C

  Judd, Frank

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Gourlay, Harry

  Kelley, Richard

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Kenyan, Clifford

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Cronin, John

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lawson, George

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Ledger, Ron

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Lee, John (Heading)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Slater, Joseph

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Ogderr, Eric

  Small, William

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Snow, Julian

  Lipton, Marcus

  Orbach, Maurice

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Orme, Stanley

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Oswald, Thomas

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Luard, Evan

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Padley, Walter

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Swain, Thomas

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Swingler, Stephen

  McBride, Neil

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Taverne, Dick

  McCann, John

  Park, Trevor

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  MacColl, James

  Parker. John (Dagenham)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  MacDermot, Niall

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  McGuire, Michael

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Tinn, James

  McKay, Mrs, Margaret

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tomney, Frank

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Pentland, Norman

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mackie, John

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Wetern Isles)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Wallace, George

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Probert, Arthur

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Weitzman, David

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Randall, Harry

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rankin, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

  Rees, Merlyn

  Whitaker, Ben

  Manuel, Archie

  Reynolds, C. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mapp, Charles

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Whitlock, William

  Marks, Kenneth

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mason, Roy

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Mayhew, Christopher

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

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Mellish. Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Molloy, William

  Rose, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Moonman, Eric

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Ryan, John

  Woof, Robert

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Yates, Victor

  Moyle, Roland

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn, Frederick

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Murray, Albert

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

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans and

  Neal, Harold

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  Newens, Stan

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bryan, Paul

  Doughty, Charles

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Astor, John

  Buck, Anthony (Colchester)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Eden, Sir John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Burden, F. A.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Campbell, Gordon

  Emery, Peter

  Balniel, Lord

  Carlisle, Mark

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Batsford, Brian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Farr, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos, & Fhm)

  Clark, Henry

  Fortescue, Tim

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Clegg, Walter

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Biffen, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Birch, Rt. Hn, Nigel

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Costain, A. P.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Boardman, Tom

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Body, Richard

  Crouch, David

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Crowder, F. P.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Gower, Raymond

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Grant, Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Brewis, John

  Dance, James

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Grieve, Percy

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  370

  371

  Hall-Davit, A. G. F.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Royle, Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maddan, Martin

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Scott, Nicholas

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Marten, Neil

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Sharples, Richard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hay, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Smith, John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stainton, Keith

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Heseltine, Michael

  Monro, Hector

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

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

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

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Holland, Philip

  Murton, Oscar

  Teeling, Sir William

  Hordern, Peter

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Temple, John M.

  Hornby, Richard

  Nicholls. Sir Harmar

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Howell,, David (Guildford)

  Nott, John

  Tilney, John

  Hunt, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Jopling, Michael

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wall, Patrick

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Percival, Ian

  Walters, Dennis

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Kirk, Peter

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kitson, Timothy

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pym, Francis

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Lane, David

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James

  Wright, Esmond

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wylie, N. R.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Younger, Hn. George

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ridsdale, Julian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Loveys, W. H.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Mr. Jasper More.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1968, contained in Command Paper No. 3540.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  10.23 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): I beg to move,
  That the Weights and Measures (Additional Metric Weights) Order, 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
  This is a comparatively simple draft Order, and I do not wish to occupy the time of the House for too long.
  The pharmaceutical industry has decided to change over, at an early date, from the use of the apothecaries series of weights to the use of the metric series in the dispensing and compounding of drugs. The Order will add four small metric weights to the list of those which
  372
  can be lawfully used for trade. These additions will facilitate the weighing operations of pharmacists and help them in changing over to the metric system.
  The Order does not affect the continued use of the apothecaries series of weights.
  I ask the House to approve the Order.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation. I do not think that we need detain the House long on this Order. I confess that, when first I saw it, I was reminded that, in certain Labour-held constituencies, the custom has been to weigh Labour supporters' votes and I thought that perhaps tonight we were legalising such delicate weights as the four grammes, three grammes and miligrammes in order to take cognisance of the changing political climate in any future election.
  However, I understand that this is not the real reason, and it is of some interest

  373
  to note historically why these weights, which we are for the first time including in the weights allowed to be used by pharmacists, were not included in the first place. Perhaps the hon. Lady will answer two short points.
  First, has the medical profession as such been consulted as well as the pharmacists? I do not know whether this will make any difference to the medical profession. From my inquiries, I understand that probably the pharmacists themselves have anticipated the authority for dealing in these weights, so from that point of view it is a good thing that we are now putting them in order.
  Secondly, am I right in assuming that no fresh regulations will be required as to the appropriate abbreviations? I believe that Section 14(1, f) gives the Minister power to make regulations with regard o the accepted abbreviations. Am I right in assuming that no alteration of those abbreviations will be required due to the addition of these four new weights for pharmacists?
  10.27 p.m.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, perhaps I may reply to the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right in his assumption that there will be no need for a further Order on this point.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to consultations with the medical profession. The Board of Trade consults with everyone it considers has an interest in a matter and this, in this instance, includes the Ministry of Health which, I take it, will have had direct consultations with the medical profession.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Can the hon. Lady say with what departments of the medical profession these consultations took place? Can she enlarge a little on this? It is not satisfactory for the House to be told that the Board of Trade consulted those it thought should be consulted. Can we have more detail?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: It is the Board of Trade's usual practice to consult very widely and, of course, the actual consultations on this subject are with the Ministry of Health. I should point out that this is of particular interest to the pharma-
  374
  ceutical industry and will not make any difference to the medical profession as such.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I apologise for not rising quickly enough to catch your eye before the hon. Lady replied, Mr. Speaker. I want to call her attention to the inconvenience of the drafting of Article 2 which says:
  "This Order…shall come into operation 7 days after it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
  This means that nowhere in the Order will it be stated on what date exactly it comes into operation. The inconvenience will be that anyone reading the Order will have to look up the HANSARDS of both Houses to see the date on which it comes into operation. It is a better practice in such a draft Order to leave a date blank as to when it comes into operation and fill it in eventually when it passes both Houses.
  I appreciate that, at the head of the Order, there will be a statement, "coming into operation on such-and-such a date", but not in the body of the Order. It is an inconvenient way to draft it and it would have been better to have left a blank for the date and to put the date in the Order.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not want to make a long speech. I had hoped to get out of the hon. Lady the answer I require. I want to make the point that, when a Minister comes here and says that one of our great professions has been properly consulted in a certain matter, and then, when asked exactly how those consultations took place or by whom they were conducted, is only able to give an unsatisfactory answer that someone did it because it is usually their concern to do these things, the House is entitled to a little more explanation by that Minister.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: May I assure the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that the British Medical Association, which is normally regarded by the majority of people as being a perfectly adequate means of representing the medical profession, was consulted. I am sorry if he feels that it does not represent—
  Mr. Cooke rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak. He may intervene only if the Minister allows him.
  Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
  Mr. Cooke: Will the Minister allow me to ask her this one question? Will she very closely examine what I said in asking her the previous question, because she will find that I cast no asper-
  376
  sions whatever on the British Medical Association or anyone else. If she had given the answer to the House for which I asked at the outset we should not have had this exchange.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If I may take up, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, the other point, the draft is a standard one and the actual date will be specified when the Order is signed.
  Question put and agreed to.

  GAME AND OTHER LICENCES (FEES)
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Fees for Game and Other Licences (Variation) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968. No. 120), dated 25th January 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st February, be annulled.
  In praying against this Statutory Instrument No. 120 I want to make it quite clear that it is not my intention to divide the House. It is only my intention to pray against the Order to seek greater information from the Financial Secretary. The first point that I want to make is that these eight licences mentioned in the Order were introduced as revenue-raising licences. Today they are valuable to many members of the community because of the protection that they give. I do not think that the House or even the Financial Secretary will in any way doubt the protection that is given under the Moneylenders Act, 1927, or the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872.
  As I understand it, to be either a moneylender or a pawnbroker, one has to go before the magistrates and get a certificate to say that one is of good character, before one can embark on any one of these business, or take out any one of these licences. The very process of being licensed to lend money, or to be a pawnbroker gives the general public the safeguard that one is of reasonable character. Whether these two licences were introduced in order to protect the general public, or merely for the Treasury to cash in on what was, presumably, in those days, a fairly lucrative business, is something that I hope the Financial Secretary can tell us.
  In praying against the other licences I am conscious of the great difficulty that we have got into since the ordinary 10s. gun licence was revoked. The advantage of the old 10s. gun licence was that it only cost 10s., so one did not break the law, provided one had a licence. Secondly, if someone went out to shoot illegally it was pretty certain that he never bothered to take the trouble to take out a gun licence, so that the gun licence, now abolished, was a very useful method
  378
  of protecting people against illegal shooting.
  Since the gun licence has been abolished most people involved in the enforcement of law and order do not say: "Thank goodness we have got rid of the licence and now have the 5s. shotgun certificate." Their general attitude is, "What a tragedy the gun licence has gone." This is because most people shooting illegally never bothered to take one out. The strongest support for the retention of the game licence and the gamekeeper's licence comes from the Gamekeepers Association of Great Britain. Naturally the fee is at all times prohibitive, particularly if a man has to pay it out of his agricultural wages, but the Gamekeepers' Association feels most strongly that it would be a tragedy if the licence was now abolished. The Financial Secretary keeps it on the Statute Book because he raises a certain amount of revenue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. On this Order we cannot discuss whether it is a good thing to have a licence or whether it is a good thing that a fee should be charged. All we can discuss is whether the fee should be increased.
  Mr. Kimball: I think it is a tragedy that the fee should be increased. We should bear in mind the kind of protection that the licence gives. Although the fee is being increased, and most people feel that the increase is excessive, they are prepared to accept the extra burden because of the protection given by the licence.
  I think that the Financial Secretary is increasing the fee without giving the House an assurance that he realises that, although the licences were originally devised as a revenue-raising exercise, they now have a rôle to play in the protection that they give to people in the countryside.
  When a gamekeeper pays the new rate of £4 for his gamekeeper's licence, his first protection under the licence is against rumours in a village that somebody's keeper is illegally selling the owner's game. If the chap has a gamekeeper's licence, before anybody accepts or sells the game on his behalf, he has to register the chap's name, and the

  379
  person with the gamekeeper's licence who is selling the game has to have written authority from the owner of the land to sell the game. So, although the Gamekeepers' Association feels that the increase from £2 to £4 is excessive, it wants an assurance from the Financial Secretary that the licence will not be abolished, because it feels that the licence gives great protection to somebody who is trying to carry out his job in a conscientious manner.
  I am mystified by the references to Sections 7 and 13 of the 1860 Act. These two sections simply qualify the conditions on which gamekeepers' licences are held. I think it is worth making the point that if the licence fee is to be doubled, can we have an assurance that the penalties for taking game without a licence will also be doubled?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member can ask for an assurance on that point. It would not be in order for the Financial Secretary to deal with that point, because it does not arise out of an Order merely to increase the fees.
  Mr. Kimball: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I trust it would be in order to put on record the fact that the original licence fee in 1812, when it was a revenue-raising exercise, was £3 13s. 6d., that this was considered excessive, and, by 1860, the fee was reduced to £3. Now we are raising the fee to £4, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will give an assurance that, whether he makes a profit from these licences, he realises their protective rôle to honest members of the community and will also give an assurance that they will not be treated in the same way as gun licences and suddenly removed from the Statute Book.
  The other question I ask is: what will the Financial Secretary do with all the money he will get from the licence to kill game? He is raising this from £3 to £6. No one would object if it were felt that the revenue from this licence was in some way to be diverted into research and conservation. I understand that in England the money will go to the county councils, but in Scotland the money goes straight to the Treasury. But I hope that the Financial Secretary realises that game is now becoming a
  380
  natural resource of increasing national value both for recreation and as an economic by-product of agriculture and forestry. Game conservation is an integral part of land use today.
  I should like our system to be changed. The system for game licences in Scotland is probably better than the system in England. In England, the Treasury bears the Vote for all the money which is now spent by the Natural Environment Research Council, the Nature Conservancy as we used to know it. The difficulty under this Order is that most of us would willingly accept an increase in the game licence fee if we felt that the money would go to the Natural Environment Research Council for greater research into conservation and the habitat of game and all the other activities associated with the countryside. In fact, the revenue is to go to the county councils, and I do not see how we shall get it back into the research and development work of the N.E.R.C.
  In Scotland, there is the shining example that the Treasury is now paying for the research which is being carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council into grouse and moorland ecology. This work has been paid for by the taxpayer since 1960. I should like to see a similar system in operation in England.
  Finally, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are a good many small farmers, quite humble people, who like to go into the countryside at the weekends to have a rough shoot, shooting a few pheasants or a few partridges. They put them in the bag, and they hope, if there is more than they can eat themselves, that they can sell at least a little of the product of their weekend's activity in order to help pay for their cartridges. But, in relation to the scale on which many of these people shoot, the sudden imposition of £6 for a game licence so that they may be able to sell the surplus which they cannot eat themselves will make it prohibitive. They just will not bother. There will be no way of enforcing it, and, in consequence—I say this frankly—country gentlemen and citizens will suddenly find themselves breaking the law.
  I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), with his association with the Wildfowlers'

  381
  Association of Great Britain and Ireland, will argue that this is all nonsense anyway, and we ought not to have a licence at all. I do not support that view because I believe the gamekeeper's licence in particular gives a certain safeguard and we should, therefore, keep it. But I am afraid that, with the fee at £6, many people who would never normally break the law will break the law.
  Will the Treasury make a profit out of this exercise? Must we have a £6 licence fee in order just to cover administrative expenses? If, on the other hand, only £2 or £3 is required for administrative expenses, may we have an assurance from the Financial Secretary that at least the balance of the money will go back into the countryside towards conservation and the better management of game?
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) can often guess exactly what I shall say to the House, but on this occasion he is not quite right. I rise not to press for the abolition of game licences altogether. I want the Minister not to raise the fee by 100 per cent., as he proposes to do. I regard the game licence, as my hon. Friend does, as a useful and necessary licence which preserves a certain amount of order in the countryside, but I regard as quite unjustified a 100 per cent. increase in the fee for the seven or eight different licences which the Minister has put before us.
  The doubling of the game dealer's licence is an extra charge which no doubt will be transferred to the customer, or the consumer, with perhaps a negligible effect on the price of the product being sold, but what I am concerned about is the 100 per cent. increase in the licence fee to kill game, from £3 to £6. This fee has not been increased for more than 100 years, but this, in itself, as the hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit, is not sufficient reason for raising it. The hon. Gentleman must give us some sound reasons for this increase before we accept this Order.
  The licence fee of £3 for killing game is one of the simplest forms of collecting lucrative revenue which the Government have ever possessed. Why is it to be doubled now? What service have the Government given in the past to those
  382
  who provide this money, and what double service do they propose to give in the future? If someone takes out a television licence, which costs a fiver, he can see what he is getting for his money, whether he approves of it or not. It someone takes out a licence for a motor car, he can drive up and down the motorways, the majority of which were provided by Conservative Governments. If someone takes out a driving licence, he can drive his car along our roads. What return will the Government give for this double fee of £6?
  The Government play no part in helping to preserve the sources from which this revenue springs. It is very difficult for hon. Members on this side of the House not to feel that some dusty civil servant, or perhaps one of the new 50,000 or 60,000 civil servants whom the Government have recruited, has realised that this fee has not been raised for years, and has decided that that is a sufficient reason for raising it.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I think it is the Minister, not a civil servant.
  Mr. Farr: Perhaps, as my hon. Friend says, it is the Minister who has done this.
  Can the Minister tell us why, simultaneously, he has reduced the fee payable to shoot game, duck, and waders, and increased by 100 per cent. the fee to shoot pheasants, partridges and grouse? Where is the logic in this? I see that the Minister has sent somebody to the Box in the corner to get the answer. He should know it before he tables Orders of this kind. He ought to know that pheasants and partridges are far more easily reared in captivity than are wild fowl, and, indeed, that they are reared artificially, and on a large scale.
  The Order refers to Section 2 of the 1860 Game Licences Act. Can the Minister confirm that under this Section "game" includes only deer, pheasant, partridge, grouse and black game, as defined in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948? There have been various definitions of game, but the most up-to-date that I can find is in that Act. What does the Order mean by "game"? Does it cover only those which I mentioned? This is an unrealistic increase.

  383
  We are used to increases under this Government, but a 100 per cent. increase for game licences and 200 or 300 per cent. for pawnbrokers and moneylenders is abnormal even for them.
  Will the Government realise that shooting is no longer a rich man's sport but a pastime enjoyed by countless thousands of ordinary people? If they persist with this savage increase, it will seriously affect the ability of these people to pay for this privilege. There are over 30,000 members of the Wildfowlers' Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are particularly concerned at this proposal. The Association represents ordinary sportsmen who enjoy a day's rough shooting, many of whom could not afford this tremendous amount. They are not wealthy and already pay more than their fair share of the tax burden. Every time they buy a shotgun or cartridges they pay 25 per cent. Purchase Tax, and 2d. of the price of every cartridge fired is also Purchase Tax.
  I ask the Financial Secretary to think again. It is not right that so many should have to pay this increase to a Government who do nothing to contribute—apart from what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said about Scotland—to the interests of this sport.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The twin subjects of licences to kill game and the selling of game at all worried me when I was on the opposite side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) brought out the anomalies and there are many stupidities in the present law. For example, I believe that snipe, woodcock and hare are excluded and it seems nonsense that a reduction on one side for duckwaders should be matched by an increase for pheasants, on the other. I hope that the Financial Secretary will reconsider this whole matter, to iron out the anomalies and investigate enforcement. I was always taught that any law which is difficult to enforce is bad, and it is difficult to see how this increase will be enforced. The Financial Secretary will be aware how easy it is to evade even the present charge. That is all the more reason why this matter
  384
  should have been thoroughly investigated before the Order was brought forward.
  While I join with my hon. Friends in deprecating the Order, I do not agree that hardship will be a cause to those who must pay the amount involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) was right to say that the gamekeeper's licence gives a measure of protection. However, I deprecate the Order having been introduced in this way, without a review of the anomalies which exist, and I trust that the Financial Secretary will withdraw it and reintroduce it in a revised form, as he has power to do under the Local Government Act, 1966.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: This is a mean and miserable little Order. The draftsman has not even had the decency to say in the Title to what it relates. It is said to relate to the fees for game and other licences, but it also extends to pawnbrokers and moneylenders. It is inconsiderate to the public who will be concerned with this Instrument that such a Title has been given to the Order.
  What justification is there for the Order to deal with pawnbrokers and moneylenders? These categories of people have their fees and profits regulated by Statute and no increase in the profits of either of those trades arises. I had the honour of promoting a Bill a few years ago to bring the charges of pawnbrokers up to modern standards. Their charges had not been increased since the 1872 Act. Their charges having been increased to a reasonable figure, their licence fees are now to be increased by 100 per cent.
  I promoted that Measure for one reason among others, that one reason being the dwindling trade of pawnbrokers and the fact that that was creating in my constituency an unpleasant form of moneylending. I refer to "the dock gate moneylender" who stood at the dock gates and loaned £1 to a docker one week and took back £2 the next. waiting at the dock gates for the men to come out with their wage packets—and if they did not pay, they were beaten up in a back alley.
  Pawnbrokers provide an important service, for example to help people meet hire-purchase payments. In bringing back

  385
  the pawnbroker by amending his rate of charges under the Measure which I promoted, a public service was provided. It is unjustifiable that his licence fees should be increased by 100 per cent. and the moneylender's fees from £15 to £50 and £10 to £35. The Financial Secretary cannot say, "In the past few years the value of the money earned by pawnbrokers has increased". The fact is that pawnbrokers have had a difficult time carrying on business.
  Pawnbrokers may be the subject of jokes at times, but experience in my constituency shows that they provide a service to the public which, if it was not available, would oblige workers to borrow money in an improper way which can lead to violence. The pawnbrokers' trade should be encouraged and their costs in this matter should not be doubled at this time.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I look at this Order in perhaps a rather limited context or a limited framework of shooting in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Consequently, I cannot follow the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) about possible injury being done to 30,000 wild fowlers by doubling the game licence fee. My contacts with game and those who kill it have been quite extensive in the Highlands. Very little hardship will be caused to those gentlemen.
  In that part of Scotland it is an extremely exclusive sport enjoyed by a mere handful of people who are prepared to pay considerable sums to large armies of beaters who chase up the birds and drive them across the butts. I had experience of doing this as a student, and good money there was in it. It was quite remarkable to hear the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who organises this kind of thing, objecting to an increase of 100 per cent. over a period of a hundred years. He knows as well as any hon. Member how few people enjoy access to the sporting facilities of the Highlands of Scotland and how very limited is the number of people who will be called anon to pay this modest fee.
  If there were any question of it being harmful to the interests of the casual week-end rough shooter, one might look at the provision somewhat differently. I
  386
  dare say that there are many parts of the country where this consideration is operative, but in the seven crofting counties of Scotland week-end rough shooters are few and far between. Rather are the grouse moors and deer forests the private preserve and perquisite of a handful of landed aristocracy most of whom disport themselves there for only three to six weeks a year. I am not persuaded that the increase from £3 to £6 for the licence fee is anything but modest in these circumstances.
  My only quarrel with the Government in producing this Measure is that they have not found it possible to discriminate between those who indulge in this kind of mass slaughter of grouse across the moors of Scotland for private enjoyment and those who occasionally go out and kill a bird for the pot. There is a world of difference between the activities of these two types of people. The hon. Member for Gainsborough made a remarkable speech with which I am sure no one in the Highlands would find himself in sympathy, about the importance of the game preservation side of the licensing system to the economy of the Highlands. It is a most outrageous suggestion that the licence is in some way related to preserving wild life. It is completely anachronistic.
  If I thought that the Government were to spend one penny of this money on preservation of that way of life, I would find myself in the Lobby against them. I am delighted to think that this is simply a question of increasing revenue. If more can be squeezed out of these people who abuse the countryside in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, I hope that the Government will lose no opportunity of doing so.
  11.4 p.m.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: I seek clarification of the enactments amended as set out in the Schedule, namely, of Sections 7 and 13. Section 7 is said to relate to a
  "Licence to kill game taken out on behalf of a servant acting as a gamekeeper."
  The old fee is said to have been £2. The new fee is required to be £4. Section 13 is said to relate to a
  "Licence to sell game to a licensed dealer."
  The old fee is said to have been £3. The new fee is to be £6. These are

  387
  proposed amendments to Section 2 of the Game Licences Act. 1860.
  The authority outside the Treasury on matters of this kind is the Gamekeepers' Association of Great Britain. The Association may be expected to know the law—better than the Treasury officials, I have no doubt. The Association has been at it for a very long while. It has advised me that the Treasury has doubled the fees for licences which do not exist anyway under Sections 7 and 13. Before we approve the Order, the Treasury should clarify the words in the Statutory Instrument, for it seems to the Association that the Treasury is seeking arbitrarily to double a revenue which has never existed in the past, anyway.
  11.6 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I fear that my reply will inevitably cause a good deal of disappointment. Feelings are clearly running high on the Order, especially in relation to the merits or demerits of hunting, game pleasures and sporting activities in the Highlands. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that he, on the one side, sees a profound philosophical difference between those who enjoy a little pleasant recreation in shooting game for the pot and those who, according to my hon. Friend, less worthily shoot game, not for the pot, but to enjoy themselves. I take the distinction and am sure that it has a certain validity, though I am not altogether certain that the birds affected would see the nicer distinction as between the particular objectives of those pursuing the game.
  The Revenue is not the authority on game. The Revenue is the authority on revenue. My object tonight is simply to increase by a modest amount the sums of revenue that are to be brought in by these various licences. I regret that in the course of this I am not equipped, nor, according to my interpretation of your Ruling Mr. Deputy Speaker, would I be in order in doing so, to engage in the encyclopaedic imparting of information irrelevant to the purposes of the Order. I will, however, deal with those points raised that come within the purview of an Order to increase the rates of duty charged.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Financial Secretary does not seem to be leading up to answering the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Is he merely increasing a licence fee, or is he instituting two new licences, as has been asserted quite categorically? We have merely asked for clarification. We want a categorical reply. Have the two licences mentioned by my hon. Friend been in existence? If they have not, it is not a matter of increasing the fee, which is the only job the Treasury has to do, but of instituting new licences.
  Mr. Lever: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me patiently, I will deal with that point, because we are not instituting any new licence fees. All we are doing is increasing existing licence fees. It will be open to the Gamekeepers' Association in this very democratic country, if it thinks that certain activities do not require a licence or that the licences referred to in the Order have no validity, to assert its view of the law. In case the Association asserts its view wrongly, there is a penalty which is quite modest in relation to a licence fee of £6. I will leave it to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to work out the odds as to whether it would be worthwhile in any particular case to challenge the matter.
  All that I am doing tonight is to ask the House to sanction an increase in a number of fees. I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am not engaged on a moral purpose, unless the House feels, as we do, that the raising of revenue is, for its own sake, a moral purpose. Hon. Members seem to be in some confusion on this. They seem to suppose that we are only morally entitled to collect revenue from game licences if we devote it to the improvement of game. On that sort of proposition, we should tax lawyers not mainly to sustain the Revenue but to found colleges in which we could illumine the pages of our English law with new research, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, not to add anything to the Exchequer, but to enlarge theological knowledge in new and more modern seminaries. I could go through the list of revenue-raising activities in which, unhappily, no such thought has yet crossed the Revenue's

  389
  mind, nor has any such purpose yet been magnetic enough to attract the Revenue's money.
  All these licences have been increased because we think that it is useful to do so for a revenue-raising purpose. If it is any consolation to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, I do not find it unwelcome when the Revenue is engaged on its revenue-raising purposes if, as by a side wind, we educate, rehabilitate, constrict usefully, and encourage to good behaviour any of the citizens affected by the licences. This is not a regrettable matter but a source of satisfaction to us.
  I noticed that the hon. Member for Gainsborough is in a sea of turbulence among his colleagues, and I have every sympathy with him. They seem determined to implant the obsolete grouse moor image on the Tory Party by seeking to annul the Order, but the hon. Gentleman, in a wise speech, sought to draw the attention of the House in a reasonable and moderate way to the consequences of the Treasury's revenue-raising activity, and he did not put his case unfairly.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must not try to implant on me a grouse moor image. There are no grouse moors in South Worcestershire, but there are thousands of hard-working farmers and farm workers who enjoy a day's rough shooting—not shooting vermin, but shooting game, and it is on their behalf that this plea is being made tonight. Because the hon. Gentleman has not got a blade of green grass in his Manchester constituency, he need not suppose that enjoyment and recreation are confined to greyhound racing tracks. It also comprises rough shooting, which is the prerogative and pleasure of thousands of my constituents who are now being called upon to pay this onerous additional impost.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman speaks with passion of rough shooting and the Treasury's obstacle in the way of its continuance by the modest increase in duty we propose. What should be noticed is that this duty was first imposed in 1860 at £3. It is now being doubled. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman who waxes so eloquent at Treasury oppression in this regard is that
  390
  most citizens would be very delighted if every other revenue we raised had merely increased in that proportion in the century and eight years that have passed since then.
  It has been suggested that some dusty official has taken this from an ancient pigeon-hole, or some ancient official from a dusty pigeon-hole—I am not quite sure which—and that that is why we have brought it before the House tonight. But this is just part of the normal service my Department gives to the country. From time to time it reviews those licence fees which the citizens are asked to pay in order to contribute to the Exchequer, and increases them moderately and properly after due consideration.
  I have dealt with the gaming licences. If hon. Members will keep a sense of proportion on this they will see that doubling licences every century should not unduly oppress the people whom they are keen to represent.
  Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman said that he had dealt with "gaming" licences. But the House is in rather a quandary. Will he spell out for us game as covered by the Order? It is essential that we know which categories of game are covered, and whether or not they are the categories in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman is pressing me to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not here to define game, other than to say that these are the game covered by the game licences mentioned in the 1860 Act. That Act charged a game licence fee of £3. On behalf of the Treasury I am not responsible for defining game. I am, however, responsible for defining the amount of licence fee which shall be charged for game licences in respect of game as defined in the 1860 Act.
  If the hon. Gentleman—I do not say this in any sense of discourtesy—has any curiosity to investigate this matter further, he can write to me on the subject, or, more directly, to the Home Secretary—because I would only have to pass his communication on to my right hon. Friend who is the person responsible for defining game for the purpose of these licences. I am the

  391
  relevant Minister only for defining the amount of money that has to be paid for the licence. It is not through any lack of good will or lack of erudition in the areas which I represent, but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman with a comprehensive definition of the Order the sole purpose of which is to increase the licence fee in respect of game as defined in the 1860 Act.
  The House might be interested in other licences which have been mentioned, by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), for example. It is true that pawnbroking is a declining trade, but there are other declining trades which also contribute to the Revenue. Here again, the fees have not been increased for a long time and, even as increased, they are very much below what the proportionate fee originally was. On the basis of the value of money, we would have been entirely justified in increasing the licence fee fivefold. Instead we have only doubled it. We have taken into account the point made by the hon. Member that pawnbroking is a perfectly valid activity. I dare say there are views on both sides of the House about all these activities. I am not here tonight to urge the merits of pawnbroking, moneylending or game shooting, or to attack any of these interesting occupations and recreations. I am here solely to urge upon the House that we authorise the modest increases in the charges made.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward the argument that the Revenue is never used for discouraging or encouraging a trade, that it is merely used for revenue purposes. He is not prepared to give any consideration to the state of the trade for which he is doubling the licence fee. Surely he cannot so disregard the purpose of the revenue as to say that it does not matter to him at all how this increase will fall upon the payer of the revenue but that what matters is the change in the value of money over a century.
  Mr. Lever: I said the very opposite. In the case of the game licences we have the suggestion that we should hypothecate the revenue to some nature conservation activity of an agreeable character. In this case we are not asked to take that into account. What I am invited to do
  392
  is to have regard to the declining nature of the trade. As I have told the House, and particularly the hon. Member for Crosby who raised the matter, the Treasury is not unsympathetic to the point of view that he put forward and which he reiterated a moment ago, that this is not a trade which is particularly flourishing. Instead of multiplying the licence fee fivefold, which we might reasonably have done, we have merely doubled it. If we had multiplied it fivefold, we would have been rasing it in effective terms to its value as it originated in the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872. But we have had regard to the difficulties of the trade by merely doubling the licence.
  On the other hand, the moneylender's trade has by no means declined. There, we are proposing to increase the fee from £15 to £50. Thus, the House can see the sympathetic consideration which we are giving to the pawnbrokers by keeping the licence increase down, whereas, for the moneylender's trade which, some hon. Members may regret or deplore, does not appear to be dwindling, we are increasing the licence fee from £15 to £50.
  I know that it is difficult to write a love poem around the raising of revenue without any of the attractive ancillary objectives suggested by hon. Members. On the other hand, revenue has to be raised and this seems a harmless way of raising a reasonable amount of income. The Treasury is expressing no views hostile to people who shoot or do not shoot. We are just hostile to people who should have licences but do not have them. We are friendly to the proposition that it is time, after a century, to revise the rates of certain licences and that, in other cases, after a lapse of time of less than a century, some modest increase in other licence rates is justified.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has not been able to answer many of our questions. Surely there is a case for reviewing the whole question of these licences. While this is done, could not he withdraw the Order? He would not lose much revenue.
  Mr. Lever: It is quite a useful amount of revenue, all of which goes to the local authorities both in Scotland and in England and Wales, and none to the Treasury directly. I may perhaps have

  393
  given the impression that I was interested less altruistically because this money goes to the local authorities and not to the Government, but we have an interest in the local authorities having this revenue. It seems a harmless revenue. We are not discussing the whole merits of licensing but bringing the rates up to date. If hon. Members want the whole question discussed and thought about, that is not beyond; possibility. But it would be a striking departure from Treasury policy if, when an hon. Member thought there was a case for looking at something on which licence duty falls, we were, while considering the matter, to suspend the collection of the licence duties.
  Sir G. Nabarro: That is not fair.
  Mr. Lever: In this case, we are increasing the rate of licence duties—and I hope that I have justified it—having regard to what is involved. In the light of that, we think it right to increase one rate from £15 to £50 and to double the rate in another.
  Sir G. Nabarro: In a consolidating Measure of this kind, involving substantial changes of principle as well as amount, and having regard to the fact that we are debating this only 14 days before the Budget, would it not be sensible to withdraw the Order and put the whole of the Amendments and this consolidation Measure into an appropriate Clause in the Finance Bill, which is where it belongs, and not muck about piecemeal with Statutes 108 years old?
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. This does not belong in the Finance Bill but in a Statutory Order. This is not because I say so but because Parliament has decreed that the regulation of these licences should be by the Treasury and by Statutory Order, and that is what is being done, with the co-operation and assistance of hon. Members.
  Mr. Graham Page: But had this been included in the Finance Bill, the House would have been informed of the amounts expected to be recovered in revenue. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the total he expects to recover from increasing pawnbrokers' licences? It must be a miserable amount and it is a miserable charge on the pawnbrokers.
  Mr. Lever: We do not regard any of these sums as miserable. The amount may seem modest to the hon. Gentleman but the money goes to local authorities, which find it useful. Game licences will produce a gross revenue of about £170,000 this year. We expect that, when the rates are increased, those who have taken out licences before will take them out in future as well. We expect to receive £340,000 next year. We may be wrong and hon. Members may be proved right and a sudden outbreak of irresistible lawlessness will occur at the thought of paying twice the rate arranged in 1860. It may be that hon. Members will be proved right and the Treasury proved wrong.
  The Treasury view is that in each of these cases we will, without damage to the Revenue, increase the amount which we get in. We think that pawnbrokers can afford to pay double. We think that people who want game licences can afford to pay double and will, and we think that moneylenders can afford to pay approximately 3½ times as much and we think that they will.
  We think that we will get useful sums from it, although I should not like to make estimates in each case. Considerable sums are involved in toto and it goes to local authorities. Hon. Members will realise, on reflection, that these rates must be brought up to date and the product of these useful rates goes where hon. Members would want it to go.
  11.27 p.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The House has been cheated or, if not cheated, treated with contempt. It is clear what has been done. The Government have put up their most charming Member. He has a charm and a flare with which he carries the House. He says that he is not interested in the merits of the case and that he knows nothing about it. He said that all he could do as the representative of the Treasury was to say that they wanted double the money.
  I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has anticipated what I was going to say. Why could not one of the Departments concerned have answered the questions put by my hon. Friends? No rule is laid

  395
  down which precludes another Department giving an explanation before the representative of the Treasury makes the winding-up speech.
  There have been technical questions, and no one knows more about Finance Bills than my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).
  Sir G. Nabarro: Or poaching.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: He certainly would not fit the uniform of a gamekeeper.
  There is a serious point. When we have an Order like this we should have an explanation of the thinking behind it. I defy the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to produce any other Order brought to the House in the last 10 years on which the Explanatory Note has been as sparse as this one is. If we are not to have an Explanatory Note to the Order surely we should have some sort of explanation from a Minister. We now have present a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture. Why cannot he answer some of the questions my hon. Friends have put about game licences?
  The Financial Secretary, with all his normal persuasive and charming flair, has come with an Order which will affect many people and said that the only explanation for it is that the Treasury thinks the time has come to double the charge. This is not treating the House
  properly, and the solution is the one put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South. If this provision had been contained in a Finance Bill it would have been debated and explained by representatives of the Departments concerned and Parliament would have been able to do its job of making certain that an impost placed on taxpayers was justified.
  This is almost a case where we must claim the protection of the Chair. We are in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have not been told why the increase is being made, but we are told that it is going to cost the taxpayers many thousands of pounds. I ask the Financial Secretary to think again.
  Mr. Harold Lever: With permission perhaps I may speak again. It seems that hon. Members have not understood. The reason we have given is that, through the effluxion of time, all these licences have got out of date having regard to the date when they were originally fixed. These increases have all been agreed with the local authority associations all of whom welcome the increased revenue that they will get. I ask the House not to make heavy weather of this increase in revenue. It has been agreed to be useful by the local authority associations.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 17, Noes 68.

  Division No. 84.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Boardman, Tom

  Eyre, Reginald

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Cooke, Robert

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Corfield, F. V.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Sir Gerald Nabarro and

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. John Farr.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ellis, John

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Loughlin, Charles

  Booth, Albert

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McBride, Neil

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

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  McCann, John

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

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  MacColl, James

  Carmichael, Neil

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mackie, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Hannan, William

  Maclennan, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hill, J. E. B.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Howie, W.

  Manuel, Archie

  Dalyell, Tam

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Hunter, Adam

  Newens, Stan

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Dickens, James

  Judd, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  O'Malley, Brian

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Ryan, John

  Whitaker, Ben

  Mr. Walter Harrison.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
  11.38 p.m.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: I rise to deal with the taxation of compensation paid for foot-and-mouth disease, which is a dreadfully complex matter. In the course of my speech I shall be guarding my words very carefully in a fashion not to recommend any new legislation or the amendment of the existing law, which would be out of order on an Adjournment debate.
  This is now a massive financial matter, due to the extent and virulence of the epidemic which has raged in various counties of England since last October. A sum in compensation has been assessed at approximately £30 million. There have been 2,339 reported outbreaks of the disease, mostly centred in Worcestershire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Cheshire, Staffordshire, Flintshire, Warwickshire and Derbyshire. So far, 208,800 cattle have been compulsorily slaughtered, 100,700 sheep and 133,400 pigs, a total of 442,900 beasts slaughtered to this date, since the epidemic commenced on 25th October, 1967, on Bryn Farm, Nantmawr, Oswestry. The extent of the compensation assessed, though not entirely paid yet, of £30 million is about ten times greater than in any previous epidemic.
  I have been endeavouring to probe the Treasury as to the taxation treatment of compensation paid. The farming community views with horror the prospect of paying any taxation whatever on compensation for the loss of its stock in trade. My first Question was on 21st December last. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an assurance that compensation paid to farmers for beasts slaughtered under the foot-and-mouth disease regulations would be free of Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Duty, Income Tax and Surtax. The reply I had from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I
  398
  am grateful to him for staying up to this late hour to support the Financial Secretary—was in these terms:
  "As regards cases in which Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1953, is applicable, I would refer to my Answers to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) on 21st November and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) on 30th November. As regards cases outside the scope of that Section, my officials are in urgent consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 487.]
  I, therefore, repeated my Question just over a month later, in identical terms, and I then had an answer from the Financial Secretary, equally procrastinating and unsatisfactory, in these terms:
  "I am not at present able to add anything to the answer of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the hon. Member on 21st December."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 67.]
  So, with characteristic pertinacity, I repeated the Question another month later. I received an even more unsatisfactory answer, this time from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My Question was in identical terms, asking for a statement on the taxation treatment of compensation, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply was two words:
  "Not yet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1210.]
  In other words, his consultations were not completed.
  It is true that, if a farmer is not a corporation in the terms of the fiscal Statutes and he is assessed to Income Tax and Surtax alone, he may elect, having taken the proper statutory steps, to be assessed on a herd basis under the 1953 Act. But that covers only a percentage of the farmers of Britain. If he is assessed on a herd basis, he will probably escape taxation on compensation for foot-and-mouth disease at an early date, but on termination of trading or within the passage of a few years—I shall not go into all the complex calculations which would be necessary—he might, even on a herd basis, find himself with some tax to pay on that compensation. But what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has scrupulously

  399
  avoided telling the House so far is that a very large number of farmers in Britain, quite properly, are not assessed on a herd basis. How many thousands of them there are, we do not know. The Revenue might know, but nobody has ever asked this question. Probably there are thousands of farmers who are not assessed on a herd basis.
  In those circumstances, the amount of compensation paid for foot-and-mouth disease would have the effect, in the chargeable accounting period in which the compensation is paid, of inflating trading profits which are subsequently assessed both to Income Tax and to Surtax. If it were a limited company, the company would be assessed for Corporation Tax. In the case of pedigree beasts, Capital Gains Tax might well be attracted.
  When I first raised this point about Capital Gains Tax, a farmer from one of the lesser shires than Worcestershire said, "But you cannot have Capital Gains Tax on farm cattle". I said, "You think not? Come to Worcestershire, or Herefordshire, and note the value of a few of our pedigree bulls or cows—
  Mr. Jasper More: Or Shropshire.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Or Shropshire. I am delighted to have my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) support me.
  Mr. John Farr: Or Leicestershire.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Or Leicestershire. I am delighted to have my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) support me.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Or Cheshire.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Or Cheshire. I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris).
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Or Peterborough.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Or Peterborough. Glad to have my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) support me. We all have pedigree cattle
  400
  in our constituencies. A matter of £1,000, which is the commencing point for Capital Gains Tax in the terms of the 1965 Act, is a small sum for a pedigree beast. If one talks in terms of £6,000, or £10,000, or £20,000 for a pedigree Hereford bull, one might be nearer the mark, and I hope that neither the Financial Secretary, nor any other incumbent of the Treasury Bench, will suggest that none of these pedigree beasts, be they Herefords, or Friesians, or Guernseys, or others have been slaughtered due to the foot-and-mouth disease. If the records in the West Midlands are searched, it will be seen that compensation of more than £1,000 has often been paid for one beast slaughtered.
  Many of these beasts cost £1,000, that is the historical cost is £1,000, but they have been reared, and looked after for many years, and their contemporary cost may be six, or eight, or ten times that amount. On slaughter, unless we receive assurances to the contrary, the Revenue will come along with a Capital Gains Tax assessment. I am not in any doubt about that, and chartered accountants and the N.F.U. support my view. Of course on an Adjournment debate I would not transgress by pleading for a change in the law. I will defer those observations until the Second Reading of the forthcoming Finance Bill, but I have made my point.
  The N.F.U. has been consulted in this matter, and it is extremely anxious and worried about the replacement cost factor for slaughtered animals. It is now well known that when this epidemic started last October the approximate replacement value of the beasts slaughtered was assessed, but, due to shortage, and the virulence of the epidemic, over the ensuing months the costs of replacement beasts has steadily risen. It is fair to say that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has behaved quite generously, and compensation has tended to rise, but the Ministry has also suggested that much of the land on which the stock was reared may be turned over to arable, and to encourage this it is paying a grant of £10 per acre.
  In the case of a farmer paid substantial foot-and-mouth compensation and who subsequently does not replace his slaughtered cattle, sheep or pigs but turns his land to arable and takes the £10

  401
  per acre grant, all the compensation, less a small sum for ploughing up, goes into his accounts as a profit in the chargeable accounting period concerned, unless it were on a herd basis, when it might be a repayment of capital. There is no assurance from the Inland Revenue that such compensation will be spread over several years ahead so as to minimise the impact—
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's complaint. So that I can answer it properly—I know his difficulties in an Adjournment debate—would he make it clear? Is he saying that we could give concessions to remedy his grievance within the existing law or that we could not?
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is wily enough a politician to try to tempt me from the rules of order. I will end my speech by telling him what I want him to do and I cannot then be out of order—
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Since this is terribly serious for the farmers who have suffered in this epidemic, would my hon. Friend not agree that, unless something can be done to alleviate the tax situation which many of them face, much of the compensation which has been paid out will be lost?
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Treasury will consider that.
  There are three main types of animals for which compensation has been paid—first, production animals such as dairy herds; second, young stock and followers in a dairy herd; and, third, flying flocks and animals kept for fattening. The compensation for mature production animals can be safeguarded by the farmer electing for the herd basis if he has not already done so. But flying flocks and animals for fattening are normally treated as trading assets and no major injustice would result if they were assessed for tax as part of the herd, because the amount of taxation paid would in any event be infinitesimal.
  What I am concerned about, however, is the effects of tax on the compensation for young stock and followers and for animals not assessed on a herd basis. Under the existing Statute these are nor-
  402
  mally treated as trading assets in a farmer's accounts, but no dairy farmer ever considers young stock and followers as anything but the means of maintaining a fully productive dairy herd. They are kept in specified age groups and brought into the herd either when the farmer is increasing its size or as a replacement when he culls an old cow.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me what I wanted. I will be perfectly blunt. I know exactly the condition of the present negotiations among the Treasury, the Ministry of Agriculture and the N.F.U. I did not expect an Adjournment debate within five days of giving notice, which is most unusual in this House, but five weeks, and I then expected those negotiations to be completed. They are not yet completed, however, and the N.F.U. has kept me fully informed of their exact state. I know as much about them and am as well briefed as the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Harold Lever indicated assent.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman nods, but really he does not know the difference between an old cow and a drum of oil, as he has readily confessed on earlier occasions when dealing with farming matters.
  I represent a farming constituency which has been heavily afflicted by foot-and-mouth, including one substantial case of the same farmer on the same farm having all his stock slaughtered twice within 12 weeks. The taxation complications arising from two consecutive compensation payments are indeed extraordinarily complex.
  I want a statement from the Treasury, either tonight or during the Budget, that all compensation paid for foot-and-mouth will be absolutely free of Income Tax, Surtax, Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax. If I am asked, "Why should we make an exception of the farmers?" I immediately reply, "The Government make an exception with National Health benefits. If an insured person falls sick, his Health benefit is not taxed. The Government make an exception with the dole. Any man who draws unemployment benefit is not assessed for tax on it, and they make an exception with war disability pensions. for they are not assessed for Income Tax". That is why—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty in which he finds himself. He is obviously now advocating a change in legislation, which he cannot do in an Adjournment debate.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I recognised that earlier in my speech and I stated that fact. I want all compensation for foot-and-mouth placed on an equal footing with the other cases I have named and freed entirely from any form of taxation. That is the wish of the farming community and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has obviously not appreciated my intervention. He cannot, on an Adjournment Motion, advocate a change in legislation.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I accept that and I recognised that fact twice earlier.
  Though the Financial Secretary may not be able to give me a satisfactory reply tonight—as he may not, because his negotiations are not yet completed—he will be fully aware of the case which I have adduced, whether or not he likes the way I have adduced it. Certainly he will be pressed from now on by all my hon. Friends who represent agricultural constituencies afflicted by foot-and-mouth for the ideal solution, which is the tax-free form I have indicated tonight.
  11.58 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): Although it be true, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said, that there is probably not a pedigree cow in my constituency, he was making a considerable exaggeration in saying that it does not contain a blade of grass. However, that is carrying matters over from the last debate.
  All hon. Members will believe me when I say that I wish at the outset to express, on behalf of the Government and the House generally, our sincere view that the farmers have suffered a considerable ordeal during this epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the taxation law applying to farmers is certainly no less generous in respect of disasters than the taxation law applying to anybody else. Indeed, the law in its present state reached that condition in the light of
  404
  foot-and-mouth epidemics of earlier years, and takes into account the special needs of farmers.
  The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I could not yield to his desire for the total and unconditional exemption from tax of foot-and-mouth payments without there being a change in the law. I cannot discuss this on the Adjournment, but I beg him, if he wants to change the law relating to foot-and-mouth compensation so that it accords with the law applying to, say, National Health benefits, to urge that that step be taken at the time of the Finance Bill. He must overcome any diffidence he may feel about troubling the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion, and make known his views on this subject when the Finance Bill is under discussion, at which time he will not suffer from the crippling inhibitions which impede him tonight.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Lever: I have a very important matter to put to the House, having finished these preliminary comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. This is not from discourtesy and if I have time, I will give way later.
  The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, is for once out of date in relation to negotiations with the National Farmers' Union. It is possibly because he was so busy preparing his seven interventions in the previous debate that he has not been brought up to date with the state of play with the National Farmers' Union. He will be glad to know that we have concluded this evening with the National Farmers' Union a series of arrangements which we believe are possible for the farming community in relation to foot-and-mouth payments and the taxation situation, yet retaining the existing law. I am glad to be able to announce that it has been found possible within the present law to spread the profit element in compensation payments, that is, the excess of compensation over the book value of the beasts, over three years, if the farmer wishes to do so.
  This should relieve the anxieties of those who feared that the crediting of the whole amount in their accounts for one year would make them liable for tax at

  405
  higher rates than if they had sold the beasts in the normal way. The National Farmers' Union has been told that this is what is proposed, and that it is as far as we are able to go; and the National Farmers' Union has this evening accepted this as satisfactory to them. Admittedly, they would have preferred the herd basis of compensation, but they expressed themselves satisfied with the concessions. They have agreed that this represents a fair solution to the problem.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Coming from the most afflicted constituency, it is not inappropriate that I should be the first to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the arrangements which have been arrived at. I am sure that they will be of the utmost benefit to farmers. They will be very pleased with what he has announced tonight and I congratulate him.
  Mr. Lever: I am grateful to the hon. Member who in his usual fairminded way has recognised that we have genuine sympathy for the farming community and that within the present law we have gone as far as possible to help them. But this could not meet the ambitions of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with Capital Gains Tax. This provision has nothing whatever to do with Capital Gains Tax. If this requires amendment by legislation, will the hon. Gentleman say so, or is it an administrative matter?
  Mr. Lever: If I were to say so, I would be rebuked as being out of order. I cannot properly discuss changes in legislation in an Adjournment debate.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am not asking that.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Member must know that it is not in order to discuss new legislation on the Adjournment. Any remedy the hon. Member may seek for this or in relation to any other branch of tax law, the hon. Member must seek in discussion of the Finance Bill. If he feels that it needs adjustment it can be properly and fully explored there within the rules of order.
  We have extended to the farming community a very real understanding of their problems and within the taxation law we have made every concession we felt
  406
  that it was lawful to make. We are happy to know that the National Farmers' Union feels that what we have done is satisfactory and fair treatment.
  12.3 a.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has made clear that the Government have gone as far as they can go under existing law. I should like to feel that the way he has announced this tonight does not rule out the possibility when the right occasion arises, perhaps on the next Finance Bill, for the law to be looked at again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss that.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wonder—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Order. We cannot discuss that. Mr. Jasper More.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I had not intended—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I cannot allow the hon. Member to discuss that. I have called Mr. Jasper More.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have called Mr. Jasper More.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. It is quite in order if I have strayed for the Chair to call me to order. I was going to apologise if I have strayed, if that were so ruled, and I still claim that I have the Floor.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go on, as I have called Mr. Jasper More.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I believe that back benchers have rights. I accept your Ruling. I may have strayed on a particular point and I will not pursue that point, but I wish to switch to another which may well be in order and which I think I am entitled to as I have the Floor. I merely wanted to say that I did not think that the Financial Secretary should accept the kindly words uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) as necessarily representing the reaction that the whole of the farming community will have. I can well understand that the farming community is delighted

  407
  that it has had sympathy within the law as it stands, but I do not think that it should go on the record that my hon. Friend's very understandable and sympathetic reaction means that those who have been the victims of this great disaster will be completely satisfied.
  Mr. More: To get the matter quite clear, may I ask the Financial Secretary whether the announcement he was able to make referring to the existing taxation law was limited to Income Tax and Surtax?
  Mr. Harold Lever: It would affect Corporation Tax as well as Income Tax and Surtax. It would affect any tax based upon income.
  Mr. More: Those three taxes, but not Capital Gains Tax?
  Mr. Harold Lever: It would not affect the Capital Gains Tax position, I should suppose.
  Mr. Farr: If this is a final statement, I welcome it in so far as it goes, but a few days ago the Minister of Agriculture,
  408
  Fisheries and Food said that he would be making a statement on this subject. I wonder if this is a final statement or whether a further one may be expected.
  Mr. Harold Lever: No statement is final. I have given the House the latest news of these agreements and, if the House wishes to raise this subject at other appropriate times by way of Question or debate, that is a matter for the House. That is the information I have this evening, when this agreement was concluded. I thought that the House would wish to have it.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: May I ask the Financial Secretary, if I am in order—if I am not in order, I shall sit down at once—whether we can expect to hear something about the equalisation of valuation problem as well shortly?
  Mr. Harold Lever: I am afraid not tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Seychelles (Civil Airport)
  Seychelles (Civil Airport)
  Seychelles (New Constitution)
  Seychelles (New Constitution)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Kenya
  Kenya
  United Kingdom Passport-Holders (Hong Kong)
  United Kingdom Passport-Holders (Hong Kong)
  Persian Gulf, Singapore and Malaysia
  Persian Gulf, Singapore and Malaysia
  United Kingdom Passport-Holders (Singapore)
  United Kingdom Passport-Holders (Singapore)
  Malaysia (Defence Agreement)
  Malaysia (Defence Agreement)
  Malta (Dockyard)
  Malta (Dockyard)
  Gibraltar (Air Restrictions)
  Gibraltar (Air Restrictions)
  Human Rights Year
  Human Rights Year
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Advance Gas Reactor Nuclear Power Stations (Generation Cost)
  Advance Gas Reactor Nuclear Power Stations (Generation Cost)
  European Economic Community (Coal and Steel Industries)
  European Economic Community (Coal and Steel Industries)
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
  Oil and Gas (North Sea)
  Oil and Gas (North Sea)
  Electricity Generation (Costs)
  Electricity Generation (Costs)
  Iron and Steel Industry (Organisation)
  Iron and Steel Industry (Organisation)
COAL
  Scotland (T.U.C. Delegation)
  Scotland (T.U.C. Delegation)
GAS
  North Sea Gas Wells (Plugging)
  North Sea Gas Wells (Plugging)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  M53 Road (Bebington)
  M53 Road (Bebington)
  Sport (Capital Investment)
  Sport (Capital Investment)
  Rock Ferry By-Pass (Birkenhead)
  Rock Ferry By-Pass (Birkenhead)
  Water Supply Engineers (Earnings)
  Water Supply Engineers (Earnings)
HOUSING
  Rent Act, 1965 (Statistics)
  Rent Act, 1965 (Statistics)
  Redditch
  Redditch
  NORTH ATLANTIC FREE TRADE AREA (FEASIBILITY STUDY)
  NORTH ATLANTIC FREE TRADE AREA (FEASIBILITY STUDY)
  SECOND SECRETARY (COMMERCIAL) POSTS (QUALIFICATIONS)
  SECOND SECRETARY (COMMERCIAL) POSTS (QUALIFICATIONS)
  BRITISH HONDURAS
  BRITISH HONDURAS
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Overseas Vistors
  Overseas Vistors
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Bank Notes
  Bank Notes
  Steel Industry Nationalisation (Compensation Stock)
  Steel Industry Nationalisation (Compensation Stock)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Devaluation (Export Opportunities)
  Devaluation (Export Opportunities)
  Metrication (Retailing and Commerce)
  Metrication (Retailing and Commerce)
  Development Areas, Cornwall
  Development Areas, Cornwall
  Egg Imports
  Egg Imports
  Oil Tankers
  Oil Tankers
  Cellulosic Man-Made Fibres (Monopolies Commission Report)
  Cellulosic Man-Made Fibres (Monopolies Commission Report)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Stonehenge (Damage)
  Stonehenge (Damage)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Industry, Scotland
  Fishing Industry, Scotland
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Rum Producers
  Rum Producers
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Servicemen (Local Overseas Allowances)
  Servicemen (Local Overseas Allowances)
  Statement on the Defence Estimates
  Statement on the Defence Estimates
  N.A.T.O. (British Forces)
  N.A.T.O. (British Forces)
  Aircraft and Equipment
  Aircraft and Equipment
  CENTO and S.E.A.T.O. (British Forces)
  CENTO and S.E.A.T.O. (British Forces)
  Defence Costs
  Defence Costs
  Aircraft Carrier Force
  Aircraft Carrier Force
  N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact (Armed Strengths)
  N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact (Armed Strengths)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (NON-RE-ELECTION)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (NON-RE-ELECTION)
  NUCLEAR POWER AND FUEL DERIVATIVES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  NUCLEAR POWER AND FUEL DERIVATIVES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Prices and Incomes Act (Directions)
  Prices and Incomes Act (Directions)
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  National Health Service Treatment (Overseas Visitors)
  National Health Service Treatment (Overseas Visitors)
HOSPITALS
  Shelton Hospital (Staff-Patient Ratio)
  Shelton Hospital (Staff-Patient Ratio)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Agricultural Training Board Levy (Wales)
  Agricultural Training Board Levy (Wales)
  Beckman Instruments, Ltd. (Wage Agreement)
  Beckman Instruments, Ltd. (Wage Agreement)
  Index of Retail Prices (Food Items)
  Index of Retail Prices (Food Items)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Applicants (Farnham Area)
  Applicants (Farnham Area)
SCOTLAND
  Murder and Culpable Homicide
  Murder and Culpable Homicide
  Balloon Logging
  Balloon Logging
  Pay Beds (Review)
  Pay Beds (Review)
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  Cattle Sales (Survey)
  Cattle Sales (Survey)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Supplementary Pensions (Publicity Campaign)
  Supplementary Pensions (Publicity Campaign)
  Storm Damage, Scotland (Assistance)
  Storm Damage, Scotland (Assistance)
TRANSPORT
  National Bus Company (Assets)
  National Bus Company (Assets)
SHIPPING
  Ferry Services (North and South Shields)
  Ferry Services (North and South Shields)
RAILWAYS
  Rail Closures, Wales
  Rail Closures, Wales
WALES
  Low Wage Earners
  Low Wage Earners
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Trunk Road Schemes

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

RHODESIA SANCTIONS
2.34 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what investigation has been made of the statement by President Kaunda of Zambia on February 15 that between January, 1966, and August, 1967, a total of 713,130 tons of oil, petrol and sub-products destined for Rhodesia were delivered at ports in Mozambique by ships sailing under eleven national flags, including the British flag.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, the document distributed by President Kaunda contains a list of 165 tankers of various nationalities. It in fact covers virtually all the tankers calling at Mozambique ports between January, 1966, and August, 1967. The document also gives figures for the tonnages of oil supplies unloaded by each vessel, but the aggregate total of 713,000 tons is only about one quarter of what, according to our information, was delivered to Mozambique ports, and in most cases the figures given for individual tankers are only a fraction of their capacity. However, in appears to have been suggested to President Kaunda that the figures in the document refer to oil supplies destined for Rhodesia.
This falls down on two counts. First, it is known that 49 of the tankers listed carried crude oil exclusively, and we know that no crude oil is getting into Rhodesia because the only refinery at Umtali is closed down. Secondly, the suggestion implicit in the document is that a fixed proportion of each and
1220
every cargo delivered to Mozambique ports over a period of twenty months found its way to Rhodesia. The implication is therefore that the figures in the document are a fabrication; that the document was planted on the Zambians; and that they have most unfortunately been taken in by it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very full reply, may I ask whether he would agree that the word "fabrication" is a little strong? Did not President Kaunda give many details? Do not the ships include 23 British ships? What investigation has been made of the cargoes of those particular ships and of the companies which they were serving?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am not suggesting for a moment that the fabrication has been done by the Zambians or President Kaunda, but on the best interpretation we can make of the evidence we have come to the conclusion that the document itself is a fabrication. The investigations done into the activities of British oil companies leave Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the British oil companies themselves are not supplying oil to Rhodesia.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he happened to see the television feature "World in Action" on October 2, which actually filmed the delivery to Salisbury from Beira of an article which was prohibited by sanctions, with the help of a London shipping company? May I ask him what checks are made at Beira, and whether it is not now time that a similar prohibition was enforced at Lourenco Marques where the greater part of this defeat of sanctions is operated?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I did not see the broadcast in question. I know that there are many rumours, and I think one could use the word "fabrications", about the situation. As for the question of extending the Beira patrol to Lourenco Marques, that is a matter for the Security Council.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is regrettable that there are so many bodies and individuals who are always willing to prejudge every issue, saying that Britain is wrong?
LORD BROWN: Yes, my Lords.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say what agency was responsible for the fabrication of this document?
LORD BROWN: No, my Lords, I am not able to say. We do not know.

TAY ROAD BRIDGE BUS FARES
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Tay Road Bridge Committee have been refused permission to reduce bus fares.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, permission has not been refused. The Bridge Joint Board submitted a proposal to reduce the toll for scheduled service buses from 10s. to 2s. 6d., on the basis that this would enable the bus operators to remove the surcharge of 7d. which they include in the passenger fares.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has informed the Board that he would be willing to accept arrangements based on a 5s. level of toll for these buses, which would enable the surcharge to be reduced, probably to 2d. I understand that the Board intends to submit a formal proposal of this kind, and I hope that the surcharge will be reduced at an early date.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for explaining the complexities of this matter, which he has done very satisfactorily. May I ask him whether it is the case that there has been no Government grant towards the £6 million cost of building this bridge, and whether it is the case that local authorities, which have borne the whole of the charge, have so far succeeded in making the bridge pay for itself? If this is so, should it not be made more expeditiously easy for them
1222
to determine the level of toll charges on all classes of vehicles?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I remember that when the present Member of Parliament for Dundee, West was contesting the by-election, he was asked what assistance the then Government had given to the building of the bridge. The reply which he gave, which was perfectly truthful, was, "So far as I am aware, the only thing the Government have given is permission." Since then they have gone a little further. As the noble Earl is aware, in this case exceptionally, on the first loan, unpaid interest on the loan is not capitalised. The result of this would be that if in fact the charge were reduced to 2s. 6d., the resulting annual deficiency—something of the order of £20,000—would fall on the Exchequer rather than on the local authorities.
So far as the figures are concerned, we think that 5s. is a fair one. The usage of the bridge is in excess of the estimates, and it is from that point of view that the Secretary of State feels it is reasonable to reduce this particular toll charge. But if the Government had been prepared to go to 2s. 6d. and to accept responsibility for the £20,000—a difficult thing at this time—it would have meant that those people who were travelling across the bridge in buses were the only people in vehicles who were using the bridge free of tolls. We think that a charge of 2d. per journey per passenger is fair in relation to the charges that other people are paying for the use of the bridge.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while we welcome the fact that 5s. is a less severe charge than 10s., surely the noble Lord will bear in mind that the Forth Road Bridge would allow such vehicles through for 2s. 6d. Why should the toll for the Tay Road Bridge, which as the noble Lord has told us is doing better than was expected, be higher than the Forth Road Bridge toll?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I suggest, before the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, commends so strongly the 2s. 6d. toll charged on the Forth Bridge, that he looks at the accounts of the Forth Road Bridge.

BOARD OF TRADE FLIGHT INSPECTORATE
2.45 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: 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 agreement has been reached with the British Airline Pilots' Association as to the number of flight inspectors required to carry out their arduous and highly responsible duties; and whether their salary has been agreed.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Institution of Professional Civil Servants is the staff association recognised to represent the members of the Board of Trade Flight Inspectorate for purposes of negotiation of salaries and conditions of service. It is the responsibility of management to keep under continuous review the number of officers in the Inspectorate required to carry out its functions, though it is open to the Institution to make representations on behalf of its membership. No such representations have been received from the Institution. Following a pay claim made by the Institution, the present salaries of the Inspectorate were introduced by agreement with effect from July 1, 1967.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his fairly full Answer, may I ask him whether he could consider at an early date paying flight inspectors the same money as is paid to senior captains, in view of the responsibility which they have to take?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is really a separate question. I should have thought that the payment of salaries was a matter for negotiation. As I said, the present salary levels have been agreed with the appropriate staff organisation. As a matter of interest, however, I understand that the salaries of Flight Operations Inspectors are linked to those of Captains of B.E.A. Viscount aircraft.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the
1224
complement of the flight operations inspectorate is up to strength at this time?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. There are difficulties, as the noble Lord will probably know, in recruitment of these very skilled people. But, in fact, there are 30 in post, another three are being recruited, and when they are in post the establishment will then be complete. In addition, there are, of course, 24 flight examiners with another five being recruited, and that, I should have thought, would be adequate for the tasks in hand.

MAGISTRATES AND ISSUE OF SEARCH WARRANTS
LORD GLADWYN: 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 will consider advising magistrates that before issuing, on the sole basis of an anonymous telephone call, a warrant for searching a private house, a magistrate should satisfy himself that inquiries have already been made as to the character and police record of the householder concerned and the inherent probability of his being guilty of the alleged offences.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, when deciding whether to issue warrants, magistrates act judicially and the Government have no power to instruct them as to how they are to exercise their judicial functions. I assume that the noble Lord's question refers to a recent case in which private premises were searched for drugs. In cases of this kind magistrates have statutory power to issue search warrants on being satisfied by an information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that drugs are on the premises. In this particular instance the information sworn by the police officer applying for the warrant had not disclosed that it was based on an anonymous message.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would it not be a good thing if normally the police could disclose to the magistrate whether the information was based on an anonymous telephone call? If we are to accept the fact that magistrates have

1225
power to issue warrants on the basis of an anonymous telephone call, are we not opening a door for all the enemies of anybody to ring up the police and say that that person is hoarding drugs and his premises ought to be immediately searched?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is it not customary, when police officers give evidence on oath, that they give evidence on oath of facts which are in their own experience and not derived at second hand?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in this particular case the information on oath was that the officer had received information "from a source which I believe to be reliable". It would not, I think, have occurred to a magistrate that it was likely to be an anonymous telephone call.
So far as the police are concerned, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place has said that where there is anonymous telephone information the normal procedure is for inquiries to be made, and perhaps observation kept, in order to try to assess the reliability of information of this character. He added that he regretted that this procedure was not carried out, and the Commissioner has written to Lady Diana Cooper expressing his regrets. I understand that, in fact, on February 21 the local superintendent called on her, by appointment, to explain the circumstances of the search and to seek her assistance in tracing the anonymous caller. Then on February 23 the Deputy Commissioner called upon her and offered his apologies for the incident.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I was not attempting to accuse the police of any dereliction of duty. My intention was to suggest that sometimes, perhaps, magistrates do not always act in accordance with what is the right procedure. I hope, therefore, that the Government will still manage, somehow or other, to advise the magistrates concerned of the necessities of this case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that the case is one in which the police did not follow the usual procedure, and the information which they swore and put before the magistrate, who I think is
1226
not to be blamed at all, was not in a form which could have led anyone to think that the information was simply an anonymous telephone call.

RHODESIA: DEATH SENTENCE ON AFRICANS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the Africans sentenced to death in Rhodesia."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be answering this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

ARGENTINE BEEF IMPORTS
2.52 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked:
"Is Her Majesty's Government satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the lifting of the ban on imported beef which was announced yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?"
The Answer is: Yes, my Lords. The decision announced yesterday was taken after the most careful consideration and taking into account not only the specific animal health factors but the wider economic implications of our national trading policy.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for both asking the Question and answering it for me so pleasantly. Is he aware that the lifting of the ban on Argentine beef imports is bound to shake the industry and the industry's confidence in the sincerity of Government policy with regard to the expansion of home meat production, and therefore to deter farmers from fresh outlay on this account; and that the industry is in no condition to stand additional strains after the devastating experience it has had in recent months? May I ask the noble Lord this question?

1227
Have the Government taken a calculated risk as to the effect on home production and in fact come down in favour of the other factors involved, such as the Argentine trade and the immediate level of beef prices here?
May I put a further, technical point to the noble Lord? With regard to the special stock of vaccine which was imported as a last line of defence last December, and which will lose its potency by about the summer, will the noble Lord say whether it is the Government's intention to renew this stock so that there will be this last line of defence throughout the period when the public inquiry under the Duke of Northumberland is being conducted?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord suggests that the decision announced yesterday will in some way upset the confidence of the industry. The fact of the matter is, as he will recognise, that my right honourable friend gave a most categorical assurance in the first place that the ban was a temporary one, and he undertook to review it by March 4, which was yesterday. So if it is a question of fulfilling obligations, I cannot really think my right honourable friend has failed in that regard. As far as the actual risk is concerned, the noble Lord will have read, I have no doubt, the report of the Chief Veterinary Officer, in which attention was called specifically to mutton and lamb; and it is because of the trouble which it is thought was caused by that imported meat that the continued ban relates only to mutton and lamb.
It is perfectly true, of course, that one had to weigh up certain risks (and there are risks, one admits) in allowing the continuation of imports from a country in which there is endemic foot-and-mouth disease. At the same time, one had to count the cost of insurance, and on the present information it was thought that the cost of complete insurance was excessive. As to the question which the noble Lord asked about the potency of the vaccine, I am afraid I cannot answer it now, but I shall certainly find out about this and let him know.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there was not a clear undertaking on the part
1228
of the Government that there would be no action taken while the Duke of Northumberland's Committee was consider this matter; and will the Government not honour what was, I will not say an undertaking but certainly a very clear understanding? Surely there could be no point in appointing the Duke of Northumberland to inquire into this unless some attention was going to be paid to him. Secondly, have not the Government had from one of the highest veterinary authorities in the country a very clear opinion that it would be madness to import beef from the Argentine unless it was boned and without any offal?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I really am sorry that the noble Earl talks again to-day about honouring undertakings. It is not only unfair but inaccurate to say that there was an undertaking in this regard. The undertaking was to have a temporary ban. As far as the Committee of Inquiry is concerned, what my right honourable friend has said is that the Report made eventually by the Northumberland Committee will of course be given every consideration, and the question of a ban on imports will be reviewed in the light of that Committee's Report.
So far as the boning of meat is concerned, I know there are suggestions that the risk would be further lessened if beef were imported only after it was boned, but there is by no means a consensus of opinion among the veterinary surgeons on this point. There are many who say that there are other risks in the act of boning; that there is a possibility of other infection setting in during the course of the boning. The general view of the people best able to tell seems to be that it would not have helped the situation to limit the imports of meat only to boned meat.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, if he will, to try to say something really clear to dispel the understandable impression which has been given, that this decision is one of the worst sort of compromise, which is always a temptation for a Government when there is a strong case that can be made out in two directions. Does he not see that to maintain the ban on lamb and yet to free beef, when cattle are generally

1229
believed, rightly or wrongly, to be more susceptible than sheep, is really something very difficult for the farming community and for the country to understand?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, for what it is worth, this is a point which occurred to me, and it was a point which I tried honestly to pursue. I am assured by the veterinary officers in the Ministry that the point here is that it is much more difficult to detect infection in sheep than in cattle, and that there is a greater risk of infection from imported mutton and lamb than there is from imported beef. Moreover, the action taken follows the report of the Chief Veterinary Officer, and as the noble Lord will know, if he has read that report, reference is made only to mutton and lamb.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, is it not the case that in the Argentine mutton goes through the same slaughterhouses as beef, and there is a risk of infection from the mutton to the beef? Yet you are still freeing beef imports from the Argentine to this country.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is the case that the sheep run through one part of the building and the cattle through another. But, again, this is one of the points that the mission and afterwards the veterinary officers' delegation going to Argentina will be able to look at.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean to imply that the Government have done this without having fully ascertained that no beef animals are being slaughtered and their meat sent to this country from the same frigorifico from which have come these lamb and mutton carcases?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord means by "implying". What I am saying is that there is no evidence at all that we have had brought into this country any infected beef. There is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence that we have had infected mutton and lamb. The decision taken is to continue the ban on imported mutton and lamb.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask one question to clarify something in the Answer to the original Question? Do we understand
1230
that if the Duke of Northumberland's Committee found that beef was a cause of the infection, Her Majesty's Government would feel completely free to re-impose a ban; and could we say, therefore, that the relief of the ban is temporary until the Duke of Northumberland's Committee reports?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hesitate to use the word "temporary" because I think it could be misleading. All these decisions are temporary in the sense that the Government, if new evidence comes along, can reverse a decision. The undertaking given here is that the Report from the Northumberland Committee will be given every consideration. If it were to report that it was unwise to import either beef or mutton then the Government would be perfectly free to reverse the decision which we are now discussing.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether the Chief Veterinary Officer at the Ministry has agreed with the Government's policy, whether they are acting on his advice and whether he now, despite his Report, says it is safe to import beef from an area where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am surprised, after the experience of the noble Lord in the same Department as mine, that he should expect an answer to that question.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me how many cases of foot-and-mouth disease; since the war which have definitely been established as being due to a particular cause have been due to imported beef, how many have been due to imported mutton and how many have been due to other causes? If the noble Lord cannot answer now, could he make a statement about it in the future, so that people in this country can judge whether the Ministry's action is really in the interests of the farming community of this country or purely a nasty compromise?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Duke were to put down a Question, I should be happy to give him the fullest possible answer. It is true that there have been cases in the past of infection from imported beef. It is also

1231
true that the Administrations of those days were never concerned to ban imported beef.
LORD CARRON: My Lords, referring to the point made in answer to the first Question, may I ask whether the noble Lord could tell us if the Government are satisfied that the serious threat of cancellation of very important industrial contracts has been lessened by the decision that the Government have taken?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, those considerations were covered in the original Answer when I said that the decision had been taken in the light of the overall trading policy of this country.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could the noble Lord answer the question by my noble friend Lord Balerno, in which he asked whether it was the case that the Government had lifted this ban before finding out if mutton and beef were separated in the Argentine before being exported here?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that that question was put by the noble Lord. If it was, I am sorry if I did not answer it. The fact is that there is a separation on purchase; there is an agreement, as I understand it, that all meat—mutton, lamb and beef—should be exported only after proper inspection in the slaughter houses in the country of origin. It is this sort of point that will be considered by the delegation now going to the Argentine.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would make more sense if all meat from this specific frigorifico had been banned from entry into this country?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. This is a question which has been asked, I know; but in so far as the infection has this time been attributed to mutton and lamb, all mutton and lamb from this particular depot, No. 1408, will be banned, together with mutton and lamb from other slaughter houses.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the mutton is almost invariably frozen, whereas the beef is chilled? I venture to ask that question because for many years I had to deal
1232
with that trade and that was always the case. It might be hoped that freezing did something to do away with the infection.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Marquess is probably right as to the different treatment which different meats receive. I think, however, that the effect is probably the reverse of that which he suggests.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw from the Order Paper the Commonwealth Immigrants (No. 2) Bill. Your Lordships will remember that in the event it was not necessary to move this Bill.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the remaining stages of the Transport Holding Company Bill this day.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIRDRIE COURT HOUSE COMMISSIONERS (DISSOLUTION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1932
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion Standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is one of the usual Orders made under the Sunday Entertainments Act.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Rural District of Skipton be approved.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (ADDITIONAL METRIC WEIGHTS) ORDER 1968
3.9 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a comparatively simple draft Order. The pharmaceutical industry has decided to change over at an early date from the use of the apothecaries series of weights to the use of the metric series in the dispensing and compounding of drugs. The Order, if approved, will add four small metric weights to the list of those which can be lawfully used for the trade. These additions will facilitate the weighing operations of pharmacists and assist them in changing over to the metric system. Continued use of the apothecaries series of weights is not, however, affected by this Order.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures (Additional Metric Weights) Order 1968, laid before the House on 6th February, be approved.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask a question on this Order? These new weights will come under Paragraph 5 of Part V of Schedule 3 to the 1963 Act, and paragraph 6 deals with carat weights. Is there any reason why the opportunity should not have been taken to include the same alteration with regard to the carat weight, which jumps from 2 carats to 5 carats?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the pharmacists deal in drachmas, scruples, and grains, and not in the other weights mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. This is quite a specific request from the pharmacists. A general approach to metrication is not intended by this Order: that will come in another form later, probably not in the form of a separate Order.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask whether any specific arrangements will be made to keep these two measures apart? So far as I can see, the apothecaries weight contains grains, which is shortened to "gr." and the metric system contains grammes shortened to "g". It seems to me that, with the normal writing of the normal physician, there is room for a good deal of muddle, and possibly fatal consequences.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the remarks of the noble Lord will be duly noted.
On Question, Motion agreed to

NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Recommitment).
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

REVENUE (No. 2) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.19 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will probably be familiar with the general structure of the Bill, and to save your Lordships' time I will go straight on to a brief description of the clauses of the Bill. Part I, which deals with the welfare of farm animals, follows the Report of the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Professor Rogers Brambell. The Committee reported in December, 1965, and after considering the views of interested organisations the Government announced on August 5, 1966, their conclusions on the Committee's recommendations. These conclusions did not in any way impugn the farming industry's concern for animal welfare. Indeed, the Government share the Brambell Committee's view that the great majority of farmers are fully conscious of the importance in live-stock husbandry of the well-being of their animals.
The Government's conclusions took into account the dearth of scientific knowledge on many aspects of the welfare of animals, particularly their reactions to environmental conditions. In this situation it would be wrong to enforce any standards involving capital outlay when such standards might need early revision. There are some welfare matters which could be the subject of regulations now, but the main approach will be a flexible one based on codes of practice and other forms of official advice. I shall have more to say about the codes later.
Clause 1 will make it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to livestock and provides exemptions for research. The broad intention here is to protect livestock whilst being bred or reared on agricultural land. The clause covers distress resulting, for example, from prolonged periods of discomfort. Clause 2 will provide powers to make regulations, particularly in relation to accommodation, dietary matters, and undesirable methods of restraining and marking animals or of interfering with the normal exercise of their senses and faculties. The regulations would be the subject of prior con-
1236
sultation with all interested parties, including farmers' organisations, and would require an Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. Clause 3 permits the production of official codes of practice for the benefit of farmers and others concerned with looking after livestock. The Government set great store by these codes because they will form an essential part of the flexible approach which underlies Part I of the Bill. We believe that the majority of farmers will welcome the advice and guidance in them. As a preliminary step, the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, in consultation with many other experts, is compiling the draft codes and these will be widely circulated to all interested parties for comment, prior to submission to each House of Parliament for approval. Although the recommendations in the codes will form the main source of guidance on livestock welfare, farmers will be able to receive additional help and advice on the spot from the State Veterinary Service.
Clause 5 will make it possible to require the use of anaesthetics for specified operations on farm animals. The relevant regulations will be subject to prior consultation with all the interests concerned, including livestock producers. Clause 6 contains the usual provisions on power of entry for persons authorised by Ministers or by local authorities. The responsibilities of local authorities will be confined to feedingstuffs and dietary matters. All other inspection work will be undertaken by persons authorised by Ministers. In particular, the examination of livestock and the taking of biological samples will be confined to authorised veterinary surgeons. In Part I of the Bill we have sought what we believe to be an objective and flexible approach in the field of animal welfare and I trust that this approach will commend itself to your Lordships.
I turn next to Part II of the Bill, which is concerned with tenant farmers who are dispossessed, sometimes at very short notice, in order that their land may be used for development or some other non-agricultural purpose. I think it will be generally agreed that the growing demands for land for housing, roads, reservoirs and a host of other non-agricultural uses have brought particular hardships for

1237
the tenant farmer. Our population is expanding, and we cannot go on without new houses and factories and all the services which go with them. We can, however, ease the tenant's immediate difficulties during the period when he is reorganising his life and work as a result of dispossession. It is the purpose of Clauses 9 to 14 to do this, by providing for payments to be made by landlords to assist in the reorganisation of the tenant's affairs.
Clause 15 deals with a rather separate problem. It seeks to remedy an injustice arising from agricultural tenancy agreements which contained a clause allowing the landlord to resume possession of the holding, or part of it, for some specified non-agricultural purpose. Where such clauses operate, the tenant may have to leave the farm at two or three months notice instead of the one to two years which is the normal period of notice for an agricultural tenant; and as the law stands at present, he will receive no compensation for the profit he would have made during the longer period of notice. Clause 15 provides for him to be compensated for this loss.
Now I come to Part III of the Bill, which applies to Scotland only. Its purpose is to restore to the nearer relatives of deceased tenant farmers in Scotland some measure of the security which they had under the Scottish Agricultural Holdings Act 1949, but which they lost under the Agriculture Act 1958. The provisions in the Bill steer a middle course between the present position and that which held before the 1958 Act. It gives the successor to an agricultural holding a much greater degree of security than he has had since 1958, while making it easier than it then was for a landlord to regain possession of his holding if he has good grounds for doing so. I have the feeling that certain noble Lords already have points which they may wish to put on this clause and I propose not to stand unnecessarily in their way but to leave my noble friend Lord Hughes to deal with this part of the Bill, together with any Scots points arising from Part II.
Part IV deals with two problems of land drainage finance; the drainage charges levied by river authorities and drainage rates levied by internal drainage boards. First, drainage charges. River
1238
authorities obtain most of their revenue from the general ratepayer by precepting on local authorities. Agricultural land does not pay general rates, but the Land Drainage Act 1961 enabled river authorities to obtain a comparable contribution from it by means of drainage charges based on Schedule A assessments. Unfortunately serious difficulties were met in raising the charge on a Schedule A basis and these were made worse by the abolition of Schedule A tax. Consequently only five of the twenty-nine river authorities have raised a drainage charge. Clauses 21 to 29 of the Bill therefore seek to make it easier to raise drainage charges by changing the basis of assessment from Schedule A to acreage. All the interests concerned accept that acreage is the only practicable alternative. The charge is relatively small—at present rates of precept, the highest general drainage charge on the new basis would be just over 1s. per acre. But as a flat rate charge could be unfair to the poorest land, we propose to exempt rough grazing land from the charge and to charge commercial woodlands at only one-fifth of the full rate. Clause 22 also makes the general drainage charge more closely equivalent than at present to the contribution of the general ratepayer through the precept.
Clauses 30 to 36 deal with drainage rates levied by internal drainage boards. There are about 370 boards which operate in low-lying areas where there are special drainage problems. Drainage rates are also levied on agricultural land on the basis of Schedule A assessments. Since most of these assessments have not been revised since 1935 serious anomalies have arisen in the distribution of the drainage rate burden. The Bill therefore gives drainage boards powers to determine a new annual value where this is desirable in view of changes in circumstances since the last valuation. The new value will, of course, have to be in line with those of comparable properties in the district.
Finally, Clause 37 enables the Minister to pay grant to river authorities on land drainage improvements which they undertake on behalf of farmers on watercourses which are too large to qualify for a farm ditching grant but are not maintained by a river authority or internal drainage board. This will ensure that facilities are available to farmers in

1239
any part of England and Wales to secure drainage improvements with the aid of Exchequer grant. The provisions in Part IV have been welcomed by all the interests concerned. In view of the importance of drainage for efficient agricultural production I am sure they will also command the approval of this House.
I should like to mention some of the more important matters in Part V. First, there are provisions in Clauses 38 and 39 for stabilising the returns on bacon curing. These clauses give statutory effect to the proposals which were announced last April by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. They will enable the Government to make payments to the industry when returns on bacon are low in relation to the cost of pigs, and to collect a levy when conditions are more favourable. The aim, which has been generally accepted, is that over a period payments and levies should be broadly self-balancing.
In Clause 40 we are asking for powers to pay grants on break crops for cereals. Noble Lords will recall that a grant for aiding field beans, starting with the 1968 crop, was heralded in the 1967 Price Review. A scheme will be introduced once the Bill becomes law. Some amendments are contained in Clause 42 and Schedule 5 to the existing legislation on plant varieties in the light of experience of the working of the 1964 Act and the requirements of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. The Convention, already ratified by Her Majesty's Government, is expected to come into operation by the late summer, and we must be in a position to give it full effect. It lays down an agreed system for giving rights to plant breeders, very similar to that already in force in this country, and provides for the compulsory use of the registered name of a protected plant variety.
We also seek, in Clause 43, to widen the exemptions from the restrictive trade practices legislation given to certain cooperative associations by the Agricultural and Forestry Associations Act 1962. We consider that the Act, which was in-
1240
tended to remove a possible hardship, is too limited in its application for present day purposes. We accordingly seek to extend the scope of the Act to include certain fisheries associations and any genuine co-operative associations whose object is to assist its members in their agricultural, fisheries and forestry businesses. Finally, we seek to ensure that the restrictive trade practices legislation shall not stand in the way of those who wish to co-operate in production matters.
Clause 44 follows a recent agreement in principle between the employers' and workers' sides of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales on the important question of a statutory wages structure, although many details have still to be filled in. It is proposed that the structure would provide, in addition to a basic minimum rate as now, a number of higher minimum rates applicable to workers possessing particular skills or appointed to positions of special responsibility. These premium grades would be defined in the Orders of the Board. Within this framework, provision would be made for certain marginal cases concerning the entitlement of a particular worker to a particular grade to be settled by the agricultural wages committee for the county in which the worker is employed. This function the committees are well fitted to undertake, but the Agricultural Wages Act does not provide them with the necessary powers. I am sure that Clause 46 will be of interest to all those noble Lords who enjoy and care for Kew Gardens, which is now developing its country extension at Wakehurst Place. This clause deals with regulating the admission of the public to these very lovely gardens at Wakehurst Place.
It is just an accident of the Parliamentary Calendar that we shall be having to-morrow an announcement about the most important event in the agricultural year—the Annual Price Review. In the meantime, it is my pleasure to commend this Bill—which I feel to be a useful and constructive measure—to the House with absolute confidence. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)

RHODESIA: DEATH SENTENCE ON AFRICANS
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the permission of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, may I now reply to the Question of which my noble friend Lord Brockway has given me Private Notice; namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a statement about the Africans under sentence of death in Rhodesia.
On March 2 petitions to Her Majesty the Queen for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy were lodged on behalf of the three men. These petitions drew attention to the very long periods—from two years and five months to three years and two months—for which the men had been lying under sentence of death, as well as to the threat that had been made that they would be hanged despite their intention of appealing further to the Privy Council. An application on behalf of two of the men I was in fact lodged with the Privy Council on the same day as the petitions to the Queen. Having considered the petitions, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State advised Her Majesty to accede to them, and it was announced late on March 2 that the Queen had done so, thus commuting the penalty for the offences for which they had been convicted from death to life imprisonment. Subsequently, applications were made to the Appellate Division in Salisbury for perpetual interdicts restraining the carrying out of the death sentences. Those applications were refused yesterday.
The final appellate court for Rhodesia is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it is for them ultimately to lay down what the law is. The views expressed by the Appellate Division in Salisbury cannot be regarded as conclusive. The position is that, as my right honourable friend explained in another place yesterday, the delegation of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to the Governor of Rhodesia in the 1961 Constitution did not divest Her Majesty
1242
of Her Prerogative which she may exercise on the Secretary of State's advice.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware, first, that I thank him for his statement, and, secondly, that I do not want to say a word which will further endanger the lives of these three men or the 107 other applicants who are now under sentence of death? May I therefore content myself by asking whether Her Majesty's Government will keep the House informed about developments in this serious case?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords. My latest information is more or less that the so-called officer administering the Government has now received a petition for clemency from these men, and the so-called Cabinet of the régime has been this morning considering the position.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I, too, would not wish to say anything that could worsen an extremely grave situation, both for the men concerned and for Rhodesia. Am I correct in thinking that the three men petitioned Her Majesty, that the Commonwealth Secretary was then constitutionally bound to offer advice to Her Majesty on the petitions which she had received, and that Her Majesty was then constitutionally bound to act on that advice?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords; both the propositions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, are correct. The constitutional position in relation to prerogative, including the prerogative of mercy, where there is a Governor, your Lordships may find set out at some length in a Statement made by the then Home Secretary on August 11, 1947, in another place on the advice given by the then Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers, with which advice I concur.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether, before this advice was given to the Queen, the Governor of Rhodesia was consulted in any way?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is at all times in full consultation with the Governor.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.40 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, to return to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for the concise and lucid description he gave us of this miscellaneous Bill and its various Parts. It is, of course, an Agriculture (Miscellaneous) Bill. It contains a number of minor measures, most of them welcome, but I hope the noble Lord will not take it amiss if I say that it seems curiously irrelevant to the needs of the industry at the present time. The Government are not coming forward with something which might give the boost that the industry could do with. No industry could make a greater contribution to the needs of the nation at this time in increasing home production, thereby reducing imports, and thereby improving our balance of trade.
The noble Lord—indeed all noble Lords—will recognise that our present system of guaranteed prices makes an automatic break on expanding production, because all Governments feel the necessity to keep the total cost of this system within a bracket of about £250 million to £300 million per annum, because the cost must fall direct on the taxpayer; and this inevitably has some deterrent effect on expansion. I am sure that we shall hear to-morrow of the big increase in costs and the Government's headache in trying to balance this particular problem. I would hope that if the noble Lord and his noble friends come forward with another agriculture Bill next year, it might be one which would change the system of price support to the same system as our Western European neighbours have, that of import levies, which would get us out of this annual difficulty, and so, I believe, help us get the expansion we all want. We shall hear to-morrow from the noble Lord, when we hear about the Price Review, what the plans are for the future.
To return to the Bill itself, the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, has described to us Part I and how it is to give statutory effect to the Report of the Brambell Committee, set up by my right honourable
1244
friend Mr. Christopher Soames. The noble Lord has admirably explained to us the rather complicated machinery set out in Part I. In effect, this section of the Bill amounts to a rudimentary Factory Act for intensively kept livestock. For myself, I have no complaint. I feel that this is a reasonable thing to do. We have to accept the fact that the modern trend in livestock management is towards intensive systems, not only for chickens and pigs, but increasingly now for cows, sheep and cattle. The fact is that these systems give better results; they are more economic and have lower costs.
On the other hand, we are—and I can proudly say it—a nation of animal lovers, and it is only natural that people should want suitable safeguards for our livestock, to ensure that their conditions of health and welfare are all they ought to be. This, I am sure, is right in principle; and I am also sure that it would be, and indeed should be, supported by every farmer. At the same time, it is necessary, I suggest, to recognise that intensive systems of livestock-keeping are repugnant to many people. Many people with nice feelings would like to see these systems abolished altogether. I would suggest that it is Parliament's duty to keep the right balance between these feelings, which in my judgment go much too far, and the rare exception of the farmer who would neglect or ill-use his livestock. I make the point advisedly—that such a farmer is the rare exception—because livestock which are ill-used and badly kept will not thrive; they will suffer mortality and will not make a profit. It is thus against the farmer's own personal interest, his own financial interest, to practise forms of management which cause stress or ill-health.
The structure of this Bill seems to me to follow a sensible, practical structure, with the codes of practice, which will not have statutory sanction, and the regulations, which will have regard to the observance of the codes of practice and, where prosecutions are concerned, will provide the evidence. I confess to the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, that I should have liked to see in the Bill a specific obligation on the Minister to consult with those representing livestock producers, such as the National Farmers' Union, rather than the very general terms that are used. However, I feel sure that in practice they

1245
will be consulted, though it would be nice to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he winds up, that this is the Government's intention when codes of practice, and indeed regulations, are contemplated.
A practical point on Clause 6 which I should like to mention at this stage relates to the powers of entry for the supervision provided for by this particular clause. These powers of entry are of course essential in order to ensure that codes of practice and regulations are properly observed, but I think it is most necessary that there should be adequate safeguards against the spread of infection. The fact is, as many noble Lords will know, that all intensive systems of livestock management are vulnerable to various forms of virus and bacterial infection. Foot-and-mouth in cows and cattle we all know all too much about after recent months. But there is also virus pneumonia in pigs, and fowl pest and infectious bronchitis and mareks in poultry. All these infections are virulent; they are carried by shoes, by clothes, by hands, and can easily be carried from one unit to another unless the very strictest hygiene regulations are observed. In research institutes, of course, workers are obliged to go through shower baths and change their clothes, and so on. This is not practicable on the farm, where a shower would undoubtedly be cold. Nevertheless, various simple safeguards can be observed, and they really are essential if an inspector going from one farm to another is to minimise the risk of carrying infection from one intensive unit to another.
The provision in the Bill is that the Minister of Agriculture will have inspectors, who I imagine will be veterinary surgeons. They, of course, fully understand the risks involved and, I am sure, take all necessary precautions, especially with livestock. But the local authority inspectors might not necessarily be so fully trained. I should like to see in the Bill a requirement that the local authority inspectors also should have veterinary qualifications. This is a point I should like to raise on the Committee stage and I may put down an Amendment to that effect. It is a most important point. Apart from great harm to individual farmers, disrepute may be
1246
brought to the whole administration of the Bill unless we ensure that this point is adequtaely covered.
I have one further point on the administration of this clause. The Minister of Agriculture, whoever he is, the present one or a Minister in the future, in establishing codes of practice and regulations must take great care to keep the balance right in the standards he requires. This is particularly so in regard to livestock, where there are considerable imported supplies coming into this country with which the home producer has to compete. It obviously would be absurd if we established standards of housing and management which considerably increased the cost of production, if our farmers then had to compete with imports produced under very different conditions. So here again, reality must be kept in perspective. However, let me say to the noble Lords that, in general, I feel it is right and necessary that this legislation should go on the Statute Book, but it needs to be administered with full understanding of the factors involved.
Part II I certainly welcome. This is the part that gives an extra four years' compensation to the dispossessed tenant farmer whose farm is going to be used for some development, such as house building, road building, school building, or whatever it may be. I am sure this is a wise and a fair move, and I particularly welcome the fact that I understand the money will be tax free, so that he will have the maximum chance to start again somewhere else. But I think I should be right if I said that as the landlord has to pay this, sooner or later it is bound to work its way through into the purchase price for land, and therefore eventually will end up in higher prices.
Part III is the only part which I feel is really controversial. As the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, has told us, this part deals with the law with regard to succession for tenant farmers in Scotland. Surprisingly, it was introduced only at Committee stage. It seems to be rather an afterthought, and I wondered whether it was being introduced to stem the tide of Scottish nationalism, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will tell us about this later.
Clause 18 seems to me to be going very far when it fixes an automatic succession

1247
from the tenant farmer to his near relatives, which includes adopted children. This seems to me to open a very wide door. I make this point because it not only affects Scotland but could well affect England in the future. If the Government penalise the private landlord too heavily, the attractions of agricultural land investment, which to many people already seem largely irrational because there is a low return, will eventually disappear altogether. This will not happen immediately; it may take one hundred years to do it—say two or three generations—but agricultural land investment and tenant farming will disappear.
The tenant farming structure has served well. In England and Wales about 50 per cent. of our farmers are tenant farmers, and the fact is that most farmers prefer to be on this basis. That is the view of the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales. Farmers can make very much better use of their money by investing in livestock, machinery, and so on, than they can by investing it in ownership of land, which gives them only about a 4 per cent. return. On the whole this method has worked extremely well for the farming community of England, and I am sure it is in the long-term interest of the agricultural industry for this structure to continue. I hope the Government will proceed with great caution in Scotland, because I do not think it possible for there to be, for long, one law in Scotland and another law in England. My noble friends from Scotland will have something to say about Clause 18 as it applies to Scotland, but I fear the long-term implications for England as well.
Part IV, on land drainage, is quite non-controversial. It is entirely welcome, especially by the river authorities—and here I should declare an interest. I am President of the Association of River Authorities. I was sitting in their Executive Council this morning and they were all making the most polite remarks about the Government (which must be very welcome); the Government had done just what they wanted. The 1961 Act is based on a Schedule A assessment and in practice has proved pretty well unworkable. This Bill now changes the basis of assessment to an acreage basis
1248
which, as the noble Lord rightly says, is the only practicable method of assessment.
It has certain snags; one must be clear about that, and I think they are inevitable, but to some extent it will shift the incidence of a drainage charge from the good land to the less good land. When the assessment is on the Schedule A basis that is of course related to the annual value of the land, and the best land would pay more per acre than the less good land—usually, the lowland more than the upland. Now we are putting it on the flat rate basis, the total incidence of the drainage charge, and to that extent it will be borne more by the upland than the lowland farmers, and doubtless they will tell us so from time to time in the future. Nevertheless it is the right thing to do. The existing system really is unworkable. The change proposed for the drainage boards in setting up the assessment machinery is also welcomed; as the noble Lord said, it was badly needed.
With regard to the several minor improvements in Part V, referred to by the noble Lord, I would refer to only one; that is, Clause 40, which provides grants for break crops. Noble Lords who are farmers will know how valuable this is. It is already in action for beans. This is in areas where root crops—potatoes or sugar beet—for one reason or another cannot be grown. The modern trend is continuous cereal cropping, which runs into all kinds of pest problems with regard to weeds, viruses, and so on, and a reasonably paying crop like beans, which can be used as a break crop, is a most valuable piece of practical husbandry. I would only ask that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, will consider including rape seed for oil, which looks as if it could make an equally valuable contribution. I have no further comment to make on the Bill itself, which contains a number of useful improvements to farming legislation. I have much pleasure in welcoming the Bill.
3.58 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I feel great diffidence in addressing your Lordships on this Bill after the two quite excellent speeches, one by the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, in introducing the Bill and the second by

1249
the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. By and large, this is an admirable "tidying up" Bill. However, there are certain omissions from Part IV which I should like to deal with later, but there is also the incentive omission mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for increasing agricultural production. In these hard times, when hard currency is difficult to come by, we ought really to encourage our farmers to produce more and so reduce the importation of food from abroad. How we are to do this I do not know, but if the notes are issued they stay in England—they are not going abroad—and therefore I think agriculture can stand a certain amount of inflation for home production.
In Part I of the Bill I welcome Clause 2(1)(b), which enables inspectors to inspect the food given to animals on the farm. I especially welcome this clause in the light of the Minister of Agriculture's statement that he was going to allow Argentine beef from now onwards. It is very very important that not only the food which is given to the stock but how it is treated should be inspected, and if you can stiffen up this clause in any way, so that bones shall be boiled and no swill can avoid being boiled on the farm, all to the good.
I thoroughly approve of Part II. Part III deals with Scotland, which I know nothing about, but certain other noble Lords will give us the benefit of their views on this subject. We now come to Part IV. As a member of an internal drainage board I have a great deal to say on this matter. The internal drainage boards are excluded from the charges on upland land, but I feel that the upland lands must be examined very carefully. If you are going to have a universal charge on the upland land, people farming on the downs in Kent and Sussex, and I daresay on the Yorkshire wolds, will feel that they are very hard done by if they have an acreage basis where their water percolates into the chalk and in only a very minor degree overflows into the rivers and ditches. The drainage charges on the uplands, as I read the Bill, are mainly for taking over additional main rivers and maintaining them. In the case of my own county we have not taken advantage of the 1961 and 1963 Acts because the amount obtainable barely covers the cost of the collection; and there must be
1250
many counties in the same position. Also we do not want to take over any further main rivers. I understand, however, that in Lincolnshire these charges have been extensively used for considerable improvement in watercourses and new cuts; therefore one has to regard this portion of the Bill on a regional view, not purely a river board or county view.
I come to my last point, which I think is very important. The newly constituted river authorities under the 1963 Act more or less entirely leave out agricultural representation, and I cannot help feeling that if these drainage charges are going to be levied on the agricultural population they should have equal representation with the urban population. There is one other point here. The authorities have, by statutory right, many water authority officials and civil servants on the Board, and I feel that these civil servants should be excluded from voting. I do think, however, that there is a case for the internal drainage boards to be further represented. I should like to hear what the Government reply is to this question, and if they cannot produce a satisfactory one I should like to move an Amendment.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I certainly welcome this Bill on the whole, but—I am sure the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, will know what I am going to say—I shall have something to say about Part III; I cannot say I welcome that. On Part I, I thoroughly agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said. Of course, Part I does not go quite as far as everything said in the Brambell Committee, and it probably would not go as far as all animal lovers might like, but on the whole I think it goes quite as far as all rural animal lovers like. I differentiate rural animal lovers from urban animal lovers, who of course have the same motives of kindness but not the same practical experience.
Clauses 1 and 2 are the important clauses in Part I. The Brambell Committee say:
"Intensive husbandry should not in itself be regarded as objectionable and may often benefit the animals."
I heartily agree with that. We are very inclined to think that animals like to roam the range and have perfect freedom, but an animal in its natural state

1251
has a perpetual struggle to find its food, to find shelter, and often it suffers an extremely unpleasant death. Part I of this Bill, on which I congratulate Her Majesty's Government, so far as I have read and understood the clauses, will provide animals with these three requisites: plenty of adequate, wholesome food; shelter, and protection from violent and painful death by their enemies. If these requisites are coupled with the other regulations laid down in Part I, the domestic farm animals in Great Britain will, I think, become the most contented members of the community.
As I have said, there are those who in these matters are more moved by emotion than by logic. People are often inclined automatically to equate intensive husbandry with cruelty. To take the case of Merino sheep, if you give them free range they have a great struggle for existence and would far prefer to be in a lush pasture. But if you put them in a lush pasture, what do they do? They proceed to eat themselves to death. Therefore, I should like, by that instance, to try to explain to urban animal lovers that all animals do not appreciate free range, because speaking now of wild animals and animals in their natural state, there is too much danger associated with it and it is too much of a struggle. If they have plenty of food and shelter they are far more content.
Before leaving Part I, I should like to point out one aspect of Clause 2 which will be of great help, but not as regards intensive husbandry. I am now thinking of hill farming, and especially farming on the poorer hill lands. Under our system of subsidies often farmers on these hill lands are tempted to overstock. They over-stock by gambling with the winter. Things may go all right if there is a mild winter, but often we get a severe winter, and if that happens I have known several instances where great cruelty occurs, because these farmers have not enough food to feed their animals and they may be loath to buy fodder at the high prices prevailing in, for instance, February and March. Thus, there is starvation. I have witnessed this and it is most cruel. I sincerely hope that under the penalty clause of this Bill such people will be severely dealt with,
1252
and that the inspectors of the area will be alive to this disturbing factor.
My noble friend Lord Nugent has already made the other point that I wished to make on Part I, but I should like to re-emphasise it. When this Bill becomes law it will be most unfair if farmers in this country have to compete with intensive husbandry from abroad. I think they should be safeguarded as far as possible from overseas competitors, who presumably have no restriction placed upon them regarding intensive husbandry, like battery-hen farming and such methods.
Turning to Part II, I warmly support this section. I am extremely pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, that this payment of four times the rent to tenants who are to be dispossessed for the development of land for building is not to be subject to tax. I was rather frightened that it might be, but I am very glad to hear the noble Lord say that that is not so. I am rather confused by Clause 15. I understand that if the land of a tenant is required to be taken over in less than the twelve months, he should be compensated for the loss of profits that he would have made had his land not been taken over at that short notice. I do not quarrel with that at all. But how is one to assess those profits? I agree that this is more a Committee point. But are they to be assessed on three years' balance sheets or something like that? The clause seems a little vague.
Now I come to Part III, which has to do with Scotland. I cannot welcome that Part. It really surprises me that a Socialist Government should try to bring in legislation to make tenancies hereditary. Surely this is an extraordinary departure from their usual theories. You could describe this as land confiscation with no compensation. I quite agree that there are certain safeguards here, but the question is: are they worth the paper they are written on? Clause 18(2)(a) says that the Scottish Land Court shall consent to a notice to quit the land if the hereditary successor does not appear to have sufficient training in agriculture or sufficient experience in the farming of land. Clause 18 then goes on to mention in subsection (2)(a) the words "with reasonable efficiency." Here again, we have that very nasty word "reasonable".

1253
It may sound all right on paper, but when it is put into practice I can foresee that very few hereditary successors will be given notice to quit under that paragraph.
Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) mentions the situation where in the opinion of the court a holding is not capable of
"providing full-time employment for the individual occupying it and for at least one other man."
Of course, one could stretch out that paragraph a great deal in practice. Further on in the paragraph there is the other arrangement affecting amalgamations of land, where the Land Court might allow notice to quit. But if one reads on, one sees on page 17:
"Provided that, notwithstanding that they are satisfied as aforesaid, the Court shall withhold consent to the operation of the notice if in all the circumstances it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord will not insist on possession."
There again one see that word "reasonable", which is a very difficult word to assess when one comes down to practical applications.
I am afraid that great injustice will be done if that clause becomes law as now drafted. After all, the landlord's son or his grandson might want to farm, but under this clause the landlord's family will never be able to get the farm back. They will have lost the farm for ever. A young man who wants to farm will now find it almost impossible to get a farm. Farms are hard enough to get anyway. Farming will become a closed shop. There is also the question of capital investment. It will probably be all right on the rich farms on the East coast of Scotland where, no doubt, the tenant will be able to provide sufficient capital, but on the poorer farms in the Highlands I cannot see the tenant providing the capital to keep up the buildings. I have tried one or two repairing leases, with completely peppercorn rents, but one finds that the tenant does not keep up the buildings. I am afraid that, especially on the West Coast, if the capital of philanthropic landlords—and one can only call them philanthropic—is denied to the farms, all the steadings and fences would deteriorate and in about 15 to 20 years' time the whole of the Highlands would be a land of ruined steadings. I suppose the Government could provide all the capital to tenants for their repairs
1254
if they brought in legislation to that effect, but that would be quite absurd, because one would only be displacing one set of landlords to create another set of landlords—that is to say owner occupiers—who would be entirely dependent on Government capital. I object to Part III. I hope that we can alter it in Committee. For instance, why should an adopted son or daughter have the farm where there are no blood relations? I think that that will have to be altered in Committee.
I have no objections to the remaining parts of the Bill, and on the whole they are very sound, but I cannot emphasise too much that Part III will came great injustice and will be quite impracticable in regard to the poorer land. Therefore I sincerely hope that the Government will have second thoughts about this matter, because if they do not I foresee disaster. These poorer types of tenants in the Western Highlands are rather like those in the West of Ireland, in that they are inclined to put off till to-morrow what they should do to-day. To-morrow never comes. If the tenant is to be responsible for repairs one will find that repairs are never done and that the farm will run down and down. I know farmers who will pass a fallen gate every day of the week and never even think of putting it up—and if they do put it up, they will probably nut the back of an old bedstead in its place. I feel that in regard to the poorer farms the Government will be making a great mistake if they pursue this legislation.
4.30 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford in welcoming the first Part of this Bill. I think it is important that a result of the Brambell Committee should be interpreted and put into action, and that it should be put into action in this manner. I think the line the Government have taken, of putting forward a code of practice, is in the best interests of the industry, and one hopes that the code will be applied in the manner the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, has indicated. I support my noble friend in saying that we must be careful about the importation of meat from animals produced abroad under conditions which, under this Bill, will not be tolerated in this country. I do

1255
not know what can be devised to ensure this but, just as we prevent the exportation of bad animals, so we ought to be able to prevent the importation, in competition with our own animals of animals raised under conditions not allowed in this country.
There are two small points in this Part of the Bill to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. The first point, which arises on Clause 6, was mentioned by my noble friend, and concerns the person authorised by the Minister or the local authority to enter upon land for the purpose of inspection. I would reinforce what my noble friend has said about adequate disinfection beforehand. This is tremendously important, especially as there are herds which, at great cost, are free from all sorts of diseases. I refer particularly to those herds of pigs which are free from the infectious pneumonia virus which, once it breaks out, is impossible to control and is very easily carried.
I intend at the Committee stage to move an Amendment with regard to the words in subsection (3) of Clause 6:
"a person authorised … to enter upon any land—
(a) shall if so required produce evidence of his authority ".
I should like to remove the words, "if so required". It ought to be essential for an inspector from the local authority to produce evidence on his arrival at the farm that he is authorised to go on to it. The farmer is not always there when inspectors and such people arrive, and the herdsman may be somewhere else. Somebody must he sought out and informed that the inspector is there, before he goes on to the land. The inspector from the local authority should not be able, as I understand the clause as it stands would permit, to go right on to the land and all over the place without the owner's knowing that this was happening.
The second point I want to make on this Part of the Bill concerns Clause 8, which contains a definition of livestock. Clause 8(1) says:
"… 'livestock' means any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for use in the farming of land or for such purpose as the Minister may by order specify."
The subsection refers to "any creature", but the word "creature" is applied
1256
equally to the human species and to animals. In the past I have had some difference with the Government about the use of the word "animal" in relation to the animal world. I notice that we have a right reverend Prelate here, so one might ask his opinion of the interpretation of the words of the Godly Bishop Ken, when he wrote:
"Praise Him all creatures here below."
My conclusion has always been that when one sung those words one meant the human creature, as well as the animal creature; and in literary use the word "creature" applies equally to man and to animals. I suggest that the Government might take a second look at this word, and substitute "animal" for the word "creature". The word "animal" is only rarely applied to man, except in an opprobrious, derogatory or contemptuous manner.
The most ancient association of man with the word "animal" that I have been able to discover goes back to Aristotle, who stated that man is not an animal; but there was an adjective before "animal"—the word "political". Reverting to the hymnary, the lines,
"All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small"
mean that this clause would apply equally to bees; and bees live in a degree of congestion considerably greater than some of the animals for which legislation is deliberately being made. There are also the silkworms. There are silkworm farms, and they too would come under the Bill. I wonder whether the Government are aware of this point. To extend it a little further, the earthworm is an absolutely essential animal for the proper fertility of the soil: we cannot do without the earthworm, and the more earthworms there are in pastureland the more fertile is that pastureland. So there is greater congestion than ever against which it might be possible to take action.
I should like to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they might return to the word "vertebrate". If the Bill said, "'Livestock' means any vertebrate animal," I think that would make the position very much clearer.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, is not man a vertebrate animal, and therefore does not the noble Lord's original objection still hold?
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, man is not an animal. I was trying to make that point. Normally, the word "animal" is rarely applied to man. If I may say so, the animal kingdom ceases with the primates.
LORD KILBRACKEN: He is not here.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, regarding Part III of the Bill and the succession to tenancies, I have very great misgivings about allowing an adopted child to succeed to a tenancy. It would be perfectly possible for a farmer to pass on a tenancy by adopting a son for that purpose, though there might be no other genuine connection at all. One has heard of cases of sons being adopted quite late in the lives of both the father and the son.
I am interested in the grant for the break crop. I think that is a very good grant and it is a constructive item in this Bill. I have some misgivings about the bacon subsidy. The bacon subsidy has been an excellent emergency measure, but it is a pity it ever had to be imposed. I believe that up to date it has cost over £5 million, and I should greatly regret it if this were enshrined in this Bill and the Government then thought they had got the bacon industry on to its legs. Something more long-term is needed for the bacon industry than is contained in the Bill.
My Lords, with regard to the Part of the Bill dealing with plant varieties, Clause 42, there is a point here which I found somewhat confusing. I take it that the opening part of the new clause, put in as an amendment to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, is intended to ensure that when a person sells a plant with a registered name he must use that name and no other. I cannot think of any other definition. But, having read the "gobbledygook" in which those thoughts or intentions are enshrined, I think something could be done to make this new, amending clause more intelligible to the ordinary plant breeder and horticulturist.
There is one, I think, very grave omission from the Bill. It applies particularly to Scotland. I very much regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity in this Bill to do something to ease the confusion which exists in Scotland
1258
among farmers on the subject of what buildings are liable for rates. There have been a series of cases. They started, of course, quite rightly, with the highly-intensive factory farms which were put into the valuation rolls; but the new cases which certain district valuers are putting up now are leading to its being extremely difficult to determine what are the buildings on a farm which are liable to be derated and what are otherwise. It is the greatest of pities that this has not been cleared up.
I would agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent when he says that the expansion of agriculture is at the present moment a vital necessity, bearing in mind the state of our economy and our present difficulties. It is a pity that the opportunity has not been taken with this Bill to do more to give confidence to the farmer; and, while one should not object to getting a crumb from the Governmental table for agriculture, one hopes that those responsible for the Bill are not kidding themselves into thinking that they are producing something very wonderful for the farmers.
4.44 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I defy any noble Lord to make a Second Reading speech upon the Second Reading of this Bill. It covers so many and so wide a variety of things that inevitably one must behave almost as if one were in Committee. Generally speaking, like other noble Lords I think that this is a useful Bill. There are certain things in it which I think could be cleared up and straightened out, perhaps in Committee, not only in this Bill but in others, possibly the Finance Bill. There are other things which I think are not in the best interests of the agricultural industry, and I shall say something about them.
First of all, may I deal with Part I of the Bill? Lord Nugent's likening of this clause to a mini-Factory Act for animals I thought was rather good. But I do not follow him in saying that, in general, farmers will not follow practices which are bad in themselves and are likely to produce bad results for animals in order to get profit because there will not be any profit. I am afraid this is not true. I remember as a child being taken to look in the attic of a farmhouse where

1259
there was a curious device for stuffing turkeys. You put the nozzle of this thing down the turkey's throat and you wound the handle. This churned in predigested food, which had already been prepared, and it built the turkey up to a size which otherwise it would not have been willing to reach. I cannot believe that this was in the best interests of the turkey, but the farmer no doubt thought that it was. I am not quite sure how the best pâté de foie gras is produced now, but it used to be said that it was produced by nailing the goose's feet to a board and stuffing it up until its liver degenerated. As I say, this is the sort of thing which we farmers, if left to ourselves, are very apt to do unless we have mini-factory inspectors sitting on top of us telling us that we must not.
Nevertheless, having said that, I think the Government really must make an effort—and I follow the point of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, here—to consult properly. When I say, "consult with the industry properly", again I follow the noble Lord's point. It is not enough just to consult the N.F.U. Consultation does not mean consulting with particular lobbies: it means consulting with people who really know the facts, and I think that very often the Government have failed to do this. They sometimes listen to a particular lobby—all Governments, I suppose, must do this—but they do not pay enough attention to cross-examining experts before they bring in legislation. I hope they will do that with regard to the Brambell Report.
With regard to Part II, again I think this is admirable. There has arisen the curious anomaly that although agricultural tenants have virtually a leasehold for life, on paper it is only an annual tenancy, so they were being compensated only for what in fact existed on paper, and this is unfair. I think this new arrangement goes some way towards putting that matter right. Nevertheless, it raises certain matters which I should have thought were fairly easy to put right. There is the question of the extreme complexity with which the whole thing will have to be managed. First of all, there is the question of the Clause 10 exceptions. It is Clause 11 for Scotland. This seems to me to be a curious upside-down way of doing the thing, and
1260
I should have thought the Government could overcome that problem. Secondly, it now means that this particular kind of compensation applies to all notices to quit, whether in fact this extra compensation was intended or, indeed, is fair or not. So you will have the position in which the landlord, in order to serve a valid notice, has virtually to serve notice for everything in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, and in this Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, too.
There is a limit to the amount of complication you can have in the standard forms for giving notice to quit. At the moment, if a landlord wants to give a notice to quit, or if a tenant wants to serve a counter-notice, he can fairly easily get out of Scammell or Jackson, the standard textbooks on the subject, the form that he requires. But under this new Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, you are going to get a state of affairs so complicated that nobody will know quite how to serve a notice at all. I think that this is undesirable, and that it should be straightened out.
Also, under the clauses dealing with additional payments to tenant farmers, there are anomalies about betterment levy which I think ought to be straightened out. As I understand it, at the moment a landlord cannot accept that extra compensation which he is paid on top of his base value in arriving at betterment value. That ought to be a fairly easy matter to put right. The same anomaly exists where part of a holding only is required for development, but where the holding is of such a size that you have to sell the whole lot. These are anomalies which it should not be difficult for the Government to sort out.
Then we come to the question of Part III, the "hereditary tenancies", perhaps jokingly so called. First let me say that I know nothing about Scottish law. I do not know at all conditions as they affect landlord and tenant in Scotland. Further, may I say that on this issue I am not entirely in agreement with some of my honourable friends in another place. But I cannot help thinking that were this clause to be passed so far as Scotland is concerned and then come to apply to England, it would not be in the best interest of, at any rate, English agriculture. I know that this Part deals only with Scottish agriculture; but I

1261
cannot help feeling that mutatis mutandis, the same thing applies: what is not good for English agriculture is not good for Scottish agriculture.
The reason is this. We have reached the stage now where more than half of the farmers in this country are owner-occupiers and they are in great difficulty with regard to the whole question of capital. An owner-occupier has to find two lots of capital: his working capital, on which he earns what any commercial man earns—say something between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent.—and another amount, perhaps the slightly bigger one, for his land, on which he earns something like 1½ per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said it was 4 per cent.; but most organisations dealing with land ownership put it as low as 1½ per cent. of the capital value. That, in the conditions prevailing to-day, of capital gains tax and of betterment levy, means that it is extremely difficult for the small man to find capital for both things. There is this state of affairs now, where more than half the farmers in this country are owner-occupiers. There is a slight feeling that this may have been a mistake and that it is asking too much of anyone to have to divide one block of capital into these two parts.
One may have a swing-back to the old landlord and tenant system, which served us very well in the past and in which one kind of man with one kind of expertise provided one part of the capital (that is, the land and the fixed equipment) and another kind of man provided the working capital and worked the land. This system operated well in the past; although there has been a swing away from it. I suggest that there may be a swing back again, because of the difficulties of owner-occupiers with regard to the capital side of their business. It would not help, in the agricultural industry as it is now, if we were to give another knock on the head to the poor landlord and tenant system, and this proposal must inevitably do that.
If you are going to penalise landlords—and it is a penalty to suggest that there should be hereditary succession in tenancies—then you are going to find that landlords will be unwilling to let farms at all, or at any rate will do so only to old men who have no relations.
1262
I cannot believe that that is a good thing. I and my family have been landowners for a long time. We frequently let land to the sons of tenants; but we let it to those sons because they are the best available tenants for us. That happens very often; but it is an impossible state of affairs to have to accept the system of hereditary tenancies. It is almost impossible to find reputable arguments for keeping hereditary Peers in this House. Some of them are quite good; some of them one does not wish to be unkind to and say, "Out on your head now". So one thinks in terms of phasing it out. But these are not arguments for hereditary succession to anything—I mean arguments of hardship; neither are they arguments for hereditary succession of tenancies. It is interesting to note that the National Farmers' Union in England has not thought it to the best interests of English agriculture that there should be this system in England. It seems to me amazing that their Scottish equivalent do think so in the case of Scotland. I am sure it would be a mistake. I do not see that it is in the best interests of agriculture.
My Lords, I have nothing but good to say about Parts IV and V. Again, there are certain Committee points with regard to Part IV which may have to be straightened out, but apart from that the general principle seems to be a good one. The Bill covers so many other points, from plant breeding to bacon curing and subsidies, which I do not know where to stop. But I think I have said enough, and with what I have said, in general, I give the Bill a welcome.
4.56 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, although this Bill is given the title of an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill it nevertheless contains some very important chapters and there is really not much difference in weight between it and the Bill we had last year which, I suppose for reasons of status, was given the title of an Agriculture Bill. But I fear there is not much in this Bill designed to help the country's more immediate economic problems.
The year 1967 has not been an easy year for the Minister of Agriculture, any more than for the farmers. The Minister has had the negotiations in regard to our joining E.E.C.; he has had the troubles

1263
of devaluation; he has had the trouble and expense of foot-and-mouth disease; and he is still in the terrible dilemma of what to do regarding importing meat from the Argentine. Then we must also remember that he is a member of a Government whose reputation is steadily declining. That last, I think, probably explains the more political provisions in this Bill and the bid to win the votes of the adopted sons and daughters of Scottish farmers. If the law of adoption in Scotland is as easy as their law of marriage—it is not very difficult to get a wife there—then with a little ingenuity they might be built up into quite a substantial corps.
With regard to the different chapters of this Bill, first Part I, I hope that when the various schemes are designed they will avoid persecution of the many in the efforts that will have to be made to ensure that the few ignorant or wilful men who try to get round these regulations do not, in fact, get away with it. There is always a danger, when regulations are drawn to compete with the few, that a quite unnecessary burden is put on the many and at the same time an organisation is built up which costs the taxpayer a great deal of money and achieves very little in the end.
Turning to Part II, I have no complaint at all at the proposal for a higher rate of compensation when farm land is taken in circumstances as set out and converted to various industrial uses. I think this proposal is entirely right, but I want to make just a few comments about forestry, which is of a somewhat different nature from other development envisaged by this Bill. First, I should like to ask this question. Are the Forestry Commission, who are of course agricultural landlords on a very big scale, in exactly the same position as any private landlord?
Secondly, with regard to land which is to be planted with trees, we can say that such proposals generally concern either very large areas or very small ones. When very large areas are under consideration, it probably means that a whole farm or large parts of a farm will disappear. I would not quarrel about the proposals in the Bill being operative in these cases. But one of the needs of this country, particularly since we are
1264
having ever fewer hedgerow trees, is to plant up the many small banks and wet patches on farms up and down the country which are quite useless for agriculture—they produce virtually nothing. There are many cases where such small areas as these have been planted; and they are always planted by private owners, because the Forestry Commission could never be interested in such small areas. But if, before planting such a plot of five acres or so, which would be of very small value for agriculture, it became necessary to pay compensation on the scale now written into the Bill, it is quite certain that thousands of such small areas would not be planted but would remain bare and useless. Here we should note, too, that when these small woods are planted it is generally done as much for the benefit of the farm, because of shelter. I hope that during the Committee stage we can look at this again to see whether it is not possible to have a difference in procedure regarding small areas which are useless for agriculture but which, if planted with trees, would bring an advantage to farms.
My Lords, turning to Part IV of the Bill, which relates to drainage, I am very glad to see that there is to be substantial amendment of the 1961 Act. I say that in spite of my affection for the 1961 Act, since I served on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill. In a sense it was of course a transitional or stop-gap Act, and the main figures in it were based on compromise agreements between the many interested parties. That does not mean that the passing of the 1961 Act did not represent a substantial step forward, but it was a measure which most of those who worked on it, seven years ago, knew was not the sort of Act of Parliament which would have a very long life. When it comes to the Committee stage of this Bill I intend, my Lords, to ask a number of questions, and I give notice now to the Minister concerned. I apologise in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for the amount of "homework" which may be involved. I do not think that it will mean so very much for the noble Lord, because he knows a great deal about this subject; and if my memory is correct he was a member of the Standing Committee in 1961 and has long been closely associated with drainage legislation and practice.

1265
Lastly, turning to Part V, I should like some information about the the subsidy for what are called "break crops". Looked at from one angle, a subsidy for break crops would appear to be a bonus for bad farming. Those who have robbed the land by planting a succession of white straw crops are to be given a subsidy to help them repair the damage which they have done. That is how the subsidy will appear to many people, and I should like the noble Lord at least to attempt to dispel it when he replies to the debate.
Looking round the country to-day, my Lords, one wonders what crops there are which are not subsidised in one way or another or at some time or other. Perhaps one is entitled to-day, on the eve of the Price Review announcement, to think a little about the problems that the Minister may have had to face. I hope that he has resisted the temptation to allow our support system to become still more complicated. The administration of the agriculture support system has become so complicated that very few people understand it fully and many have to employ professional help in finding their way through the regulations, in the same way as, without necessarily being very rich, we have to employ professional help in order to have our tax case represented to the Inland Revenue.
I am sure it is true that every Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food starts off with the fundamental thought that when he makes changes in the support system he should do so as far as possible, in a way which simplifies the system. But he comes under pressure, first from this group and then from that, and attempts are made to persuade him that it would all be fairer if only he would accept a minor variation here and another variation there. Then, at the end of the Price Review negotiation—possibly in order to get the acceptance of a package deal—some of these variations are allowed to creep in. Here in this Bill, it seems, we have one such, and I must press the Minister to tell us what is the thinking behind this decision to pay subsidy on break crops, and why it has been necessary to introduce this further variation into what has become an all-too-complicated system.
5.5 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I think that if this Bill had remained in the state as that in which it was first introduced in to another place, neither the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, nor I need have come South last night; and that, I am sure, would have been a convenience for us both. But as another place did make several substantial changes in the Bill, we both felt that our journey was absolutely essential.
As you may have gathered, my Lords, I shall confine my remarks almost entirely to Part III, but I should like to say just a word or two about Part II. I wish mainly to say that I agreed with everything said about Part II by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. I am convinced that heretofore tenants have been very badly treated when a part or the whole of their farm, but particularly a part, has been taken for some reason or other by compulsory purchase. I fully understand the reasons why the Government wish to put forestry on the same footing, as obviously, from the point of view of a tenant farmer, it can be just as annoying if part of the land is taken to be planted as if the land is taken in order to build a motorway or for some such purpose.
If the Government seriously wish to encourage private forestry—and I admit that there are moments when I wonder whether they do—I must say that I think this will be another difficulty chat is being put in the way. Because, my Lords, tenant farmers will be very reluctant to give up land for forestry purposes if they consider they may have the chance of getting four years' rent as compensation by hanging on to the land and becoming rather awkward. In many cases the trees that would be planted would benefit not only the landlord but also the tenant. The difficulty, of course, is that, on the whole, landlords want to plant very large shelter belts, because only if they plant a really large area does the operation become economic, whereas tenant farmers are generally interested only in small shelter belts in order that they may retain the maximum amount of land for grazing purposes. I should like the Government to look again at the position of forestry in relation to Part II of the Bill. I fully realise that it is a difficult problem, and it may be

1267
that the Government have found the fairest answer. I would not argue this point very hard. Nevertheless, I think it will make one more difficulty for private forestry, and that will be a pity.
Turning to Part III, my Lords, I think it very strange that the most controversial clauses in the Bill should be introduced after the Second Reading in another place. I am sure that if a private Member tried to do that in your Lordships' House, he would be told that it was not within the thesis of the Long Title and that it would therefore be out of order to introduce these particular clauses into the Bill. I do not know how the Government got over this difficulty. It seems to me that it would have been better had the change in the law of succession been introduced in a separate Bill and if all the interested parties had been consulted before it was done. There was, I think, a deplorable lack of consultation with one of the interested parties before these changes were made.
It seems to me that the proposed change in the law of succession will have three main disadvantages—and here I agree very largely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. In my opinion, the differences between England and Scotland regarding agriculture do not extend to the system of tenant and landlord, and the disadvantages enumerated by the noble Lord which would apply in England if this became part of the English law, would also apply in Scotland. They are, my Lords, the difficulty that will be experienced by a young man who wishes to enter farming in getting a farm to tenant, and, secondly, that landlords will tend, when existing tenants leave, to take farms in hand or let them to elderly tenants who are unlikely to have any children.
Thirdly, with the present rate of death duties, even on a comparatively small estate, many of these farms will become very under-capitalised, because the new tenant will have to pay death duties when he inherits the lease and will be extremely loath to give up what is obviously a certain asset—his sitting tenancy of a farm. I do not think that this will be in the best interests of farming, but it is a minor point compared with the other two; that it will be difficult for new blood and new thinking to enter the industry as
1268
tenant farmers (it needs a lot of capital to enter as owner-occupiers) and landlords will tend to take farms in hand when they probably already farm a sufficient amount.
I realise that we are fighting a vain battle to try to get the Government to omit Part III of the Bill. They told the Scottish Farmers' Union that they were going to put this Part in. I presume they wish to win a few votes in the agricultural constituencies, but I cannot see how this in the end will make any great difference to their future. I wonder whether the Government would consider reversing the whole of Clause 18(2)(a), so that the onus of proof would be put on the near relative to show that he or she would be a competent and efficient farmer, rather than on the landlord to show that the tenant would not be a competent and efficient farmer. As we all know, it is extremely difficult to prove something that someone is not going to be. I think this change would be a great help. Obviously, there are landlords who would still be reluctant to let farms to young couples who had a lot of children, because they would not be likely to get their farms back for two or three generations, but at least they would be more likely to look with favour on young and efficient people trying to enter the industry.
What I find really extraordinary about these provisions is that they do not apply to England. I should think, in view of the fact that we are trying to enter the Common Market, that it would be desirable to get the law in England as close to that in Scotland as possible. But the English N.F.U. does not want this. May I quote the last half of paragraph 64 of a paper by the N.F.U. of England and Wales, entitled Tenure of Farm Land, because I think it puts the situation far better than I possibly could:
"While we well understand the feeling of a father who hopes to hand over the farm to his son and continue the tradition which may well have lasted for several generations, there is no reason why the son, whatever his familiarity with the farm, should have a prior claim in law over others with more experience and greater competence. The day has passed when the mere fact of having been raised on a farm gives one enough experience to manage it efficiently. The fact of having been born a farmer's son does not of itself provide the degree of managerial capacity, business acumen, practical application and sound judgment which

1269
the more exacting demands of modern farming require of successful farmers. Hard though it may seem upon the older generation of farmers, we cannot feel that a special case on behalf of their sons stands any chance of successful pleading, although we hope that all landlords and agents will give particular consideration to the son's hopes, and recognise that confidence in succession gives many older farmers a strong incentive to maintain and improve the farm as though it were their own."
Whoever in the English N.F.U. wrote that cannot know the Secretary of State for Scotland, or he would not have put in that bit about special pleading. The only thing that encourages me about Part III of the Bill is that presumably the Government have now given up their idea of reforming this House and we hereditary Peers will be able to succeed to a place in your Lordships' House automatically if we satisfy the Committee for Privileges that we will act our part here with reasonable efficiency.
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I should like to make a few comments on Part I of the Bill, which deals with the welfare of livestock. I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said. There must be horrible people in England, and had I known there were such people I would not have lent him my shirt, as I did a few years ago in Paris. If the provisions of the Bill were carried out as they seem to be stated, I should be quite happy about the position in Scotland. I think that farmers there have nothing to fear. So long as there are people who like animals and spend their time looking after them and taking a pride in them, as 90 per cent. of Scotsmen do, then the other 10 per cent. can get what is coming to them and I hope they get it hard.
I think it is essential that the advisory services of the three colleges of agriculture and the N.F.U. should be consulted by the Departments, because it is no secret that the scientists and eminent doctors in some of these colleges are dead against Professor Brambell. They have said they would have nothing to do with the original Report. That point was made to me and renewed three days ago by one of them. So it might put things in proportion, which is all I am asking, if more than one scientific opinion were required. Within that framework, I would say that these provisions
1270
are excellent. I should like to repeat what everybody has said: that if we import from overseas, from Europe and the Argentine, food which is produced under conditions which we condemn here, and buy it at the cheapest price, it is a great act of hypocrisy. I do not know what can be done about it, but I hope something will be done.
So far as Part II of the Bill is concerned, the division of forestry and agriculture worries me a little because many leases prohibit the resumption of land for "agricultural purposes" but do not prohibit it for forestry. So far as I can see, a clear distinction is not made in the Bill and forestry is treated as agriculture, which is what it is, but there may be some mix-up with existing leases in force in Scotland.
Coming to Part III of the Bill I am not so hot under the collar as my noble friends about the question of security of tenure. There are several things that give me pleasure. One point already mentioned is the violent swerve towards the hereditary principle which has suddenly been taken by the Socialists. Not all farmers' sons wish to carry on in a jolly hard industry. Lots of them would like to go and sit much nearer bingo and have a soft job in the city. Another thing which gives me great contentment is this. I think it is worth while to compare the N.F.U. brief on this matter with the actual words in the Bill. The N.F.U. say categorically:
"It should be remembered that a farm which is unable to provide employment for two men is not to be protected by the new provisions where a landlord wishes to amalgamate it with another unit."
That is cut and dried, but the Bill is not. If that was in the Bill in language which any Scotsman could understand, then I should not worry.
But so far as I can see, you have a good definition—I think it is 600 man days as being a two-man farm—and you have the normal conditions with which you have to comply with the Department. I suggest that it is unnecessary to have anything other than the right of appeal to the Land Court. In this way it could be decided far cheaper, far quicker and certainly far easier through the machinery which the Government have already set up. If the tenant disagrees, give him the right to appeal to the Land Court.

1271
I think there is an enormous amount of complication in the Bill which is quite unnecessary. It is not desired by the Farmers' Union, at least according to their brief. I am a member of the North-Eastern Area Executive of the Farmers' Union, and have been for a long time, and I am sure they mean what they say: that they do not want to perpetuate small uneconomic farms in any circumstances. I do not see why that should not be followed in the Bill. I should think, according to the Bill, that the tenant farmer could tout his holding round. He could offer it first to his oldest son, and if he says, "I do not want it", he could then offer it to his next son, then to his daughter and then to his daughter-in-law. I do not think that is what is meant, but it would be utterly undesirable. If it is turned down by the heir, that should be that. The possibility of handing it on to anybody you can find is entirely undesirable. This may not be what the Bill means to do, but that is what I think it does. On the question of adoption, in proper circumstances I have no objection to a farm going to an adopted child, but I believe that the child should have been adopted fifteen years before and should be of age before the place is handed over to him. With that proviso, I see nothing wrong with this procedure.
Then I come to Part IV—I shall say nothing about Part V, because I do not understand it. I should like to know whether the Forestry Commission are going to be assessed on one-fifth of their forest area, or whether there will be some sort of swindle and a formula produced which does the local authorities out of the cash which they ought to get. I hope that the Forestry Commission will pay up the same as we all do.
It seems to me to be a little hard when you consider that the roofs, roads and concreted spaces of a housing estate are well over 90 per cent. impervious, and are the reason for the cost of the drainage, or a very large amount of it, and the local authority pay a very small amount. It seems rather hard that the landward area, which gets no benefit from this, should pay on a high scale. I think that the Government could look at existing classifications of their own. They have classified hill land; they have
1272
classified livestock rearing areas. All the work is done, and all they have to do—they have assessed one-fifth for forest areas—is to say that one-half or one-third, or something like that, for these other classifications, which would be a far fairer share of the burden. Again, the burden of an upland farmer is the same as the burden of a man in the rich lands down in the low ground. I do not think that is just, and that would be an easy way out of it.
In the upland farms we spend a lot of money keeping watercourses clear, for which we get no grant. For example, I have on my own little bit of land a tractor and a man working the entire winter. On top of that I am to be levied, or may be, for drains. I think there will be a good deal of grumbling, and I may well be grumbling, too.
5.24 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I should like to express two or three opinions, quite shortly, on one particular section of the Bill, which is the Scottish section. I am glad to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who has not been so completely against this section of the Bill as previous noble Lords who have spoken. They seem to be worried that these provisions might rub off on to England. These are specifically clauses applying to Scotland, and noble Lords should not be worried. There was a far more severe Agriculture Bill, which came during the time of the Socialists in 1947–48, which gave continuity to the farming industry in Britain, and possibly did more to raise production in agriculture than any other single factor did. Continuity of tenure in agriculture is valuable, not only for the fact that it produces more food, but because it keeps people on the land and families do not disappear from the land as they are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was worried that this very reasonable security of tenure would worry people in England. Under the old Socialist Act the pendulum was undoubtedly swung completely away from the landlord in favour of the tenant. In those days the landlord could not sell his farm, because he could not realise its true value, public market value, due to the fact that there was a sitting

1273
tenant with complete security. We all felt that that was an injustice, and I feel that a semblance of this injustice still remains under this Bill. The fact that the heir is secured to follow on is a good thing, but if it affects the selling price which the farmer may hope to get from a farm, then I think there is hardship, so far as the landlord is concerned, and this Bill should contain some provision to get rid of this hardship. I see no reason at all why this hardship cannot be dealt with in this Bill.
There is a fair rent in Scotland, determined by the Land Court. There is no reason why a fair selling price, the market price, could not also be determined by the Land Court; and that would be the price at which the landlord would sell the farm, or which he would expect to receive for his farm. There would be an onus on the successor in the tenancy to buy the farm, if he so wished, at that open market price; and if he was not prepared to do so, then I say that he would do better to give up the farm. That is all I am going to say in favour of the landlord. I think that the question of whether or not the farm is let to elderly tenants does not affect the issue. There can be adoption for the elderly tenants who could work against such a clause.
The other thing that worries me is the term "amalgamation". I am not sure that in agriculture I like the term "amalgamation". There are small units of agriculture in Scotland, family units, which, although they are not big economic units, are valuable, not only for the production of food but for the production of families; and in the past that was the most important product that came out of our Highlands and Islands area. When I listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, I know that he is connected with Mull, and that there is regard for him as a landowner there. I know that owing to the situation that has existed in Mull, and in great areas of the Highlands, agriculture and the people have disappeared, until an area such as Mull is the most desolate island in the whole of the Western Hebrides.
This occurred under a system whereby landowners owned the land. It is high
1274
time to recognise that land is valuable when it is farmed in continuity and continuously by the men nearest the soil. That is why the Scottish N.F.U. support Clause 3 of this Bill, and that is why all Scotsmen believe that security of tenure in agriculture is a good thing, with the safeguards which I have referred to relating to the landowner. This principle should be adhered to, and the Government should be congratulated upon having swung the pendulum back again. It was right over on the left in 1947; it was carried right over to the right in 1957, and then we had a landlord Agriculture Act. This Bill is at least a compromise between the two. For that reason, when it secures the unit on the land and gives the farmer the confidence to put his lime and manure on his land for years ahead—looking ahead for years to come for his sons—it is good for the sons, it is good for the land, and it is good for the people.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I make one point before the noble Lord sits down? He called Mull the most desolate island. With due respect, he cannot know his facts, because Mull is one of the most heavily stocked sheep-farming areas in the whole of the Highlands. In fact, compared with the position before the war, the amount of livestock carried on Mull is two and a half times as great as before. True enough, the population has gone down, but that is due to economic causes and the different standard of living. It has nothing to do with the landlord. Before the war a man was paid 30s. a week; now he is paid £15 a week. And so, of course, one has to produce far more to pay that wage and one cannot employ so many men—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I be allowed to ask whether the noble Viscount is asking a question? If not, I would remind him that last week, after certain exchanges, we decided that this form of irregular debate is not desirable.
LORD BANNER MAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, may I say one sentence?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount having been called to Order, it would be quite wrong to permit the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, to go into disorder also.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord having been asked a question—the noble Viscount said, "Before the noble Lord sits down", the noble Lord not having sat down—he is surely entitled to reply to the point made in the interruption.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree. I think we agreed that if a noble Lord was asked a question before he resumed his seat he could reply to it. The whole point here is surely that the intervention from the noble Viscount could scarcely be described as a question.
5.34 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, what the noble Viscount was doing was making a second speech because he disagreed with some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, had to say about Mull. I can understand the noble Viscount's point of view, but it is not the way that it should be expressed. If he had started off by saying, "Is it not a fact…?", or something like that, he might have put himself in order, but he did not do that; he did not ask a question.
I should point out at this stage that I am not replying to the debate; I am intervening only on the subject of that part of the debate, dealing with Part III of the Bill, which applies to Scotland. I think it would be helpful if I added a little to what my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton said in introducing the Bill. A number of noble Lords have indicated that their enthusiasm for Part III is not as great as the Government's, and it has been suggested that in fact we have not consulted people properly about this. I wish to dispute this contention. One of the first things that happened after the 1964 General Election was that various organisations in Scotland sought to meet the new Secretary of State, and the Scottish N.F.U. was one of these organisations. This I remember because I was at this particular meeting in about November or December, 1964.
One of the points which was put forward most strenuously on that occasion by the Scottish N.F.U. was that in 1958 (to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman) the pendulum had swung too far in the opposite direction, and that some legislation was necessary
1276
to put the matter right. There have been various meetings and representations since 1965; there has also been correspondence. No one can suggest, the point having been represented to the Government so forcibly at the end of 1964, and now being brought into legislation in January, February and March, 1968, that the Government have exactly rushed in and that the matter is being dealt with in an ill-advised way. In fact, the Government have spent a great deal of time on this matter, because they accepted the fact that experience had shown that the 1948 legislation went too far in favour of the tenant; it went too far against the landlord, and we wanted to be quite sure that, in remedying the admitted defects of 1958 in going in the other direction, we did not just create a new set of injustices.
In another place, on Committee stage it was suggested that the Government were still making the matter too wide, and at Report stage the Government introduced an Amendment on the subject of efficiency and experience which went at least part of the way to meet the points made by the Opposition. I admit quite freely that it did not go all the way, but that was because we felt that they were asking too much. The proposals, therefore, which we have put forward are in the Government's view calculated to give a fairer deal to competent successors to tenancy than was provided by the 1958 Act.
In meeting what we felt was reasonable criticism against the pre-1958 position, namely, that it was likely to result in the freezing of smaller, unsatisfactory-sized units, we have provided that the landlord should be able to obtain possession of the smaller type of holding which was not capable of providing full-time employment for two men, if he planned to amalgamate it with another holding. I would suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, that if he looks at this again he will find there is nothing particularly complicated about it. It is a straightforward way of going ahead with the amalgamation and it will not present the National Farmers' Union with any difficulty in practice.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? I am not against that at

1277
all; all I was saying—and it is probably because I have read the Bill incorrectly, and it is difficult to understand—was that I felt it would be far better and simpler to use the existing machinery for amalgamations that the Government have produced, vulgarly known as the "golden handshake", rather than require them to incur the time and expense of going to the Land Court. Nevertheless, I suggested that if the tenant was aggrieved he might appeal to the Land Court.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I would remind the noble Viscount that the difficulty in what he suggests is that the "golden handshake"—or the "silver handshake", according to the value one places on it—is entirely voluntary. The amalgamation and the handshake arise only if the holder of the small unit is willing to give it up; but in this case the amalgamation will be a compulsory one, which the owner wishes to undertake but the potential successor is opposing. After all, if he is not opposing there will be nothing to go to the Land Court about. This is going further than the ordinary amalgamation machinery, in the interests, in this case, of the landlord owner.
I should like now to come to some of the other points that have been made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, all touched on the point of the adopted son or daughter, and they all had some misgivings about this provision. There need be no misgivings about it. The law of Scotland in relation to succession has been altered to give the adopted son or daughter the same rights of succession as a natural son or daughter. It would be quite improper if in this particular instance we were to say that an adopted son or daughter was not to have the ordinary legal rights. This is the simple reason why this provision is in the Bill. The rather fanciful suggestion that Scotland is so infested with farmers determined to plague the landlords that, in anticipation of their own death and the fact that the landlord is going to sell the land, they will go around looking for someone to adopt, merely for the purposes of frustrating the landowner is really not tenable. I do not know in fact whether there is any tenancy farm in Scotland where the farmer has an adopted
1278
son or daughter. I suspect that there may be, but I do not really know. However, I do not suppose there are many, and I would point out that the number of farms which come up for letting is comparatively small.
This brings me to touch on the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, and Ferrard, that this provision would dry up the number of farms available for letting. I would not deny that it may reduce the number to a small extent, but we ought not to exaggerate its effect. At present, many landlords allow a tenant's son or other relative to succeed to a holding, and the fact that this Bill may become an Act is not going to alter the attitude which these landowners would have taken in any event. We do not know exactly how many farms become available, but it would seem that the number become available for letting in a year is somewhere between 35 and 60, and it seems unlikely that a high proportion of these are cases in which the landlord has given a successor an incontestable notice to quit. That has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven. In not every case where a farmer dies does his son—or any other relative, for that matter—wish to succeed. After all, this will not compel someone to take up the tenancy; it is merely to give an opportunity where someone wishes to take up the tenancy; and can show that he is a fit person to get it.
VISCOUNT MASSE REENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I ask what is the position of the landlord's son if he wants to farm and all the landlord's farms are let and all the tenants have successors? It would seem that then the landlord's son has no chance of ever getting any land.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount is not as well aware of the rights of landowners as I should have expected him to be. If a landlord has a son who wishes to farm he may apply, under Section 26(1)(d) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, to the Scottish Land Court for consent to dispossess a tenant, on the ground that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord by not getting possession than would be caused to the tenant by losing his holding. So in this case what the

1279
Land Court has to decide is where the greater hardship lies. It may be that it will be difficult for a landlord in these circumstances to prove that there is greater hardship, but the noble Viscount gives up too readily if he is making out the case that it is impossible that this should ever arise.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that if the tenant's son or daughter has this right they will tend to take advantage of it, and thereby stay on the farm, when perhaps they are not really interested in farming but are perfectly entitled to within the provisions of Clause 18 of this Bill? Possibly one way to avoid this might be to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not think so. I subscribe to the view, which has frequently been expressed, that there are many easier ways of earning a living than by being a farmer. I am certain that sons or daughters who wish to succeed to a tenancy in those circumstances will do so because they are genuinely interested in farming, and not because they are under any illusions that it is an easy way of getting a living.
The noble Viscount also suggested that the provisions of Part III would be unworkable on poorer land. I do not think that is the case, because it is likely, in the first instance, that these would be the smaller units not employing more than two men, so that there are grounds for seeking an amalgamation. It also assumes that the landlord will stop investing capital in all such holdings. After all, a "reasonable" landlord—if I may use what the noble Viscount called a "nasty" word—is expected to do a certain amount of investment in the property which he is letting, and it surely is quite unreasonable to suggest that because tenancies are to continue there is not going to be further reasonable investment in the farm.
The noble Duke suggested that Clause 18(2) should be reversed to put the onus of proof on the tenant. I should like to point out that this is hardly necessary. It is only if the landlord is objecting to the tenancy arising that there is a case to go to the Land Court in the first
1280
instance, so that the action must be initiated by the landowner. But once it goes to the court, the court must look at both sides. We all know that the Land Court operates with a little more informality than some of the other courts of the country. They will look at it both ways, both seeking to consider how the landowner has proved inefficiency or how the prospective tenant has proved efficiency. I think it will work both ways.
I was a little amused that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, raised the question that the Government suddenly had been converted to the hereditary principle. I would remind both noble Lords that this is not something new. After all, what we are seeking to do in part in this Bill is something which we did in 1948, and we were not more enthusiastic about the hereditary principle for law-makers then than we are now. We were enthusiastic then and are still about the rights of families, and if there is any business in this country which is more firmly tied as a family unit than farming I do not know what it is. It is reasonable that the proper rights of families in farming should be looked after to some extent, and that is what the Bill does. It goes no further than that. The unfortunate thing is, like it or not, that there is a certain element of the hereditary system in families. That is as far as we are going in this Bill.
If I may sum up what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said, he was not objecting really to the extension of tenure in the Bill. Much of what he was saying was in objection to tenancy as such, and the logical conclusion of his argument is that all farming should be done by the owner of the land and that no man should have a farm unless he owns it. That may or may not be a desirable thing, but it certainly is not a practical proposition at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, touched on the subject of rating of agricultural subjects, and in regard to the present situation, shall I say that I find it difficult to disagree with him when he says it is chaotic? But, unfortunately, if there is to be an alteration it is not an alteration of agricultural law, it is an alteration of valuation law which is necessary; and while one can put many matters

1281
into an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, to start altering the valuation laws is, I suggest, and I think the noble Lord will immediately agree, going just a little too far.
I have said more than once in this House that I am not a Scottish Nationalist in the sense that members of the Scottish National Party are, but if ever I was in danger of applying for membership of that Party it was this afternoon when I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and to a certain extent the noble Duke. I can well understand the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as an English Peer, preferring the views of the English National Farmers' Union in relation to farming conditions in Scotland, but I certainly take the strongest exception when he goes on to suggest that if something is good for English agriculture it must by the same token be good for Scottish agriculture, particularly when he prefaced it by saying that he did not know anything about Scottish agricultural conditions or tenancy. But when he went on to say, "The English N.F.U. do not want this system, and it seems to me amazing that the Scots should", I almost went out and wrote for membership of the Scottish National Party then, but I realised I was allowing myself to be driven by illiberalism into insanity.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree there was another Liberal opinion?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords; and if the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, wants me to make forecasts I would say that for every member of the Scottish National Party in Scotland who quotes his views on land tenure there will be 100 who will quote Lord Henley's views against the Liberal Party. That was bad enough coming from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, because, after all, he is English and he has a perfect right to prefer English conditions to Scottish conditions. But when the noble Duke read from the memorandum of the English N.F.U. and said that this was a reasonable thing, and did not read a single word from the document of the Scottish N.F.U., which expresses the contrary opinion very forcibly indeed, then he certainly has no qualifications even to apply for membership of the Scottish National Party.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: And I might point out that I have no desire to do so.
LORD HUGHES: That is a more reasonable expression of opinion than what the noble Duke said about the Scottish N.F.U. views. There were some rather surprising things said about the Government's ideas in putting this provision in. I am always happy when I see that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is to make a contribution, because I can always extract a crumb of comfort from it. He said that the Government was declining rapidly, and then he suggested that perhaps our reason for our interest in adopted sons or daughters was to help to recover the situation in Scotland. If our position in Scotland has only declined so little that the proportion of 35 to 60 farmers who may get tenancies in a year and who also have an adopted son or daughter can put it right we have little to worry about.
LORD INGLEWOOD: The noble Lord seems very sensitive.
LORD HUGHES: I only wish to give the noble Lord credit. I always give the noble Lord credit for helping Her Majesty's Government; I did so last time, and I will continue to give credit where credit is due. It was also suggested, I think by the noble Duke, that the reason for our doing this was that we were seeking to get the votes of tenant farmers in Scotland. I would say quite honestly that if we could get the votes of tenant farmers in Scotland we would not despise them, but I would add that I am not terribly optimistic. Everyone has said that what we did for the farmers in 1947 was more than was ever done by any Government, but the number of farming votes it brought in did not bring us a single constituency. So I am not terribly optimistic that the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 is going to swing Scottish farmers behind us in one body. It may bring one or two in, but it is not going to win us many constituencies.
This is a simple measure of justice which has been introduced into a Bill on farming, not right at the beginning, because the Government's intention really had been to introduce a simple Bill at the appropriate stage in which to put

1283
this provision. But then after the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill was put forward it was realised that this was a perfectly proper vehicle through which it could be done, and could be done much more quickly than waiting for the opportunity of yet another small Agriculture Bill. It does not do everything the tenant farmer wants, or everything the landowner wants. In so far as it is perhaps nearly a halfway house between the two points of view, we think it is something that will be fairer than what was done in 1948 and in 1958, and with good will on both sides, which I am certain will be forthcoming, the 1968 provision may have a longer life than the 1948 or 1958 ones.
6.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, always introduces a certain flavour into any debate, and I again congratulate him to-day on his performance. My only comment on his performance is that perhaps what we read to-morrow will not be quite so good as what we heard to-day. Along with other noble Lords I welcome this somewhat ragbag of a Bill. I find myself in a slightly awkward position, because prior to the beginning of the Second Reading of this Bill I had prepared three-quarters of my speech on Part III of the Bill, not knowing that I was going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I think it would be discourteous of me to raise any further points on this Part. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will welcome this.
I would, however, as a Scot, just say that I entirely agree with my noble friends on this side of the House, that such a measure does nothing to help to improve either the efficiency or the productivity of Scottish agriculture, and I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter and will be persuaded in Committee to withdraw it. The other comment that I should like to make is that the Government have indeed done us a great honour to-day on this small Bill by putting up three Front Bench speakers. I am only sorry to see that none of their Back Bench speakers was prepared to follow them.
Although I welcome the Bill, I must confess, as a practising land agent, that
1284
this type of legislation often proves a nightmare to follow. It deals with such a galaxy of varying subjects, some of which I personally feel should have been dealt with in their own legislation—here, of course, I refer to Part II of the Bill, to tenant's compensation. I think it would have been far better if that Part had come under a proper agricultural holdings Bill.
Along with other speakers, I naturally welcome Part I of the Bill, dealing with the welfare of livestock, and I look forward to seeing what regulations the Minister proposes to make. My only regret in regard to this Part of the Bill is that neither this House nor another place has seen fit to provide time to debate the Brambell Report. Such debates could have been quite useful to the Minister when drafting the regulations. My noble friend Lord Nugent commented earlier that it is Parliament's duty to keep the right balance in these factors. Whereas such a system of farming often increases productivity, I would put forward three suggestions whereby I believe Part I of the regulation could be enforced.
The first concerns the system of rearing veal calves. I was particularly interested to note in the Brambell Report that evidence was taken from a farm near Henley which I myself have visited and seen. The method of veal production on this farm is, I think, common to many other producers. It is where the young calf of four days old is put into a small crate with slatted floors, and from that moment on until it is slaughtered some twelve weeks later it never leaves the crate and is restricted to standing or lying down in that one position. I am sure its diet is splendidly scientific, but it includes no roughage and it lives on a high protein gruel. I believe it is a system which should be abhorred by those generally interested in livestock welfare. I believe it is the nearest thing to an inhuman factory system you can get.
The second point I would comment on is the system of intensively reared broiler chickens. As I understand it, the Brambell Report came down against debeaking and for the minimum requirement of 12 square inches per bird. In my experience in managing such a broiler unit both these points could be challenged, and I should be happy to give the noble Lord

1285
evidence of this later should he require it. The third point in regard to the Brambell Report to which I should like to draw attention is the present laxity in the methods of both castration and the slaughter of animals. I believe that often there is unnecessary suffering to animals in this respect, mainly because farmers have been used to a certain system of castration or of slaughter all though their lives and they see no reason to alter their system now because of a certain new set of regulations. I hope that the Minister will study both practices and improve on them.
Turning briefly to Part II of the Bill, I personally welcome the additional compensation that will become payable to displaced tenants. In this House I asked an Unstarred Question on this particular subject some two years ago, at a time when a good deal of acquisition of land was going on for a new town in Buckinghamshire. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who replied for the Government on that occasion, was most sympathetic to the case. My only comment on the provision, which I think is a good one, is that I believe that the compensation should be geared to the rack rent of the farm and not to the existing rent. I know that this point was argued in another place, and I hope we may have an opportunity of taking it up again on Committee. In my opinion, if we uproot a farmer and his family and take away his livelihood we should give all the financial assistance we can.
There are two small points on Part II of the Bill that I should like to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. The first arises where a tenant is farming under licence. Here I am thinking of Section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. I am sure the noble Lord will recall that under licence a tenant does not have the same security of tenure, but he can, of course, go on farming under licence year after year, with the approval of the county agricultural executive committee. I should like to ask whether he will be entitled to similar compensation under Part II. The second question that I would ask under this Part is whether, in the event of part of the farm being taken back for non-agricultural use and the tenant deciding that the remainder of the farm is an uneconomic unit, he is allowed to claim the full compensation
1286
on the land not necessarily required for non-agricultural use.
One small but important clause in the Bill, which I think only the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, mentioned, is Clause 44. This clause deals with the Agricultural Wages Committee. I am pleased to see that at last those involved in land, in agriculture, are to be rewarded for their efforts; and I hope that in future there will be less disparity between the farm staff on the farm and those who work in industry. As this is a miscellaneous provisions Bill, I hope I may be excused for mentioning one subject which is not specifically mentioned in the Bill but which concerns the farming community—it is the question of farm mortgages. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will know that the chief source of farm mortgages is the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. At the present time and for the last nearly two years the rate of interest on an agricultural mortgage for farmers has been high. I think at present it is approximately 8 per cent.
The point with regard to this mortgage is that whereas the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation offers a mortgage over, say, 40 years on a repayment basis, the farmer at the time of taking out a mortgage finds that his interest is constant. It is but a small inducement for any farmer to take out a long-term mortgage at the present high interest rates. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to comment on this matter and perhaps some improvement could be incorporated into the Bill. I would end, as have other noble Lords, by confirming my support for the Bill. I hope that the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, to to-morrow's announcement of the Price Review is in anticipation of good news for an industry which has served the country so well in the past and which now deserves some new encouragement.
6.10 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has shared one difficulty with his noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. Both of them, on behalf of the Opposition, were unwilling to oppose this Bill, but both were unable to be unduly enthusiastic about it. I thought that they contrived to achieve the sort of balance which we want to see when we apply the provisions of Part I

1287
of the Bill. I should like to take up the noble Earl's offer to let me have the information about veal production, and I was interested to hear what he said about the debeaking of broiler fowls; there was also the other point he made about castration. Those are matters which might well be profitably discussed on Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said that the Bill was curiously irrelevant. With respect, I thought that that was a rather strange description of this Bill. "Incidental", possibly; but not "irrelevant", Incidentally this brings much valued reform to the agricultural scene, but it is in addition to other provisions which this Government have brought in to assist the farmer. I will resist the temptation put before me by the noble Lord to discuss the relative merits of a dear food system in the Common Market, as against the support prices in this country. I think that he will agree that, no matter what basic agricultural policy we have, we shall still need to have regard to the welfare of animals, fair play to the displaced tenant farmer, a proper system of drainage charges, and other things contained in this Bill—not to mention the supervision of the gardens at Wakehurst Place. I shall leave what was said by some noble Lords from across the Border, since I thought my noble friend Lord Hughes dealt more than adequately with their criticisms, though I have no doubt that we shall be hearing much more about these problems at a later stage of the Bill.
I was gratified to hear the general welcome which was given by Lord Nugent, by Lord Kinnoull, by Lord Balerno, by Lord Nunburnholme, and by most noble Lords who have spoken to Part I of this Bill. If there had been any doubt whatever about the necessity for something of this sort, those doubts would have been dispelled by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. However, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, expressed some doubt about the position in which the farmers in this country would be left, when competing against farmers overseas, who possibly do not have to adhere to, or meet, the same standards which one might expect will be contained in the regulations when approved. There may well be a
1288
point here, although social differences in other countries probably have much greater effect on price levels than any farm animal welfare regulations are likely to have. But the Government accept that there is a point here. Of course, in practice any effect which these regulations, when drafted, will have will be spread over many years. Moreover, in regard to white veal, which was a possible import mentioned in another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has given an undertaking that the other Governments concerned overseas will be consulted to ensure that there is no unfair competition there.
I was rather surprised to hear the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on some of these matters. I may be allowing myself to jump to wrong conclusions, but I felt that he was saying we were assisting the farmer rather too much in respect of the grants for break crops. There was an inquiry from my noble friend which was rather contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, asked me whether it would be possible to extend this grant to other crops. Again, my right honourable friend has given an undertaking that the possibility of extending this scheme to other crops will be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, if I understood him aright, asked me why should we give this kind of assistance anyhow. My Lords, we all know that there is very special value in rotation of this kind, and I should not have thought that anyone would argue against the fact that field beans would improve the fertility of the soil.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I do not want to pursue this in detail now. Of course, the introduction of certain crops in rotation improves the soil, but from my reading of the Bill this grant appeared to be a grant to help people to repair damage which they themselves had done. I was also expressing the general thought that there appeared to be no end to the farming operations, in one direction or another, which attract some help. I feel, as I am sure does the noble Lord, that this is a trend which one would like to see reversed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, certainly there are occasions when one thinks that there is no end to the assistance

1289
that can be given to the farming community; although I am bound to say that I hope that this thought expressed so well by the noble Lord will be echoed to-morrow when we are discussing the Statement to be made on the Farm Price Review.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, asked about the qualification of the inspectors who would go on to the land in order to satisfy themselves that they conformed with the regulations. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, if these officers would be qualified veterinary officers. The Ministry inspectors will, of course, be qualified vets, although they may take their technical assistants with them. In regard to local authority officers, they will be concerned only with feeding-stuffs. I should not have thought that any such qualifications would be needed there, but if there is still a difficulty about this then we can perhaps discuss it when considering the Amendment which the noble Lord has promised us. I can assure the noble Lord that the Departments concerned will issue an advisory circular to local authorities stressing the necessity of having, if not professionally qualified people, at any rate people who would observe the sort of code which the noble Lord has in mind.
I was also asked about establishing the identity of officers who are to make inspections on a farmer's land; I was asked whether identification ought not to be mandatory. Well, the wording of the Act requires these persons to establish their identity if they are asked. I should not have thought that, in practice, we shall have any trouble about that, but if the noble Lord has any point which he thinks might be further discussed, perhaps we could look at it on Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, asked about representation on the river authorities and suggested that those who pay charges should be represented, especially the farming community. When a draining charge is raised an additional member is appointed to the authority to represent the draining charge payers. It would not, of course, be right to give the agricultural community equal representation with the local authorities, because, after all, it
1290
will be the local authorities who will still contribute the major part of the bill. But where we are dealing with the farming community, it is very likely that the local authority representatives will include farmers or people allied to the farming industry. Moreover, the land drainage members will normally include representatives of the farming community, and in that capacity, too, as members of the internal drainage boards they will sit upon the river authorities. As I understood him, the noble Lord went on to criticise the practice of civil servants voting on these river authorities. I am afraid that I could not quite understand the point he was getting at, because there are no civil servants on them as such.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, the Minister has power to appoint so many members on the river authority.
LORD BESWICK: Certainly he does, my Lords, but not necessarily civil servants. Possibly what the noble Lord was thinking of was the representatives of the water undertakings. There may well be representation there, but I should have thought it was proper that, in that case, they should have the right to vote. The noble Lord also asked me about the drainage charges. I should emphasise that this is a purely discretionary charge. No river authority is obliged to I raise it, although we hope that many will do so since there is certainly a good deal of work still to be done.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, asked in a reference to affairs South of the Border how profits will be assessed in reckoning compensation under Clause 15 in Part II of the Bill. The actual amount will be a matter for agreement between landlord and tenant. If they cannot agree, then the dispute can be referred to the Lands Tribunal in compulsory purchase cases, or to arbitration when the dispossession is by notice to quit. I understand that the assessment of such compensation under the compulsory purchase code—that is, in cases of compulsory dispossession—takes into account recent years' profits and the current farming practice in relation to the holding. If a tenant thought his assessment was unfair he could appeal to the Lands Tribunal.

1291
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and also the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, asked whether the Forestry Commission will be liable for payments under Clause 9. The answer is, Yes. They will have to make payments in exactly the same way as a private landlord or, for that matter, as a public authority. Part II applies to them all. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, had a most intriguing Committee point about the word "creature". I must get the Parliamentary draftsman on to this, and see whether there is anything in the point which he made. He also asked about the registration of a plant variety. I am bound to confess to him that I find this one a little difficult. I should like to study what he said, and either I will write to him or we will again come back to that at Committee stage. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, about the question of compensation, which he thought would possibly deter landlords from planting trees.
LORD INGLEWOOD: On small areas.
LORD BESWICK: He said that the landlord may want to plant a bank of trees, but if he has to pay compensation under Part II he is unlikely to plant. But if they are shelter belts, which I think the noble Lord had in mind, then they would fall within the definition of "agriculture" in the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the landlord would not in that case be obliged to make the new payments. If, however, the parts of land involved are the small wet patches, which I think the noble Lord described, then the payments would be based only on the rental value of the land and, judging by his description of the land, the amount of money involved would be very small indeed.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked about tenants on licence under Section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act: and whether they would be entitled to the new payment. The answer is, No. The new sum is not payable when there is no entitlement to disturbance compensation, and licensees under Section 2 are not so entitled. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, had one or two points which I thought were better left until the Committee stage. But he asked me a question which perhaps I might deal with
1292
now, about the betterment levy, and whether there was a liability on the part of landlords in relation to Clause 9 payments. The Land Commission are understood to take the view that where the landlord pays the new sum to an outgoing tenant he will not be able to add it to the base value of his interests for levy purposes when he comes to sell the land for development. Questions of liability for betterment levy are the responsibility of the Land Commission, and an Agriculture Bill cannot legislate away existing liabilities. A landlord is not, however, obliged to sell with vacant possession, though he will no doubt do so where, as will generally be the case with sales for development, he thereby gains enough on the sale price to leave him well in pocket after paying the new sum to the tenant and discharging his tax liabilities as well.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I accept the noble Lord's assurance that there is no injustice, because I suspect that there is an injustice here and that it ought to be put right. But I agree with the noble Lord that this cannot be put right in this particular Bill, and it is really a matter for a Finance Bill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. He has made his point and I have no doubt that it will be considered by others. Another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, was about the application to England of the better parts of the law applying to Scotland. I may just add—although my noble friend Lord Hughes dealt with most of this—that the desirability or otherwise of providing greater security for the near relatives of deceased tenant farmers in England and Wales will be discussed with interested agricultural and professional organisations, as part of the general review of agricultural holdings legislation now in hand. I hope that noble Lords from North of the Border will be satisfied that justice is eventually to be done South of the Border. I hope I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised. Possibly I have not dealt with some of them, but perhaps we can return to them at Committee stage, or if there are some which I can deal with before that I

1293
will certainly write to the noble Lords concerned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
6.30 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.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I do not want to ask your Lordships to reject this Motion, but I should like to protest against the very short time which has been given between the Second Reading stage and the Committee stage of this Bill. I appreciate that the fortnight or so that we have had is a very usual period in connection with ordinary Bills, but this Bill is a Bill of outstanding importance and an exceedingly difficult one to which to draft Amendments. It may be said that a great part of the Bill was already in the important Report of the Law Revision Committee on this subject, and that is true. But there are in the Bill before Parliament at the present time some important clauses, particularly Clause 6, which are not in the draft, and the reasons for them, I think, have not been made as clear as they might have been. But, quite apart from that, the rather inarticulate mass of the citizenship affected by this Bill—and it affects tremendously a very large number of people—who are not really capable of reading Reports of Law Revision Committees, may have spokesmen, and they certainly have not had the opportunity to master the complications of the Bill.
I think that on Second Reading it was generally accepted that, by and large, this is a very valuable contribution, and I do not think that anybody feels that even small parts of it should be rejected altogether. On the other hand, it was made quite clear that there are a number of aspects of the matter which are very much open to objection and which, arguably at any rate, could very well be amended and improved at Committee stage. This really ought to have persuaded the Government, I think, to give longer time before the Committee stage.
1294
In the Press and from the university law schools a quite substantial amount of anxiety has been manifest over these last weeks. I have had a number of letters from teachers of criminal law in university law schools asking for elucidation of points, which I obviously am not able to give to them; and without the assistance of a pretty skilled draftsman it is extraordinarily difficult to put down Amendments to a technical Bill of this kind. Personally, although this is not perhaps of great importance to your Lordships' House, I have myself not been in a position to give detailed attention to the Bill; and, as it happens, this is a week in which I have long-standing engagements which will prevent my taking very much part either in the Committee stage to-night or, as I understand it will be, the adjourned Committee stage on Thursday.
My second point is that it is altogether wrong that, in the case of a Committee stage of this importance, pretty well the whole of a day should not be given to the discussion of the Amendments. We have important Amendments before us, and here we are, at half past six in the evening, after a longish day, with a comparatively small House. I suggest that a Bill which affects the liberties of such a very large section of the community ought not to be pushed forward in this very hurried way. One appreciates that this is a section of the law which is in very great need of reform, and that it has had to wait a long time. Nevertheless, a great deal of damage can be done in the very last stages if, in an understandable anxiety to get the Bill on to the Statute Book before the end of the Session, too much urgency is shown and the work which ought to be done very carefully, and I think with a measure of slowness, is pushed through late in the evening on a number of rather latish sittings. I therefore hope that after to-night, at any rate, it may be possible to give your Lordships a better opportunity to deal with this Bill in detail, and with the close scrutiny that it deserves, and also that a rather longer period may be allowed before the Report stage is taken. Undoubtedly there are a number of people who have given a very great deal of close thought to this problem, especially in the university law schools, who would like to have the opportunity, through the means which are at their disposal, to

1295
place important criticisms before your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is suggesting that we should not take the Committee stage to-night or not, but in support of his plea that we should be allowed plenty of time for this Bill I should just like to say one or two words. I think it is very important that we should get this Bill right. For some of us it is inconvenient, to say the least, for reasons of public business, to take part in a Committee stage which starts before 4 o'clock and I think it is very important that those who have to administer the criminal law should be able to take part in the discussions upon this Bill in Committee. That means that one has to start after 4 o'clock if one can, and I hope that the Government will arrange that. I also hope that the proceedings will not go on too late into the evening.
This Bill is a very important Bill, but I do not believe there is tremendous urgency to get it through; we are carrying along quite well as we are. The great thing is to get it right. I hope that the noble Lord will allow quite an interval between the Committee stage and the Report stage, so that we shall have an opportunity to consider the position in the light of our discussions. I believe that this would facilitate the progress of the Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, much though we should regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I hope that the House will proceed to the Committee stage now, and will do as well as it can.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to make it clear that I was not asking your Lordships to refuse the Committee stage to-night, but that I just wanted to make my protest and the plea that there should be a longer period a little later on, so that we can get down to an intensive study of the Amendments that are needed. It would be very useful if a group of Peers could be formed, on a non-Party basis, with the advantage of a draftsman provided by the Government to help us in drafting Amendments. It is certainly not right that an important Bill of this kind should depend on the accident of some of the people who are
1296
interested in it having some skill as draftsmen.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Lord, but I wish to say just two things. First, I would support the plea that we should have a comparatively long period between this stage and the Report stage of the Bill, if that can be arranged, because I believe that there are a considerable number of views to collect, to assimilate and to turn into Amendments. The second thing I would say is by way of paying a tribute. It so happens that during the preparation of the Amendments on this Bill your Lordships' House, in another capacity, has been considering a criminal matter, and the result of that has been that practically every book of any relevance has been out of the Library and in court. I should like to pay tribute to our librarians for their incredible skill in somehow obtaining the necessary books, at any rate for me so that I could draft the Amendments. I think they have done a very good job, and I am most grateful to them.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is perfectly right, and indeed valuable, that my noble friend Lord Chorley should have made his protest on this point. Your Lordships will appreciate that the arrangement of business is not a matter for me, and also that we have a very crowded legislative programme. I would say, however, that it is 19 days since Second Reading, which is not an unreasonable time for the tabling of Amendments. That is easily borne out by the fact that your Lordships have accumulated no fewer than 70 Amendments on the Marshalled List; so that, if one or two law professors have been to some extent inhibited, this is a matter for which I, at least, can be devoutly thankful.
I would, in reinforcement of that, point out to your Lordships that because of the delay between First and Second Readings the Bill has actually been printed and before the House since January, which has allowed something like six weeks for the consideration of possible Amendments. With regard to the late hour for discussion, I have the greatest sympathy for my noble friend, because in the last week I have had more bedtimes than bed. Therefore, I can speak feelingly in this matter. But I want to

1297
emphasise to your Lordships the great importance, in the case of a Bill of such major importance as this one, which the Government attach (this is the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne) to the presence of the Lord Chief Justice and the Law Lords, if they can be here. Therefore, while every endeavour will be made to bring on further Committee stages as early as we can in the day, I think it would be generally accepted that they ought to come on after 4.30 p.m. in order to ensure that we have the attendance—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: —and not going on too late!
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I agree about "not going on too late" With regard to that, I want to state quite firmly that there will be no tendency at any time to curtail the discussions on this Bill in your Lordships' House. We know that there will be no filibustering. If more time is needed, then more time will be provided; although more days may be necessary. With regard to the time interval between the end of the Committee stage and the beginning of the Report stage, as some of your Lordships are aware I have always held the view that there will have to be a substantial Report stage on this Bill. The Report stage will, in fact, be finality in regard to many of the discussions that we start in Committee and there will have to be a necessary interval. That is a matter for the Chief Whip and "the usual channels". I am sure that the representations that have been made will be fully respected and that we shall endeavour to meet what is obviously the general wish of the House in this matter. I hope that now we may proceed into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ST. HELENS in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Basic definition of theft
1.—(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial that the appropriation is not made with a view to gain, or is not made for the thief's own benefit.
6.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "permanently". The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I should like to say at the outset that this Amendment raises a considerable issue. It may be that this Amendment and perhaps many others in my name, is not drafted to the satisfaction of the Parliamentary draftsman. It may be that in some instances some consequential Amendments will be required if an Amendment is accepted; but I have put down these Amendments with a view to raising the points to which I consider that this Committee should give serious consideration. I should like to echo the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in saying that this is not a Party measure at all. Whatever view we may express, I think we all have the same objective, to try to make this Bill as good as possible.
For many years—I have not looked back during the 19 days to see for how long—it has been an ingredient of the offence of larceny that to constitute the offence there must be an intention permanently to deprive. This Amendment, by seeking to remove the word "permanently", raises the question whether in modern times it is either necessary or desirable that to establish the offence of theft the prosecution should have to prove in every case an intention permanently to deprive.
The sub-committee of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which drafted this Bill, decided, so we are told in page 5 of their Report, that
"it would he necessary to make far-reaching changes in the present law."
And they said, in page 6, that
"…it was necessary to go back to first principles to consider what were the essential elements of the offence and to reconstruct the law relating to it accordingly,"
As the Committee said in paragraph 33:
"The important element of them all"—
and they are referring to the offences of larceny, embezzlement and fraudulent conversion—
"is undoubtedly the dishonest appropriation of another person's property—the treating of 'tuum' as 'meum'."
I entirely agree with that.
Your Lordships will appreciate that that conception, treating tuum as meum, does not necessarily involve an intention permanently to deprive. Is it not really maintaining—this is the question I pose—an unnecessary refinement in our law to be required to prove not only that there has been a dishonest appropriation, but also that it has been done with the intention to deprive the owner permanently of that article? If someone dishonestly appropriates something belonging to you, would it not be surely the normal use of the English language to say that it has been stolen and that the man who takes it is a thief? If someone takes your car and drives it away when he has no right to do so, surely you and most car owners would say that the car had been stolen. But that would not be right under the present law. It would not be right for you to say that unless you could establish that it had been taken with the intention of permanently depriving you of it. If a man has taken your car away and has deprived you of it, he has probably caused you a very great personal inconvenience, to say the least—and if it were a question of calling witnesses on this, I would call my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who I hope will speak later. But if a man has done that, and that alone, you should not call him a thief because in strict law that does not suffice to show that he had the intention permanently to deprive you of your car.
It was because of this requirement of the law that years ago, I think it was after the Road Traffic Act of 1930, the taking and driving away of a car without the owner's consent was made a criminal offence. It was made a criminal offence because of the difficulty of establishing theft; because you could not prove, when the man had taken your car, that he had the intention permanently to deprive you of it. In some cases the person who took a car was charged with stealing petrol because he had used it, and he was convicted of that offence. That is how that offence came into existence. This Bill, as the Committee will see, keeps that as an offence in Clause 12. The Committee recommended not only that that should remain an offence, but also that it should be an offence to take away
1300
vessels—and we have passed an Act to provide for that.
Is it necessary to make special provision for the dishonest appropriation of goods without an intention permanently to deprive as distinct from the dishonest appropriation of them with such an intent? I ask whether it really is necessary that this distinction should be maintained in view of the modernisation and simplification—as I hope—this Bill is intended to achieve. I notice in the Committee's Report that an extract is printed in page 19 from the draft criminal code prepared for Jamaica as long ago as 1877 by Mr. Arthur S. Wright who later became a distinguished judge and a great authority on the law.
Paragraph 183 of that code which is set out in the Report reads as follows:
"'A person is guilty of stealing if he dishonestly appropriated a thing of which he is not the owner.'"
Surely that is a very good definition. That is very similar to the definition contained in this Bill, except that this Bill requires an addition that it must be done with an intent permanently to deprive the owner. I understand, and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, that under the law of Canada there is no need in relation to theft to prove an intention permanently to deprive, and that law has been in existence for some time. I hope that either now or later the noble Lord will be able to say whether or not serious social consequences have ensued from that. I have not heard of any, and I doubt whether any have.
Of course, for lawyers such as myself, brought up on the definition of larceny which is contained in the Larceny Act, now to abandon the requirement of proof of an intention permanently to deprive represents a very considerable change from what we are all accustomed to. At the same time I do not believe that the lawyers' definition of theft, of stealing, as commonly used, accords with the meaning attached to the words by the vast mass of the British public. I pray in aid, too, the authority of Mr. R. S. Wright and his definition of stealing, which shows that at least at that time he did not think that this refinement of having to prove such an intention was really necessary.
This question was considered by the Committee in paragraph 56 of their Report—one short paragraph on what is, I think, a fundamental question in relation to this branch of the criminal law. They rejected the view which I am putting to your Lordships and gave a number of reasons on which I should like to make some observations. Their first reason, which will be found in that paragraph, was that in their view:
"… an intention to return the property, even after a long time, makes the conduct essentially different from stealing."
Does it? Surely the conduct of the accused is the same in both cases. In each case he has dishonestly appropriated someone else's property. The only difference is that in one case he has done it with the intention of permanently depriving the owner and in the other case that intention was absent or cannot be proved to exist. But surely his conduct is the same, and surely to the person who has suffered the loss of the property the consequences are the same. So I do not find it possible to agree with that reason for rejecting the Amendment that I am now putting forward.
Then the Committee advanced a number of reasons which, I am sorry to say, do not convince me. They say, and your Lordships will see it in paragraph 56, that this change
"… might moreover have undesirable social consequences."
Again I put the question—because it is pertinent when you are considering what reality lies behind this—has the Canadian law had any undesirable social consequences? The Committee go on in the next sentence of their Report:
"Quarrelling neighbours and families would be able to threaten one another with prosecution."
I find it remarkable to think that, because of a change in definition, quarrelling neighbours and families would be able to threaten one another with prosecution. They can do that now. They are not deterred from doing so by the lawyers' definition, by Parliament's definition, of the word "theft". If this Amendment were accepted I do not think that there would be any real risk of an increase in such threats.
The paragraph goes on:
"Students and young people sharing accommodation who might be tempted to borrow
1302
one another's property in disregard of a prohibition by the owner would be in danger of acquiring a criminal record."
That is another way of saying that they might be prosecuted and convicted. Is that a good reason? If there is a dishonest appropriation by a student or a young person, is not that conduct which should be condemned? If the requirement to prove an intention permanently to deprive were dispensed with, it would still be necessary to prove that the appropriation was dishonest. If a man borrowed his neighbour's mowing machine without his neighbour's consent, but in the belief that his neighbour would not object to the borrowing, surely no one could say that was a dishonest appropriation. There would be no risk of a conviction and, I should have thought, really no risk of a prosecution. The same applies in relation to students and young people.
The paragraph continues:
"… it would be difficult for the police to avoid being involved in wasteful and undesirable investigations into alleged offences which had no social importance."
Why should it be assumed that, following this change which I am recommending, the police would be more involved than they are now in wasteful and undesirable investigations into alleged offences? I do not know. If this change were made, I do not believe that people would more readily accuse their neighbours, or any other people, of stealing or of being thieves. I do not believe that is the case at all. Is dishonest appropriation without an intent permanently to deprive an offence which has no social importance? I should have thought it had very great social importance. I pose this question: does the social importance of the conduct of the accused really depend upon whether or not an intention permanently to deprive exists? I cannot find the reasoning in this paragraph—I am sorry to say it—at all satisfactory or at all convincing.
I should like your Lordships to consider what the effect would be if this change were made; a change for which I have already indicated that there is at least one precedent. If the change were made, Clause 12 of the Bill would become unnecessary; and so would Clause 11, the extraordinary clause devised to give protection against the loss of things like the Goya picture from

1303
the National Gallery and where it is accepted that there was no intention permanently to deprive. It is a clause which is applied only to certain categories of buildings which satisfy certain conditions, but the effect of that clause is to make conduct which is not accompanied by an intention permanently to deprive none the less criminal.
If you take the word "permanently" out of Clause 1(1), as I see it Clause 11 becomes wholly unnecessary; and you get rid of the very tiresome and, I think, erroneous distinction between the types of premises from which the valuable picture, or whatever it may be, is borrowed, and dishonestly borrowed. We get rid of that and of Clause 12 as well. If I may make this criticism of the Bill, so much of it seeks to deal with particular legal problems, very often of a considerable refinement, which have emerged in the course of the years, at the expense of considering whether any changes should be made in relation to the principles which have run through this branch of the law. I make no apology for saying that what I am proposing is a substantial change, but I believe that it will lead to a very real simplification and modernisation of this branch of the law.
May I ask your Lordships to look at Clause 15(3) which creates an offence of "criminal deception". This does not require proof of an intention to permanently deprive, and that is recognised in paragraph 56 of the Committee's Report. But contrast that paragraph with Clause 15(1), which also makes criminal deception an offence. In that case, for the deception to be an offence it has to be proved that there is an intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property. So that in this very clause two criminal offences are created—reconstituted, if you like—one requiring proof of intent and the other not. Where is the logicality of that? Where is the principle behind all that? Where, I would ask, is the "far-reaching change" to which the Committee referred on page 5 of their Report?
If the change I propose is made, I would think (though I am not certain, because I am not quite sure that I fully understand the clause) that Clause 6 also becomes wholly unnecessary. That, as it stands, is a pretty curious clause. It
1304
defines what is meant by permanent deprivation of property. The rubric is: "With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it", in inverted commas, but the clause does not contain that sentence at all. The substance of the clause deals with what amounts to permanent deprivation.
I suppose it will be argued that if what has happened does amount to permanent deprivation, then it is to be inferred that what was done was done with the intent permanently to deprive. Under the clause as it now stands, conduct which substantially amounts to complete usurpation of property will be permanent deprivation. I ask this: if someone takes a noble Lord's car away from outside the Peers' entrance does not that substantially amount to usurpation of his property? And if it does not, why does it not? The clause goes on to say that it is immaterial that one does not finally lose the property. If Clause 6 is meant to have the meaning I think it is meant to have, that supports my case that we do not want the word "permanently" at all in Clause 1.
But when we come to the Amendment which the Government propose to table to add a new subsection to Clause 6, it becomes even clearer that a temporary usurpation of property will require in certain circumstances to be treated in the courts as involving more than permanently to deprive. We shall come on to that when that Amendment is called, but it all seems to me very illogical and unduly complicated. Therefore I press the Government to give serious consideration to the question whether we cannot, even now, make a radical and significant improvement to this Bill by leaving out the word "permanently" from Clause 1 and making the necessary consequential Amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who I am sorry to see has already had to leave the House, referred to university lawyers. I do not know whether your Lordships read an interesting article which appeared some time ago in The Times from lawyers in the University of Kent. I thought that a great deal of what they wrote was sound sense. In particular, I was delighted to find that one of their major criticisms of this measure was that in the definition of theft was found retained the words "with

1305
intention permanently to deprive". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out "permanently".—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
7.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have heard my name referred to by the noble and learned Viscount, and I trust that it will not be thought that the circumstances which befell me last night have resulted in my so losing the necessary detachment of mind that I cannot approach this matter in a proper way. The noble and learned Viscount has made a number of very sound points. As I understand it, paragraph 56 of the Report, to which attention has already been drawn, says that one of the matters which this complete reappraisal is intended to comprehend is the social consequences—and, I would think, the social importance—of the elements of the crimes with which this Bill deals.
I suggest to the Committee that what is of paramount social importance in the case of theft is the effect upon the victim, and not the precise intent which the thief may have had at the time. I think that Clause 6 does recognise this, or at any rate recognises that the final outcome of the course of conduct into which the thief has entered is not really material. It may well be that in a number of cases what the thief does is a matter upon which he has formed no intent at the time. He takes whatever it may be, and does not decide whether he will give it back or not. In nine cases out of ten, I do not suppose he cares. He just takes it, and when he has finished with it he puts it down conveniently to hand; and whether the owner gets it back has nothing to do with it at all. In fact I am not at all convinced that the question of his intent has anything to do with the true essence of this offence at all.
If we look at this from the point of view of the victim, I think that this becomes even more apparent. It will rejoice your Lordships' hearts to hear that not only was my car removed but so were my notes on the Theft Bill, and this will no doubt greatly accelerate the course of this Commitee stage, although it may make me fairly incoherent from time to time, for which I apologise in advance.
1306
But it really does not matter to me whether I get the notes back next week or not at all. What I wanted was to have them to-day; and if I do not have them to-day, it is of no consequence whatever what may happen to them in the future. That seems to me to be the type of social consequence about which we ought to be talking. If that is so, I wonder whether the Committee really weighed up the tests quite correctly in their paragraph 56.
I should like to know, also, whether the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, could explain what is the underlying philosophy which says "permanently" as to the intent in Clause 1—this is a point made by my noble and learned friend—and then proceeds, most earnestly and now continuingly, to qualify it in Clause 6: because if this does not detract from the whole point of putting in "permanently" in Clause 1, I do not see what it does. And if it is detracting from the degree of permanence in Clause 1, then I cannot understand why we should have permanence in Clause 1 at all. It seems that these philosophies are contradictory and either the one or the other must prevail I suggest that my noble and learned friend is right, and we should try to see whether we cannot do without permanence in the law of theft. In saying so, I hope I have disabused the noble Lord of any concept that I, who have been brought up upon the definition in the larceny Act, am quite incapable of abandoning it.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: As has been said many times, this is an important Bill, and it is equally important that we should get it right. This definition of "larceny" has, so far as I know, always been part of our Common Law and our Statute Law. I believe two things: one is that reform should not be done for the sake of reform, but only if one is certain that what one is putting instead is better than what is there already. I hope your Lordships will accept this. I do not believe any of your Lordships thinks I am reactionary; I believe I have shown progressive tendencies in your Lordships' House. But that is a cardinal principle.
My second belief is this: that if the matter is left to a high-powered Committee, there must be overwhelming evidence if their recommendations are going to be

1307
discarded. Just think what we have here. It is always invidious to mention names or to make distinctions, but here we have some of the most famous current criminal lawyers among the Judges and ex-Judges, and members of both branches of the profession, barristers and solicitors, and academics well represented. From March, 1959, until April, 1966, they have been weighing the evidence in these matters. Who are we to-day, even the most eminent lawyers among us—and I pay full respect to the noble and learned Viscounts, Lord Dilhorne and Lord Colville of Culross—in a matter of minutes to say that it would have been better if they had recommended something else?
By all means let us interfere if we are convinced that what they have recommended is utterly wrong. But merely to say that they might have done it a different way, or maybe perhaps it would have been better if they had done it a different way, is, I venture to think, neither here nor there. The matter has been left to them, not to a Committee constituted of the noble Viscounts, who might have come to equally good and different recommendations. Here we have these recommendations, and unless we are satisfied that what they have recommended on any particular issue is wrong, I think that we should accept it: and on this Amendment I am utterly unconvinced that they are wrong.
LORD WILBERFORCE: I should like to support the Amendment, and I do so with the due respect that one owes to the Committee. At the same time, we are here; we have a duty to do our best in relation to the recommendations; and if we are not to give of our best to the Amendments suggested one wonders what purpose this Committee stage fulfils. Personally, I support this Amendment on the grounds that the clause, as drafted, does not really give effect to what the Committee themselves are quite rightly trying to do. What they are trying to do in this definition of "theft" is to simplify and modernise the law, and to bring into one simple definition a number of miscellaneous offences. That is the merit, and the great merit, of the Committee's proposals. All I understand that the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment is doing is carrying that process a little
1308
further, in the same spirit exactly of simplification, trying to get rid of superfluous elements and of later clauses, one of which, one may remark, Clause 11, was not recommended by the Committee but has crept in at a later stage.
This definition arises from the original definition of "theft" in Section 1 of the Larceny Act, which, as your Lordships know well, was related to the concept of taking. It says:
"A person who takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent at the time of such taking permanently to deprive the owner thereof…".
That is where "permanently to deprive" comes from. The Committee, very rightly, have decided to discard the concept of possession as being confusing; to separate these different branches of the law into different compartments, and to substitute this much simpler and more generalised definition which we find in Clause 1. We do not have "taking" any more. But it was, of course, in connection with the taking that the intention to deprive permanently was relevant. Now the Committee have suggested to us the much more general, and to my mind acceptable, concept of dishonest appropriation. That is what now constitutes the heart of theft and of other offences which formerly were given other names and which are now brought in under the general description of "theft".
With "dishonest appropriation", you now have "appropriation" and not "taking" coupled with dishonesty. Why is it necessary to add the ingredient of "intention permanently to deprive", which will have to be proved by the prosecution in any cases where they wish to establish theft, in addition to proving dishonesty, and in addition to proving appropriation? Why is it necessary to have this extra element? As I think the noble and learned Viscount made clear in the latter part of his remarks, the defect of this approach is very well shown when one looks at Clause 6, which is the clause about usurpation, because it becomes obvious that once you talk about "permanent deprivation" you run the risk of leaving out of the concept of theft a great many important crimes and important interferences with the property or possessory rights of owners. Therefore it is necessary to complete—if it is a completion—the definition in Clause 1 by that in Clause 6 by saying that a

1309
complete usurpation as against a person of the property is treated as deprivation; and if you appropriate property, and intend such usurpation, you are to be treated as having the intention of permanently depriving a person of it.
The noble Viscount has pointed out that the clause is very difficult to understand: it refers to "a complete usurpation as against him of the property". If that is saying anything it is trying to say that you are to be within the definition of theft, not merely if you deprive somebody completely of his property, but if you deprive him essentially of the benefit of it, of the use of it, of the right of enjoyment of it. In that case, why not say so? Why not enlarge the definition in Clause 1 so that it does that without the additional element?
The fact is that this approach via appropriation, permanent deprivation, plus usurpation, is not really essentially the modern approach which the Committee would have us adopt. It is related to old concepts of taking chattels out of somebody's property, taking sheep and so on, and does not fit in with what the Bill is trying to do, or ought to be trying to do; that is, enlarging theft to cover all sorts of economic appropriation, appropriation of intangible benefits, which are now far more important than sheep were in the nineteenth century, or coins out of somebody's pocket.
If your Lordships will look at Clause 4 you will see that property is now, quite rightly, defined as including
"money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property".
One has to think of things like business secrets, all sorts of ways of enjoying property, getting benefits from them; and if one is to relate the conception of theft to those matters, then it is quite misleading and inappropriate, I suggest, to start off by saying "permanently deprive" and then to meet the obvious difficulties you run into by Clause 6, which talks about "usurpation as against him".
I sum up what I am endeavouring to put in this way. The Committee which produced this excellent Report have seen that it is necessary to widen the conception of theft so as to embrace every kind of asset, every kind of enjoyment, every kind of benefit, to bring under one
1310
umbrella all kinds of appropriation so long as they are dishonest. That is absolutely right, and is why the Bill in its form is progressive. What they have not, I venture to think, seen is that, once that is adopted, the additional conception of permanent deprivation is unnecessary; or if they have seen it, they have seen it by way of a double approach—Clause 1 and Clause 6—instead of by a single and simplified approach such as would be achieved if the noble and learned Viscount's proposal were adopted.
I shall not say any more about the other classes. I am entirely with the noble Viscount in thinking that, by removing this element, one would greatly benefit the Bill by being able to dispense with Clause 11 and possibly other clauses. But my main reason for supporting the Amendment is that subsection (1), as it stands, is conceptually out of tune with what the Committee are trying to do, and it would make the Bill more intelligible, more general and more progressive if we were to go with him and take out these words.
7.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Although I am stepping into a "basinful" of lawyers, I do not apologise for that. I think that sometimes these debates need a certain amount of ordinary everyday life injected into them. I rise to support the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and just to quote a small case of which I have had experience in the course of my youth work in the last few weeks. A young man removed—I will not say "stole", because that seems to be begging the question in this case—a bicycle pump from a boy's bicycle and went off with it. After a certain length of time the boy required the pump to pump up his bicycle tyres, but had to buy a new pump. In other words, he had suffered at least the loss of the cost of a new pump.
The police are now going after the young man concerned, who, luckily, is known, and when they find him they may be able to "have him up" for stealing the pump. But at the present moment, and in future if this Bill goes through as it is, the young man will be able to turn to the police and say, "Oh no. I only borrowed that bicycle pump. I am going to give it back some time". What do the police do then? Do they prosecute

1311
him for stealing the pump although he has told them that he was only borrowing it? I should like an answer to that question.
Suppose that the police say, "Oh, we can see you are only borrowing it, so we cannot have you up for stealing it. Goodbye. We leave you to continue to enjoy the pump for a little longer". How does the owner ever recover the pump from the young man? Does he have to go to a civil court, at enormous expense, to recover the cost of a 4s. 6d. bicycle pump? Obviously he is not going to do it. He is deprived of the pump. The only thing he can do is to have the young man up for theft, and then the court will return to him, in their judgment, either the pump or its cost. Otherwise, I do not see how he is ever to recover the pump or its value. For this reason, I strongly support the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.
LORD CONESFORD: I rise very briefly to support this Amendment. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce have stated the case so cogently that it is unnecessary to add very much. I can only express my mild astonishment at the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who, after a very formidable display by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, and before the impressive display by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, said that we should not make this Amendment, not because he gave us a single argument against it, but because he said it had been rejected by a Committee. I must say at once that I have an immense respect for that Committee. But if respect for a Committee were a ground for not considering the merits of an Amendment in Parliament, then we ought really to revise our procedures rather drastically. We ought to say that any law reform recommended by a strong legal committee should be passed without a Committee stage. I really cannot accept that argument.
I speak, of course, before the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who may produce arguments that we think have great weight and tell against this Amendment; but I think we ought to be given reasons. If I may say so, one of the things that
1312
predisposes me in favour of this Amendment is noticing what the Bill finds necessary owing to the fact that we have these words about permanently depriving.
I find Clause 11 of this Bill one of the most ridiculous clauses I have ever seen in a suggested Act of Parliament. I cannot think of any particular reason why a picture in the National Gallery should be protected but a picture in my house should not. I do not follow the argument. Why is it so necessary to protect one picture and not the other? I agree that the picture in the National Gallery is in all probability of infinitely greater value than the picture in my house. Nevertheless, if I have a work of art in my house, why should somebody be at liberty, supposing it is somebody who has gained access to the house perfectly legitimately—
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? He has given a precise example of the reason for Clause 11. If it is a picture stolen from his house by a burglar it will be with the intention permanently to deprive. If someone stole a Goya from the National Gallery it may not be with that intention.
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I think, is quite wrong. I was not supposing a burglar; I was supposing that somebody who quite legitimately was in my house, for a similar reason that was held to actuate the man who stole the Goya, decided it would be a very good idea to remove my picture. I should be without any protection under Clause 11, and might be without any protection from the criminal law as long as we have these words about "permanently depriving", because the story that was put up by the gentleman who removed the Goya might equally be put up by the gentleman who removed a picture from a private house to which he had originally obtained legitimate entry. If I am entirely wrong my error can no doubt be pointed out, but it seems to me that cogent reasons against this clause have been given by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, they have been supported by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, and very strongly supported, with reasons which commanded my complete assent, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.

1313
If I may, I feel bound to call attention again to the article from the academic lawyers in The Times, who pointed out that this requirement of permanent deprivation was not a requirement in the law of many civilised countries. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne also mentioned the provision drafted by R. S. Wright, and I think we want an answer to this. I speak, as I have said, before we have heard the Government's reply, but the complication of our law that is involved by our having this requirement is very great. I suppose, having learnt my law a long time ago, that I have perhaps an exaggerated respect for the Common Law, and the Common Law when embodied in a Statute; and, of course, the requirement of permanent deprivation is very ancient indeed. But for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, when we are simplifying the whole of the criminal law on the subject I think we ought carefully to consider whether we should not get rid of this requirement.
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST: Whatever your Lordships may think about the views of those of us who sit on these Benches, I hope you will at least not feel that they are marred by any dull and barren uniformity. Greatly as I respect always the views of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I must confess that on this occasion I find myself in entire agreement with all that was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice. We can make words mean what we would like them to mean, but I suggest that to adopt the suggestions of the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, would be to give the words "theft" and "stealing" not only meanings entirely different from those they have always possessed, but meanings entirely different from those which are recognised by members of the public.
The case has been put of a car being taken. Somebody leaves his car in one place and along comes somebody else who, without any sort of claim to take it, decides that for his own convenience, for his selfish ends, he will take it away, although at the time he fully intends to return it. He may be acting entirely dishonestly and he may be doing it to save himself trouble, and he may be causing
1314
infinite trouble and bother for the owner. He takes it away, uses it for his own purposes, and then he replaces it in exactly the place where it was before and in exactly the condition in which he found it. The owner may not even have known that it had been taken away. As I suggest, that is not what any of us regard as stealing. It is certainly not what is regarded in the Common Law as stealing, and that is an offence made under another clause of this Bill, and provision has already been made for that.
I very much sympathise with what the noble Viscount said, that this Bill might even be made much shorter, but it would be made shorter at the expense not merely of a fundamental change of our concepts but, as I think, by adopting notions that would not agree with the notions accepted by most people. We understand what is meant by "stealing", and to make some things stealing which everyone would feel is not stealing would, I think, not be a service to the law.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he possibly tell the Committee whether such a case of a car being moved dishonestly and returned to the exact spot in exactly the condition in which it was taken has ever occurred?
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST: I am not sure that it has ever occurred that pictures belonging to my noble friend Lord Conesford have been stolen, but surely we are allowed to put these illustrations in order to test the principle.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: I should like to speak very briefly, because I believe I am the only person who is not a lawyer who has spoken, with the exception of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. I should like to mention a case of which I have personal knowledge which seems to me, in the absence of an answer which we may get from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and to justify what, as I understand it, this Amendment is aiming to do. This was not a case of a motor car, though, like some of your Lordships, I have suffered in that particular way. As I understand it, that would be covered by Clause 12. Nor did the incident that I have in mind take place in a public building, where it would have been

1315
covered by Clause 11, but in a flat next door to where my parents lived.
A young married couple had spent a considerable amount of money on furniture, pictures and carpets. They went away for a holiday, leaving behind them in the house as servants a married couple who had been engaged the previous week. Two days later the married couple who were acting as servants, with the assistance of the porters in the flat, had a large number of the more valuable items taken downstairs and put in a furniture van, on the understanding that they were wanted in the country. So far as I know, that was the end of the story. The servants were not entitled to do this by their employers. I suppose if it could be proved that they had subsequently sold those goods that would be evidence that they intended permanently to deprive the owners of them. If they had argued that they had no intention of doing that but wanted to set up house themselves, and that they found this a cheaper way of doing it than buying furniture; and intended, after a certain number of years, that the goods should be returned, would that have been "theft" under this new Bill? If not, would it have been an offence of any kind, and, if so, what offence would it have been? I am asking this merely for clarification.
7.40 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I think I showed prescience earlier on in suggesting that we should have a full Report stage. I am quite sure that this has now been indicated. I am content to speak to this Amendment, which emphasises the great importance of the Bill, and I think it also emphasises what I said earlier in response to my noble friend, Lord Chorley, that we would devote all necessary time to a full consideration of this Bill. Before I heard the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, I had intended to say three things about the Government's general attitude to Amendments to this Bill. The first thing is that we put the greatest possible weight on the Criminal Law Revision Committee's recommendations, which they have reached after discussion in depth over a period of years. A later speaker to my mind, misquoted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington—not that he is not used to that. I
1316
took down as far as I could what he said, and perhaps I may repeat it, so as to get it right, because it is exactly my view of this. I may be paraphrasing; I do not know. But it is important that we should get it right. Reform is acceptable only if what we propose to put in its place is better than what we have. What we have at the moment is this Bill, based very closely on what the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended.
I was not quite sure that I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilber-force, when he said that the clause as drafted did not carry out the Committee's intention. Except for Clause 6 and Clause 11 we have accepted virtually unchanged the Committee's intentions, and therefore it seems extraordinary at this stage to hear that we have not carried out the Committee's intentions when they did this very job. So in considering Amendments we attach the greatest possible importance, I think rightly, to what this very high-powered and important Committee, which sat for years and considered these things very carefully indeed, thought. The second thing is that the Government support the Committee in their desire to start from a new basis and to free us wherever possible from reliance on Case Law, much of it very old. I think that is an objective which we should bear in mind in considering the Amendments that come before us.
Thirdly (and this has great relevance to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said), in this Theft Bill we do not wish—and it does not arise on this Amendment—if it can be avoided, to widen the offence of theft to such an extent that it includes perhaps analogous offences which are not theft, which are not stealing. The reason for this is very plain. This, in our hope, is the beginning of the building up of a code of criminal law, a new criminal code, and this is the Theft Bill. Therefore we hope that these (things will be considered, certainly when, later, we come to Amendments which are quite definitely not concerned with theft, and I hope your Lordships will not press that those should be included in this Bill.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said something to the effect that "If our Amendments are not drafted in a way to satisfy the Parliamentary

1317
draftsman, we hope they will not be turned down on that account". I am surprised he thought it necessary to say that. Although it would be my duty to point out that an Amendment was technically faulty, this has never been any reason for not accepting something in principle, and perhaps giving assistance where needed.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I made that observation after observations by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley; it was in consequence of those observations that I made that remark.
LORD STONHAM: I am even more surprised that the noble Viscount made those observations on this particular Amendment to leave out "permanently". There cannot possibly be anything wrong with that Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: One never knows. I think I have heard it suggested that if we took out the word "permanently" it would be better to take out also the words "with the intention of depriving the other of it", because that is covered by "appropriation". I did not feel confident that I had done it right.
LORD STONHAM: I am glad to have elicited that explanation.
Noble Lords have referred to Clause 11, Clause 12, Clause 4 and Clause 6 to illustrate the point with regard to this particular Amendment, and I do not object to that. But it prompts me to say that if it is the case that acceptance of this Amendment to remove the word "permanently" from this subsection would involve also the removal of three clauses, and possibly even substantial sections of the Bill, I certainly think that at this stage it would be unwise to do so. I think we ought to discuss this aspect.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The only thing about that is that we should be removing two clauses that were not dealt with by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and both of which have been put in by the Government since. Only one clause is really in point.
LORD STONHAM: I am expressing my own point of view on this, and certainly on the first count I should not agree that these three clauses should be removed.
1318
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked me one or two questions to begin with. He asked me whether in Canada, where they had legislation of the kind that he would like to see, there had been any serious social consequences. I do not know the answer to that question at the moment. I am making inquiries and will let the noble Viscount know when I hear. With regard to the question of Jamaica, the legislation referred to by the Committee, at page 19, was not enacted.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I never suggested that it was. It was cited by the Committee, as an obviously authoritative text. I was adopting that because they cited it, and said that it did not contain this ingredient.
LIRD STONHAM: The noble Viscount will know that I am not trying to make clever points; I am merely trying to get to an understanding. I was even trying to find the note that I had on that particular point. I cannot find it but I do know what the point is. It is that the Committee do not quote the whole Code and we are not aware whether there is written into it a permanent intention to deprive; and therefore I cannot answer that particular point.
The noble and learned Viscount quoted extensively from paragraph 56 of the Committee's Report, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I also quote extensively, because this is the whole crux of the argument. As I see it, the argument is this: if Lord Dilhorne's Amendment were accepted, if "permanently" were taken out of the definition of theft, it would in all circumstances—and I hope noble Lords will appreciate this—be theft to appropriate property belonging to another even if the intention was only temporarily to deprive the other of it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With great respect to the noble Lord, that would not be right. There must be a dishonest appropriation: that is essential.
LORD STONHAM: Assuming that it is dishonest—I accept that. The noble and learned Viscount is not proposing to take out the word "dishonest". I am dealing only with the word "permanently", which is the only change we are considering. If there were

1319
a dishonest intent and the word "permanently" were taken out, then it would be theft in all circumstances, even if there were only a temporary intention to deprive the other of it. I submit, and I quote in aid the Committee, that this would be a major extention of the law of theft, going far beyond what the Bill does or is intended to do.
As I see it, on the one hand, where there is a dishonest intent if we take out the word "permanently", then every case is theft, whereas the Committee thought that that would be wholly wrong when it could be shown that there was intended only temporary deprivation. May I then read to your Lordships paragraph 56:
"Owing to the requirement in Clause 1(1)…that there should be an intention of permanently depriving the owner, temporary deprivation of property will not be stealing."
They are talking about the law at present.
The paragraph goes on:
" At present it is not stealing, nor is it any other offence except in special cases where it is made so by statute, such as taking and driving away a motor vehicle contrary to Section 217 of the Road Traffic Act 1960."
This Bill follows precisely the same process, because under Clause 12 of this Bill we have offences comparable to those under the Road Traffic Act, of taking away a car.
Then the Committee go on to say:
"We considered whether temporary deprivation of property in general should be included in theft or made a separate offence under the Bill. There is certainly a case for making temporary deprivation punishable in circumstances in which it may involve dishonesty comparable with that involved in theft and may cause serious loss or hardship. The taker gets the benefit of the property without payment, and the owner is correspondingly deprived. The property may be lost or damaged, or it may be useless to the owner by the time it is returned. It is also arguable that theft should be extended to cover temporary deprivation because the general offence of deception under Clause 12(3) which is discussed in paragraphs 96 to 100 will cover deception in order to obtain property temporarily".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord should realise that that is Clause 15 of the Bill that we have here.
LORD STONHAM: Of course I know that, and I knew that the noble and
1320
learned Viscount knew; and I imagine that every noble Lord did.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, but with great respect to the noble Lord, this debate is going to be widely read, I trust, and I hope that when we read out of this Report we shall quote the clause in our Bill rather than the clause in the draft Bill at the end, because the further you go on the more confusing it becomes.
LORD STONHAM: I accept what the noble Viscount has said, and I am sure that will clarify the position. But I am reading from the Committee's Report, and therefore it would appear in Hansard as a quotation and I cannot alter it there, except that I may add words to make the meaning quite clear.
The Report goes on:
"But the Committee"—
this is a most learned and powerful Committee—
"generally are against extending theft to in dude temporary deprivation or creating a general offence of temporary deprivation of property. The former course seems to them wrong because in their view an intention to return the property, even after a long time, makes the conduct essentially different from stealing."
The noble and learned Viscount does not agree with that. He thought that it amounted to the same thing. But there is this difference in law at present, and what is proposed in this Amendment is therefore a major change in the law which the Government are not prepared to accept, and which, on the advice of the Lord Chief Justice, we certainly should not accept unless we are absolutely convinced, and the Committee is absolutely convinced, that what is now proposed is better than what we have in the Bill. Certainly there is no evidence to suggest that it is. In fact, the Lord Chief Justice actually used those words. He said that he was utterly unconvinced with the argument put forward by the Amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest agreed with him. He said, "We can make words mean what we like them to mean, but to give the words 'theft' and 'stealing' meanings entirely different from those they have always had and the public have always understood them to mean, would be wrong."

1321
I think I have quoted the noble and learned Lord correctly. With this I entirely agree.
But the point is this. Here we have this most important Committee working for all these years coming up with these conclusions and then we have a discussion in Committee in your Lordships' House, a most highly informed discussion, apart from my contribution, and there is disagreement. The noble and learned Viscount and a number of his colleagues are of one opinion, and the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and, if I may say so in that context, myself, are of another opinion. Surely this is a case where it would be utterly wrong for this Amendment to be persisted in.
The noble and learned Viscount asked: are there likely to be any social consequences such as the Committee refer to? I would submit that of course there are. You may have a case where you have borrowed your neighbour's lawn mower, although you knew that he would object to your borrowing it. You do not have any real intention of keeping it for a long time; but he could say that you did, and the penalty could be 10 years. You might say, "That is ridiculous; no judge or magistrate would award 10 years". But in the view of the Bill it is not theft if there is an intention only temporarily to deprive. That is why the word "permanently" is so important. My noble friend behind me raised the point about the bicycle pump. But he would have a civil right, and it does not follow, because a person has a civil right, that we should reinforce it by a massive criminal law with a penalty of 10 years and say, "This is theft". I do not think that the criminal law should be extended in this way.
Then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, argued that it is illogical to include the requirements of permanent deprivation in Clause 1 but to cut down the effect by Clause 6, where you give, as it were, exceptions. But we do not agree at all. We think it is entirely logical to provide the exceptions of Clause 6.
LORD WILBERFORCE: I was not complaining that it was illogical. What I was saying was that the Government in Clause 6 have completely departed from what was recommended by the Committee in paragraph 56, and therefore it is use-
1322
less, I would suggest, for them now to appeal to paragraph 56 and say they are carrying out the recommendation. They are not.
LORD STONHAM: With respect to the noble and learned Lord, I cannot accept that the Government have completely departed from it. It is certainly true that the Criminal Law Revision Committee regarded Clause 1 as quite sufficient definition and that the courts would understand it. With respect again, they seem to have been proved wrong by the discussion we have had here to-night, and therefore the Government were right to add this clause, which in my view clarifies the position and makes it much clearer.
But we are on the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount to remove the word "permanently", and the Government think it would be wrong to remove that word because it would have a fundamental and most undesirable effect on the Bill, and on the law as the Criminal Law Revision Committee said it is and thought it should be. In our view, Clauses 11 and 12 deal adequately with serious examples of temporary deprivation. We think that it would be quite wrong to bring under "theft", willy-nilly, a multitude of minor happenings, many of which in the public view would not amount to stealing at all. So although I have been extremely grateful for the discussion and shall consider everything that has been said with the utmost care, between now and Report stage, I cannot agree that the Amendment should be accepted.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I have listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I must confess that I was sir gularly disappointed by it. Lord Stonham spoke about the long time which had existed for considering Amendments to this Bill. Well, he has had a very long time to prepare his speech in reply to this Amendment, and has had ample notice. What has he done? He has just based himself on paragraph 56 of the committee's Report and on nothing else. I will come to that in a moment.
First of all, may I express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to my noble friends Lord Colville and Lord Conesford, and to the

1323
noble Lord opposite for the support which they gave to this Amendment. Lord Stonham's argument, such as it was, is completely defeated by the Government's inclusion of Clause 6, which was not recommended by the Committee at all. That is a complete departure from this principle of an intent permanently to deprive. That invalidates his own argument.
I also pay tribute to those who devote a great deal of their time to serving on committees, such as the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Any Lord Chancellor or former Lord Chancellor is always very grateful to those who add to their ordinary labours work of that sort. But I could not for one moment adhere to the proposition or give it support that because distinguished people are prepared to serve on such a committee one should accept without consideration whatever they recommend. That would mean Parliament delegating to outside bodies some of the functions which it is Parliament's duty to perform, and it would not be right for Parliament to do that. It is the task of Parliament to examine the reasons put forward by distinguished committees like this committee, and to see whether they are right and sound. That is what I did in moving my Amendment. I dealt with every single argument raised in paragraph 56. It is no answer to what I put forward for the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to read to the Committee paragraph 56 of the Report. Of course, I treat what the Lord Chief Justice says with the greatest respect. But what did he say? It really amounted to this: that if you have a committee of this sort, you should accept what they have proposed. He was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as saying that one should not make change unless change is for the better. I entirely agree, and because I myself am satisfied that this change would be for the better in criminal law in England, I put down the Amendment.
The only other noble and learned Lord who spoke was my noble friend, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. It is to my mind extremely interesting that his rejection was confined to one particular ground. He did not deal with the application of this definition as amended throughout the criminal law. He did not in any
1324
way try to contend that it would not lead to simplification. He did not argue that it would lead to hardship or, as the Committee suggested, to serious social consequences. His objection was quite simple. To him, and perhaps to most lawyers, "stealing" means taking and carrying away with the intention permanently to deprive. I do not believe that is true of the great British public; I do not believe that that is the normal use of the English word. That was the reason why my noble and learned friend did not like this Amendment, because he said you could make words mean what you want them to mean. You can define theft to mean anything, but he did not think that it meant what I believe the ordinary British public think it to mean when they find anything of theirs has been, to use a colloquialism, "pinched". They do not even apply their minds to whether it has been taken away with an intention permanently to deprive.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that of course this means a major change; I do not deny that it is a change of principle. But reading through the Committee's Report—and I say this with great respect to them—they have proposed some pretty fundamental changes, but I think that by the time they came to paragraph 56 they rather suffered from a loss of nerve. I am very disappointed by the noble Lord's reply. He said quite positively that the Government were not prepared to accept a change. He did not say there would be any consideration given to it. After the debate we have had to-day I think that this change is right. I remain of that opinion, and, in view of the answer which we have received, I would ask the Committee to carry the Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I only want to say—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I say one further thing, which I forgot to mention? There is one question with which I should like the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to deal—I should have liked the Lord Chief Justice to deal with it—and it is this. It is very important that a summing-up to a jury should be very clear to them. If I read the Bill aright, this is what will have to be said to the jury in every single case of theft.

1325
You will have to tell them about dishonest appropriation and what that means. Then you will have to say to them that there must be an intention permanently to deprive. You will have to go on to say: "You have to be satisfied that there is an intention permanently to deprive". But as the Bill stands you have to go on to say, "But you may convict if you think that, although not intending permanently to deprive, the accused intended complete usurpation of the property". That may be a change which satisfies the Lord Chief Justice's criterion of a change for the better. I beg leave to doubt it, and I think that if this language is left as it is it will lead to a great deal of confusion and a great deal of litigation.
LORD STONHAM: I want to say only two things. The first is on a point of detail. I think that the noble and learned Viscount and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, were wrong in suggesting that we had departed from the Committee's advice in regard to Clause 6. In paragraph 58 of their Report the Committee clearly speak of applying special cases, and they say at the end of the paragraph that they considered a provision in the Bill dealing expressly with these cases, but decided that it would be very difficult to frame
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I understand that it would meet your Lordships' convenience if we now adjourned consideration of the Committee stage. I
because they could not cover all the cases without being elaborate. That is very different from saying that what we have done in the Bill is a contradiction.
The other point I would mention is in regard to the noble and learned Viscount's observations on my remarks. Naturally I regret it if he found them unsatisfactory or disappointing. I cannot withdraw my view that I regard this as a fundamental and important Amendment which the Government could not accept in Committee but I said, and I meant, that I would study the whole debate between now and Report stage. That must be within the noble Viscount's recollection. I cannot of course give any undertaking in the matter except to say that I shall study it. But that I will do, as I said I would. Indeed, it is my intention to do so with any Amendment that is raised during the Committee stage, where we do not reach a conclusion which is satisfactory to those who move it or to those who listen.
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Barrington, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Somers, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Mar, E.

Wade, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rhodes, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Parker of Waddington, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L.

Peddie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

therefore move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

IMMIGRANTS: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS AND WAR SERVICE
8.17 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will extend political asylum to those who refuse military service in other countries on conscience grounds. The noble Lord said: My Lords, quite honestly, I had not expected the previous debate to end so quickly. I think it will be accepted that to-day there are many people in all parts of the world, and particularly young people, whose minds and consciences are disturbed by the problem of participation in war. This arose particularly after the use of the first nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More recently, the doubt of people about participation in war has arisen from the conflict in Vietnam. Large numbers of people have not only read of the appalling occurrences in Vietnam but have witnessed them on television. This has led to a very wide view, not only in our own country but in all the countries which can read about these things or see television, that war itself is now becoming such a crime against humanity that it is insupportable in the conscience of the world.
In this Question I am suggesting that our Government should extend political asylum to those who object on conscientious grounds to participation in war, should they reach this country. There are now very many countries which provide some form of exemption to conscientious objectors. Sweden and the Scandinavian countries do so; this country does so; America does so. Someone suggested at an earlier stage of our proceedings to-day that I did not speak for Britain, although I was speaking for the policy of the Government. In this instance I want to speak very emphatically for Britain. Our laws regarding conscientious objection are the most liberal in the whole world. It is true that during the last war, when conscription was imposed, a number of objectors were rejected by tribunals and then, after periods in prison, were recognised as genuine. But, on the whole—and I speak as one who was chairman of the Central Board for Conscientious Objectors in the last world war—our provisions for con-
1328
scientious objectors were fairer and more equitable than those in any other country.
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of our exemption of conscientious objectors was that it was not limited to those objecting on grounds of religious belief. It was not even limited to those who were opponents of war in all circumstances. It also allowed political objectors when the tribunals felt that for the man appealing it was, indeed, from the depths of his being, a matter of right or wrong. I took the test case on this issue. I took many cases. There was one case in which an Indian had not an objection to all war but had an objection to fighting for this country in a war for democracy when his own country was denied the democratic right of self-government. The appeal tribunal felt that this was, to him, so much a matter of being a decision that was right or wrong that they recognised him as a conscientious objector and exempted him. I want to pay my very great tribute to the tolerance and feeling of liberty of this country, that we should have extended the rights of conscientious objectors in that very broad way.
I am asking to-night that the principle of conscientious objection should be accepted as a ground for political asylum as a general principle, but, quite clearly, to-day it applies most to the boys in the United States of America who are now being conscripted for the Vietnam war. My Lords, I was present two years ago at a meeting which I think has moved me more than any since the last world war. It was a meeting of students at Ann Arbor University in Michigan. There were 100 of these students, and they all expected to be called up for service in the Vietnam war. There were religious objectors there; there were objectors on moral grounds other than religion; and there were political objectors whose objection was deep. For them, again, it was an issue of right or wrong. What was so impressive in that gathering was that the religious objectors said, "We will not take advantage of the American law, which allows men to be exempted on the ground of religion but which does not allow anyone whose objection is not on religious grounds, even if it is on moral grounds, and certainly not if it is on political

1329
grounds, to be exempted". There, the religious objectors said, "We will, equally with the others, when our draft cards come for service in Vietnam, tear them up"; and, as one knows, hundreds of these boys have done so. They have done so when the penalty is five years' imprisonment, and already some of those penalties have been imposed.
My Lords, the tribunals in America are very often acting in a narrow sphere. There is one boy in England at this time who did great service, inspired by the idea of serving the community, in the American Peace Corps. His objection to service in Vietnam was a religious objection to war. When he got to the tribunal he was denied exemption because he belonged to the Episcopal Church—that is, the Anglican Church of this country, and the Anglican Church has not declared in principle against all participation in war. He therefore was not even judged on his own religious objection: he was judged on the ground that the Church to which he belonged had not declared that view.
I am asking that these boys—and not only these boys, but all others in this country who have this conscientious objection to military service, whether it be religious, moral or political with this depth—shall be regarded as political refugees and have political asylum here. I want to acknowledge that our Government have been very generous and very liberal in granting political asylum to many refugees. I suppose that in the last three years I have dealt with about twenty people who have escaped from South Africa—opponents of apartheid—and who, if they were to return, would be liable to imprisonment, and perhaps death. There is only one of those cases that I have taken up with the Home Office that has not been accepted by the Home Office. I want to pay my great tribute to that fact. The Home Office is very ready indeed to give political asylum to those who come from Communist countries.
I need not say to my noble friend that I have the deepest sympathy with those who refuse to obey the dictates of apartheid and with those who are refugees from it in South Africa. I hope that I need not tell him that because of my great belief in personal liberty I have the utmost sympathy with refugees from Communist countries who come here. But I
1330
say quite sincerely that the deepest reason for disobeying the laws of a country in response to ideals and loyalties which are greater than those to one's own rational laws—deeper than opposition to apartheid, deeper than opposition to the totalitarianism in Communist countries—is the growing belief among thousands of people to-day that war has become so appalling that no human being with a conscience should be ready to participate in it.
When I raised this matter recently on a Starred Question, my noble friend replied that these men would be treated as ordinary immigrants; that their cases would be treated on their merits; that they would not be given political asylum, but would not be sent back to America; and that they would be given the opportunity to go to America or to other countries at the end of the period during which they were allowed to remain here. I am a reasonable person and I accept even that as some assurance. But I should like that assurance to be very definite to-night. I have a particular reason for asking this. I am asking my noble friend, when he replies to my Question, to say, quite categorically, that no man will be returned to America on the ground that he is refusing military service. I want him to say that categorically, because that is what he said a few days ago in answer to questions which were put. I have reasons for asking for a categorical statement to-night.
Secondly, I ask him whether he will repeat what he said in answer to questions which I put, that these men will be given the opportunity, if they so desire, to go to another country—to France, where they will not be proceeded against; to Sweden, which very generously recognises them as refugees and gives them the right of asylum—and that they will have the opportunity, at the end of whatever term for which they have been permitted to remain in this country, to go to one of those other countries. But, thirdly, and most persistently, I beg my noble friend to recognise conscientious objection to war and to a particular war. I wonder how many young men in this country, if they were conscripted to fight in the Vietnam war, would feel it right to go. I wonder how many of them would feel in their very souls that they would be doing wrong and denying what was finest in

1331
their own ideals. There would be thousands. I am asking my noble friend to appreciate that this action, which is based on conscience and principle, in the sense of one's being right or wrong, is the deepest of all grounds on which any nation which has pride in its liberty should provide asylum to those from another country.
My Lords, I want to conclude by saying this. I wonder whether America appreciates that the beginning of the United States was based on conscience; that the settlers who went there—Roman Catholics, Protestants, Quakers—went to those 13 British Colonies because their consciences could not accept the restrictions upon religion which were imposed in this country. America had its beginnings in those old conscientious objectors. I say to our own Government that it would be fair reciprocity if to-day, when young men in America are being compelled to do what they believe to be wrong, we were prepared to receive conscientious objectors from America, just as the American shores received our conscientious objectors at an earlier time.
My Lords, I make that appeal as sincerely as I possibly can. I believe that in the long run the reality of the civilisation of any country will be based more than anything else upon how far it appreciates the sense of right and wrong in its individuals, upon how far it gives those individuals the opportunity to live with their consciences and upon how far it is prepared to receive those from other countries who are animated in that way. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name.
8.40 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to press the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has put forward in asking this Question, because I think—and I know I share this opinion with a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lords who usually inhabit these Benches—that it is a matter of principle. It is of course obvious that we must mention to-night the position in Vietnam, but it is very important that we should not get led into arguments pro or anti the American stand. It is something fundamental that we are trying to say about
1332
the status of a certain class of refugee. The tradition of Britain in the past in this respect has, with very few black spots, been honourable, and the Wilson Committee quotes the practice as being:
"to grant an application for political asylum only if it is reasonable to suppose that the result of refusing entry would be the return of the alien to a country in which he would face danger to life or liberty, or persecution of such a kind as to render life unsupportable for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion."
There appears to be very little doubt that in the situation we are talking of, Americans who wish to evade conscription are subject to loss of liberty if they return home; and it is also, I think, quite definite that this is because of a political opinion and not because of what we would normally designate as a crime. Clearly Britain does regard the attitude of America, to take the present example, as in some way defective. Britain is a signatory to the Council of Europe resolution of January 26, 1967, which lays down that
"persons liable to conscription for military service who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction, arising from religious, ethical, moral, humanitarian, philosophical or similar motives, refuse to perform military service shall enjoy a personal right to be released from the application to perform such service".
Secondly the same resolution goes on to say that:
"this right shall be regarded as deriving logically from the fundamental rights of the individual in democratic rule-of-law States…"
These rights have been guaranteed in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This particular resolution also allows for alternative non-military service which could be offered to those who do not wish to serve military service.
It seems to me that the resolution from which I have just quoted is important, because it shows that we do not just regard this option of declining military service as something which can be allowed in some countries and not in others. Of course it is not for us to interfere in the internal workings of another country, or to seek to interfere, but it shows that we regard it as stemming from a fundamental human right and therefore something which we ought to uphold whenever we can.

1333
My Lords, this is the main point. I do not wish to pursue the particular cases which are arising at the moment, except to put three very short points. First, this is a war which has never been declared by the country which is conscripting these people, and I think that would be a reinforcing reason. Secondly, as we have heard, the grounds on which conscientious objection is allowed in the United States have been narrowed since 1948 to those who believe that there is a superior being, a God, loyalty to whom overcomes other obligations. As a Christian, I feel that this arrogance in saying that atheists and agnostics cannot have loyalties and beliefs, and ethical beliefs, which go beyond some of the laws which may be put on them by their country, is a very wrong one.
Thirdly, I should like to point out that the National Selective Service Director in the United States, in a memorandum of October 26, 1967, has called on all draft boards to review all classifications of persons not involved in activities construed as not being in "the best national interest". This is direct persecution of those who, for political reasons, oppose this war.
I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in appealing to Her Majesty's Government to make it clear that we will offer political asylum to these people, and that we regard this as a basic human right, as I maintain we said when we subscribed to that resolution at Strasbourg.
8.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, may I, very briefly, support the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in the position which he has taken in this matter. I myself was in the Army in the last war and had no objection at all to our fighting that war; but I can imagine many circumstances in which I should have conscientious objections to fighting a particular war. In fact, there was a time, when I was still on the Army Emergency Reserve of Officers, when the question of whether I should refuse duty in the case of a call-up in a particular instance was present in my mind. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take a sympathetic view of the question. I speak as a member of a Church which has
1334
recently very strongly asserted the sovereignty of the conscience in a Christian.
8.48 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister of State whether, when he replies, he will explain something of the religious grounds for exemption in the United States of America? I believe that Mr. Cassius Clay is at present facing imprisonment and his objection is on so-called religious grounds. May I also ask whether my noble friend will tell us if these young men concerned have been given the opportunity to serve in the Peace Corps, because I believe there is in existence an organisation which is called the Peace Corps and which gives them an opportunity to serve if they object to taking part in a war as combatants?
8.49 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway paid tribute to our method of dealing in this country with those who have a conscientious objection to military service. I am not asked to deal with that to-night, I am asked to say whether Her Majesty's Government:
"win extend political asylum to those who refuse military service in other counties on conscience grounds."
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, quoted the Wilson Committee with regard to political asylum, and I think that for the purposes of the record, and in order to give as complete an answer as I can to my noble friend, it would be well if I first defined the doctrine and the nature of political asylum.
Political asylum is the right of the receiving State to give asylum. There is no right in an individual to receive it. There is a right to give it, but it is, technically a right of the receiving State as against the State of the national. It is at the discretion of the receiving State how it shall exercise the right. This country traditionally has exercised this right so as to give asylum to the victims of oppression. We have done so for very many years, and are proud of the way we have done so. In considering applications, our practice is to grant asylum if it is reasonable to suppose that the result

1335
of refusing admission to a foreign national will be his return to a country in which, on grounds of politics, race or religion, he will face danger to life or liberty, or persecution of such a kind and extent as to render life insupportable. This is well-established practice, and Her Majesty's Government see no reason at all to vary it. The fear of persecution must be well founded, and the persecution which is feared must amount to more than a penalty imposed for a breach of the law. In other words, it has to be shown that the penalty imposed on an individual by the legal processes of his country, and which may be awaiting him if he is forced to return, amounts to persecution and not just to punishment.
My Lords, it follows that where, in a democracy, a man seeks to evade the military service to which he and his fellow countrymen are liable, and is thereby vulnerable to criminal proceedings, such a situation cannot be regarded, in itself, as satisfying the criterion for political asylum. A foreign national with a conscientious objection to military service should make his case for exemption to the authorities of his own country. In the last week or so my noble friend has asked me questions about individual citizens from the United States and has referred cases to the Home office. He has also referred to the hundreds of these young people we met together. This also answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Granville of Eye about Cassius Clay. Under the United States Military Selective Service Act 1967 no one is to be liable to combatant service who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, that is exactly the point. In America any exemption is limited to those who have a religious objection, and even in those cases exemption is not always granted. The moral objector who is not religious has no right of exemption in America.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to make my speech, he will find that I shall deal with this point. This is one of the difficulties we have in Question and Answer, and when my noble friend suggested it, I welcomed the idea of making a full statement. I cannot comment on the religious
1336
training and belief, but that is the first leg of the law. The second is that "religious training and belief" is not to include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code. Thirdly, claims to conscientious objection are to be examined by a local board, with a right of appeal to the President if the local board is not unanimous; and fourthly, if the claim to a conscientious objection is made out, the applicant is to be assigned a non-combatant service in the armed forces, or if conscientiously opposed to such service, to civilian work contributing to the national health, safety or interest.
Under American law, therefore, there is proper provision for assessing claims of conscientious objection to military service; for the hearing of appeals; and for assignment to non-combatant or civilian service in lieu of military service. That probably covers the question my noble friend asked about the Peace Corps. It would appear, however, that a person who objected to serve in a particular war, as opposed to all wars, would not be exempt on grounds of conscientious objection, whatever his motives. However, we would not regard this as a ground for political asylum in default of evidence that those whose claims to exemption are rejected are persecuted, as opposed to being punished. The penalty under American law for evasion of military service is imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to 10,000 dollars. There is a right of appeal to higher courts. No one is to be tried by court-martial unless he has been inducted for training and service.
It is the case—and this is my noble friend's point—that a claim to conscientious objection in the United States can be based only on religious training and belief, and this would exclude non-believers whose conscientious objections might in some other countries be regarded as valid. In Britain we have no definition of conscientious objection, and it is left to local tribunals and to appellate tribunals to be arbiters of conscience, no grounds being barred, whether religious, personal or humanitarian.
My noble friend Lord Brockway is asking, in effect, that the British law in respect to conscientious objection should

1337
be applied to foreign nationals, and that if their country's law is different from ours, they should be granted political asylum if they come to Britain. I was asked to deal with this sympathetically My noble friend has indicated just how sympathetically we deal with cases but what he now asks is not possible. The fact that a different criterion is applied by some other country in determining the validity of an appeal on grounds of conscientious objection cannot be regarded in itself as providing ground for political asylum unless there is evidence to show that those whose claims to exemption are rejected are persecuted, as opposed to being punished. I emphasise the words "in itself", because if there were other circumstances, as there could be, it might well be that a person who was a conscientious objector might be granted political asylum, but not solely because he had a conscientious objection to military service.
My noble friend asked me two questions. The first was: could I say categorically that no man would be returned to the United States on the ground that he has evaded military service? The provisions of Part 2 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 for the arrest and handing over of deserters do not cover persons who are not members of the United States Forces. A person who has merely failed to report after being called up for service and is therefore not yet a member of these Forces is not liable to arrest under the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act. I hope that is clear to my noble friend. As I told him on a previous occasion, and as I now repeat, the fact of conscientious objection is neither a ground for refusing admission in this country nor for enforcing departure; and it is not a ground for granting political asylum. We are prepared to consider an application for admission, or a request for an extension of permitted stay, on the basis of the proposals put to us in their relation to normal immigration policy. Many young foreigners come here for study and are freely admitted, provided that they are following a full-time course of bona fide studies and are able to maintain themselves while here. Others may be working here in employment approved by the Ministry of Labour, or be here simply as visitors because they have the necessary financial
1338
resources. We consider applications sympathetically in the light of the circumstances of each case. But to give the general assurance about political asylum asked for by my noble friend would not be possible, for the reasons that I have explained.
There is one final point. My noble friend asked me whether the people he described were free to go to other countries if other countries would take them. Of course they are free to go. I have said that there is nothing to stop them from leaving this country and going to another. That is entirely up to the other country. We shall not prevent them from going. They are perfectly free to go if they wish, or they are free to stay here, provided that they satisfy the normal Immigration Act procedures, which we think are fair for them and fair for other people, and which will be administered without fear or favour.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I do not want to abuse Parliamentary procedure—I should just like to ask for some information. When he says that no man will be returned to America because he has not yet become a member of the Armed Forces of America—I understood that to be the reason—would he say that that applies to someone who has been rejected by the tribunals, who has been drafted and has torn up his draft card? Is he not then subject to the American military laws, just as in this country those of us who were conscientious objectors in the First World War were regarded as part of the military as soon as we had been handed over to them?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am not an expert on United States law but my understanding of the position is that the Act under which we should proceed would be the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, Part II—that is, in regard to members of visiting forces over here. This is where our jurisdiction lies in this country. My understanding of the position is that a person who has merely failed to report after being called up for service, and is therefore not yet a member of those forces, is not liable under the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act to arrest.
In the case to which my noble friend referred, the young man had been to two tribunals and to the High Court. Whether

1339
he had actually been called up, I do not know. Therefore, it is impossible in an individual case like that for me to answer the question. But certainly, on the face of it, and in the terms of the
1340
Visiting Forces Act, if he had not been called up, we should have no power to send him back to the United States.
House adjourned at five minutes past nine o'clock.