Sitting of 7 March 1968

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.
COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)
FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST OFFICE

    Control of Expenditure
    Mr. Onslowasked the Postmaster-General what steps he takes to prevent unnecessary or wasteful expenditure by his Department.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): Control of expenditure is the constant concern of all levels of management and is exercised through a comprehensive system of financial, budgetary and operational management employing modern standard techniques.
    Mr. Onslow: How does the Postmaster-General square that Answer with the fact that £3,000 was recently wasted in the Guildford telephone area in sending
    622
    out this sort of ludicrous information about the new price of telephone directories?
    Mr. Short: This is not wasted at all. It is money very well spent. At the moment directory inquiries on the telephone cost us almost I s. each. We are trying to persuade people to use the yellow pages of the classified directory, because we find that the greater part of these inquiries could be answered through the yellow pages.
    Mr. Bryan: On the subject of waste, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Bristol Siddeley affair showed up a quite astonishing incompetence in buying methods in some Government Departments? Is he absolutely—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must deal with the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Bryan: Is he absolutely certain that the commercial skills of his own Department match up to its very difficut tasks?
    Mr. Short: Yes. I think that this kind of case could not occur in the Post Office.

    "I'm Backing Britain" Postmark
    Mr. Onslowasked the Postmaster-General what instructions he gave regarding the introduction of the " I'm Backing Britain "postmark.
    Mr. Edward Short: My instructions were for an early introduction of the postmark campaign, at the largest possible number of offices.
    Mr. Onslow: What on earth are these words supposed to mean in this context? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they cannot refer to the sender or recipient of the letter, who has no say in what appears on the envelope? If the Post Office is backing Britain not only should it not need to be told this, but would it not be more effective to do something to improve the postal and telephone services instead?
    Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign, let him say so.

    Equipment
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the number of new jobs, in industry supplying Post Office equipment, will be created in Scotland over the next 12 months.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have made no estimate. It is impossible to equate jobs in the telecommunications industry in Scotland with extra Post Office business there, as the industry produces equipment for other customers at home, and for export, as well as for the Post Office. I expect Scotland to get its share of the increased Post Office business which is going to development areas.
    Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that we in development areas in Scotland very much welcome this development. Does he also recognise that there are complaints in the local areas concerned that most of the jobs are for women, when jobs for men would be infinitely preferable?
    Mr. Short: I realise that there are a lot of jobs for women in this kind of business. Next year we are increasing our orders for telephone exchange equipment by almost 30 per cent. and the greater part of this will go to the development areas.

    Returned Letter Branches (Destruction of Articles)
    Mr. Laneasked the Postmaster-General whether he has completed the review of the rules governing the destruction of articles in the returned letter branches; and if he will make a statement.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): The review will be completed in about two weeks' time.
    Mr. Lane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making this review and for the very full apology that he has sent to a constituent of mine who suffered loss of valuable documents. Is he aware that this seems a very long time to take to review what was a relatively simple matter? May we have an assurance that the review really will go far enough towards eliminating the risk of any repetition?
    Mr. Slater: I hope that we shall be able to achieve that. The hon. Gentleman will agree that we were right to obtain the views of our staff, people working in the returned letter branches, responsible for looking after this traffic and with practical experience, before issuing revised instructions.

    Supplies (Procurement)
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General what alteration in methods for procuring supplies he will make in the light of the report of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
    Sir Harmar Nichollsasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the renewal of the bulk supply agreement for telephone exchange equipment for the period after 31st March, 1968.
    Mr. Edward Short: The future arrangements for the procurement of exchange equipment are still being discussed with the manufacturers, and I hope to make a statement shortly. The Telephone Apparatus Agreement is not being renewed and we shall be seeking competitive tenders later in the year.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost everyone whom one meets in the industry seems to have had access to the report by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation? Is he further aware that it is a subject of immense interest to this House? Could we not have the report published, for our consideration?
    Mr. Short: I have looked at this, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, who has answered a Question in the House about it. Manufacturers gave information to the inquiry on the basis that it would remain confidential. For that reason we feel that we are bound by this pledge to the manufacturers, and we cannot publish the report.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is doing the right thing with vigour. Is he not aware that in the installation of telephones per capita we are dragging behind many civilised countries such as the United States and Sweden and even Commonwealth countries like Australia and

    625
    New Zealand and that the decision to ask for a year's rent in advance is not the way to catch up?
    Mr. Short: I agree that the penetration of the telephone in this country for many years has been behind that of many other countries. We are beginning to sell the telephone quite intensively in many parts of the country, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he goes to this year's Daily Mail Ideal Home Exhibition.
    Mr. Ellis: On the question of new contracts for procuring supplies, would my right hon. Friend note that the Prices and Incomes Board's Report No. 55 points out that distributors' costs are traditionally borne as a percentage of costs but that in some cases there is no need to increase prices because those extra costs have not been increased due to devaluation?

    Charges
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General if he will give an undertaking that he will retain Post Office charges until the House has had an opportunity to debate the forthcoming report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the subject.
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General which telephone charges he now intends to reduce.
    Mr. Edward Short: I cannot anticipate the decisions which will be taken in the light of the impending report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I shall make a statement in due course.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many industries with absolutely parallel reasons for raising their prices as the Post Office have had their requests turned down by the Prices and Incomes Board? I ask him quite seriously what he proposes to do if the Prices and Incomes Board turns down his request.
    Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to answer a hypothetical question like that. However, no other industry in Britain has to find the sort of money which we have to find for capital investment. For example, over the next five years we must find £2,000 million. From where would the hon. Gentleman get it?
    Mr. Gilmour: Since the right hon. Gentleman has said that some telephone charges are too high, does it not follow that these should be lowered—or can this Government only put up charges?
    Mr. Short: I have said that one of the objects of the present operation is to correct the imbalance in the present tariff structure. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that over the years the charges have been tinkered with so much, with bits put on here and bits put on there, that they are out of balance. I hope that we can get them right and that they will stay right for many years.

    National Giro
    Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the progress of the Giro.
    Mr. Edward Short: The arrangements for setting up the National Giro service continue to make satisfactory progress, and I expect the service to open towards the end of this year as planned.
    Mr. Jopling: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how it is intended to invest the money which will accrue and how soon he hopes to get £150 million of investment so that the interest rates will cover costs and the break-even point will be reached?
    Mr. Short: That is another matter. If the hon. Gentleman wants detailed replies to questions like that, he must put down a Question.
    Mr. Bryan: Would the Postmaster-General say from the surveys which I know the Post Office has been making what sort of number of customers it expects to have for the Giro in the opening year?
    Mr. Short: At the moment we are allocating large numbers of registration numbers to business firms. Later this year we hope to start doing this with private individuals as well. The response to date has been rather better than we expected.

    Telecommunications Industry
    Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General if he will publish a White Paper on the implications of his proposed Post Office reorganisation for the telecommunications industry.
    Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. The only such implication, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the reorganisation now in progress, is that responsibility for relations with the telecommunications industry is being concentrated in a newly created Purchasing and Supply Department.
    Mr. Jopling: In view of the magnitude of the telecommunications industry, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it would not be better to set it up as a separate public corporation rather than lump it together with the Post Office, as is envisaged?
    Mr. Short: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. If he means setting up the postal side of the Post Office as a separate business and the telecommunications side as another separate business, that is being done. Managerially the two businesses are quite separate from broad level right down to field level, including the regions. However, there will be one board at the top—one Post Office Corporation at the top of the two businesses.

    Post Office Magazine, "Courier"
    Mr. Blakerasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has to reorganise the Post Office magazine Courier, having regard to the loss of £45,661 in the first 12 months of operation to September, 1967; and if he will state the average loss on each copy sold in that period.
    Mr. Edward Short: The Post Office contribution to the cost of Courier will be reduced during 1968 by £8,500 to about £37,000. The average loss on each copy sold in the first 12 months of operation was 7d. In 1968 this will be reduced to 3·3 pence.
    Many large industrial organisations bear the entire cost of their house magazines.
    Mr. Blaker: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, that it is very difficult to justify running a journal of this kind at a loss when the Postmaster-General is seeking to raise postal charges? Would he give an assurance that it is his objective that this enterprise should cover its costs entirely and that if it does not do so it will be discontinued?
    Mr. Short: I will give no such undertaking. This is money extremely well spent. The Post Office employs 440,000 people, and one of the great problems in it is communications. I believe that this new Post Office newspaper makes a real contribution to improving communications in the Post Office. There are a number of hon. Members present who are associated with firms in which the house magazine costs a great deal more than this and the entire cost is borne by the firm. In the Post Office, the employees pay 3d. for the magazine.

    Satellites (Ground Terminal Stations)
    Mr. Martenasked the Postmaster-General how many ground terminal stations, civil and military, for satellites will be in operation outside the Communist bloc of countries by the end of 1968; and how many of these will be British made.
    Mr. Edward Short: About 20 civil earth stations for commercial use are expected to be operational by the end of 1968. Two of them are British made. Military terminals are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Marten: Is not this a very disappointing share of the world market in this most important matter? Does not the Minister agree that unless Britain has a properly co-ordinated national space programme and is able to offer to customer countries launcher, satellite and ground station, we shall never properly break into this market?
    Mr. Short: It is not so much a matter of Government policy. It is, again, a matter of British firms becoming more competitive. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that Cable and Wireless has recently given two orders for earth stations, one in Bahrain and the other in Hong Kong. However, unless the British firms which are interested in this trade make an effort to become competitive, they will be frozen out of the market. They really must make a bigger effort.

    A.E.I. (Research Facilities and Factories)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Postmaster-General whether he will seek to acquire the land and buildings of the Associated

    629
    Electrical Industries Advanced Development Laboratories at Blackheath, London, S.E.3, which have been declared surplus to requirement by the General Electric Company, with a view to integrating both the laboratory and the highly skilled research teams into the Post Office's research programme.
    Mr. Dickensasked the Postmaster-General if he will seek to acquire the General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries factory at Sydenham, London, S.E.26, to enable the Post Office to manufacture telecommunications equipment.
    Mr. Edward Short: After careful consideration I have reluctantly concluded that I cannot take over either A.E.I.'s factories or research establishments.
    The telecommunications industry's plans for expansion in development areas should be sufficient soon to satisfy my needs for equipment. As regards research, I am already committed to plans to concentrate all of it at Martlesham to improve efficiency and as a dispersal measure.
    I shall, however, be very glad to consider applications for employment in the Post Office from any suitably qualified staff whom we can fit into our organisation.
    Mr. Moyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very disappointing reply, because if this research laboratory closes some valuable research teams will be broken up, that the staff concerned are completely disillusioned with the General Electric Company and that, in any event, the work will be transferred to such notorious areas of underdevelopment as Wembley and Coventry?
    Mr. Short: I think that most of the research workers will be absorbed into the G.E.C.'s own research work, and we ourselves will be willing to take some as well. I do not think, therefore, that there is any employment problem. As I have said, the Post Office will concentrate the whole of its research from Dollis Hill and three other places on a 100-acre site near Ipswich on which work has already started.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whilst the latter part of his reply is helpful, the general tenor of his reply is disappointing in view of the re
    630
    marks in his speech to a recent telecommunications dinner about the need for an extension of pubilc ownership in telecommunications to offset the failure of private enterprise to supply equipment? Will he not reconsider the need to take over the small purpose-built factory in Sydenham for this purpose?
    Mr. Short: The purpose-built factory at Sydenham does not make telephone exchanges, which is our great bottleneck, and it is too small to make them. It makes private telephone equipment. If we took it over, we should have to retool the whole thing. That would be a very long job and there would be no work for the men there in the meantime. As I say, in view of its size, it is doubtful whether that factory would be an economic proposition. If the Post Office is to go into the manufacture of equipment, it will not take over old factories which somebody else has abandoned. It will take over new factories and build things under the best posstible conditions in the development areas.
    Mr. Bryan: Does the Post Office at present have power to manufacture?
    Mr. Short: Yes, Sir.

    Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Postmaster-General if he will give details of nonclassified research work being done for his Department by the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough.
    Mr. Edward Short: The Royal Aircraft Establishment does not carry out non-classified work for the Post Office. There is however an exchange of information on scientific matters, for example, concerning radio and satellite communication systems, via the Committees of the Electronics Research Council and by other channels.
    Mr. Dalyell: With Dollis Hill, and Ipswich in the future, is it not making it impossible to take advantage of the work done at Farnborough in particular and at other defence research establishments in general?
    Mr. Short: There is a very close exchange of information between us, and the last major work was that which appeared in the Follett Report at the end of 1963.

    Capital Investment
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General how much capital to date has been invested in the Post Office in the last 10 years.
    Mr. Edward Short: In the 10 years to 31st March, 1967, £1,479 million, of which £663 million has been invested in the three years 1964 to 1967. Expenditure in the current financial year is expected to be £319 million.
    Mr. Ridsdale: How much of the £2,000 million which the right hon. Gentleman said would be invested in the next five years will be invested in such projects as communications satellites and how much will go into extravagant schemes like local radio stations?
    Mr. Short: None at all will go in local radio stations. The £2,000 million was for the Post Office. Incidentally, I should not have called satellites "extravagant" schemes. They are replacing submarine cables now. Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not realise that.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the £660 million invested in the last three years was planned and ready for installation when the present Government took over?
    Mr. Short: I cannot break up the figure, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him separate figures for the three years, although he can see the massive build-up over that time.
    Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to say words which I did not use, to the effect that satellite investment was extravagant?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on with the Questions.

    Letter (Misdelivery)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Postmaster-General if he will seek to make an ex-gratia payment to Mrs. C. J. Parker in compensation for the consequential loss of £114 suffered by the constituent of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey, due to devaluation and the misdelivery of a letter addressed to Mrs. Parker.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. To do so would open the door to an unlimited compensation liability which we could not possibly take on.
    Mr. Royle: Would the hon. Gentleman look at this again? Is he aware that my constituent has lost a large sum of money solely due to mismanagement of the economy by the Government, ending with devaluation, and the inefficiency of the Post Office in the misdelivery of a letter? Will he look at the matter again and provide an ex-gratia payment for my constituent?
    Mr. Slater: I have gone into this matter, and I have looked at it again to see what could be done. I must point out, however, that we handle 35 million items every day and, although only a small percentage is mishandled, we could not pay compensation for every unregistered letter which was delayed.
    Mr. Royle: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Overseas Parcels (Size)
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Postmaster-General if he will increase the maximum permitted size of overseas parcels containing goods for export.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: My right hon. Friend is considering how far we might be able to meet any demand for such an increase, consistent with our international obligations.
    Mr. Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present limit frequently makes multiple packing necessary, to the general detriment of the country's exports? Can he tell the House what are our international obligations?
    Mr. Slater: The position is that we cannot accept larger or heavier parcels for dispatch to other countries than we are prepared to accept from those countries for delivery here, except with the consent of the other postal administrations concerned. My right hon. Friend is considering how far we might be able to meet the demand.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that seems to be an extremely good supplementary question? Can he tell us why we will not accept bigger parcels here?
    Mr. Slater: There is so much that we have to take into consideration. We have been carrying out different forms of mechanisation within the Post Office to deal with the parcels service, and all these matters have to be taken into consideration before we can determine whether there shall be a change-over.

    Pensioners (Payment)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Postmaster-General what success has resulted from his efforts to provide alternative arrangements for the payment of pensions to pensioner, who would otherwise have suffered inconvenience, following the closing down of the sub-post office in High Road, Wembley.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: I am happy to say that, as a temporary arrangement, pensions are now paid on Fridays between 9.15 a.m. and 12.45 p.m. in the British Red Cross Society's premises which are at 563 High Road, Wembley and opposite the former sub-post office. We are continuing our efforts to open a new sub-office in the area.
    Sir R. Russell: May I thank the Minister and his Department for their efforts on behalf of pensioners? Will he also try the side roads as well as the High Road to see if he can find premises for the post office?
    Mr. Slater: I will take note of that.
    Mr. Marksasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increasing number of retirement pensioners, he will consider an increase in the number of sub-post offices or alternative arrangements for the payment of retirement pensions.
    Mr. Miscampbellasked the Postmaster-General whether, in areas such as Blackpool with a high proportion of retirement pensioners, he will review the facilities available through the Post Office for payment of such pensions; and, if necessary, if he will consider alternative arrangements.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: There are currently about 25,000 post offices. Pensions are
    634
    paid at all of them and hte needs of pensioners are taken into account in deciding where and when to open new offices.
    Mr. Marks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and I am glad to note from his Answer to Question No. 29 that he is taking care of this problem. I hope it is realised that many pensioners in cities have to cross busy roads. I hope that he will discuss the matter with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security.
    Mr. Slater: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said about this, but every new Post Office that we open means an increase in our costs, without any corresponding increase in revenue. We therefore try to strike a balance between the reasonable needs of the public, and the costs of providing the service.

    Postal Services (Torrington)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the postal services to Torrington, in view of the closure of Bideford Bridge.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Early morning mails have been delayed by about 30 minutes; but we are putting this right and I will write to the hon. Member about the matter.
    Mr. Mills: My information is that the delays are considerably longer than that. As this area has already suffered enough in various other ways, will the hon. Gentleman at least ensure that the mails can be delivered on time?
    Mr. Slater: We do everything that we can to meet that position. We have had to consider various means of rerouting mails and taking care that no community suffers because of what happened, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about this.

    Postcodes
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Postmaster-General what will be the cost of introducing the alpha-numeric form of address coding system.
    Mr. Edward Short: About £1,660,000 to code 75 major towns by 1970. Introduction of postcodes is an essential preliminary to the use of automatic letter

    635
    sorting machinery which will produce substantial savings.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that receiving a letter is a personal thing, and that this change to using a code instead of an address is an exercise which is not really worth the expense involved, in view of the impersonal nature of the new form?
    Mr. Short: We are not changing to anything. The code is to be added to the address. This is essential, because it is the code which makes the machinery work. By the end of our mechanisation programme we estimate that the return on this system will be about 20 per cent.

    Pillar Boxes
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has for changing the type of General Post Office pillar boxes at present in use throughout the country.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Much will depend on experiments beginning shortly with 200 rectangular posting boxes which will be more easily cleared and maintained; we do not, of course, intend to replace all our existing boxes.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in changing from round pillar boxes to square ones his right hon. Friend is putting himself into the position where he is not "with it" at all? Is not this going to be a totally unnecessary expense? These pillar boxes do not wear out. Why should we have to change them?
    Mr. Slater: I always thought that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of progress. We have to consider the conditions under which our postmen work. In some cases they have to get down to ground level to remove the letters. With these new boxes they will be able to remain standing to collect the mail.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Public Kiosks, Northolt
    Mr. Molloyasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in providing additional public telephone kiosks on the council estates in Northolt, Middlesex.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The additional kiosks will be provided later this month to serve the Yeading Green estates.
    Mr. Molloy: I am very grateful for that encouraging reply. However, would my hon. Friend note that there are estates in need of kiosks other than those he has mentioned? Will my hon. Friend give Northolt the consideration which it deserves?
    Mr. Slater: Every application made to the Department for the setting-up of kiosks in various areas is given serious consideration. I know the great interest of my hon. Friend in this matter since as far back as February, 1967. I am delighted that we have been able to meet his request.

    Decimal Currency
    Mr. Eadieasked the Postmaster-General the estimated increase in manpower in his Department because of the altering of public automatic telephone mechanisms as a result of the introduction of decimal currency in 1971; and if he will list the areas involved in the change.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: We hope to make the change without any specific increase in manpower. Coin boxes and telephone exchanges in all parts of the country will be involved.
    Mr. Eadie: I note with interest what my hon. Friend says about no increase being expected in manpower. Can he say precisely what the specific modifications involve?
    Mr. Slater: The modifications will be to about 75,000 public and 150,000 privately-rented coin boxes which will have to be adapted to take the new coins. Equipment in 6,000 automatic telephone exchanges will have to be altered.

    Equipment Orders (Deliveries)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Postmaster-General what percentage of orders for telephone equipment is running behind the delivery schedule.
    Mr. Edward Short: About 80 per cent.
    Mr. Price: Is not that a distressing Answer? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that hon. Members opposite

    637
    could serve a more useful purpose by directing their energies away from abusing the Post Office and towards private enterprise, which is letting the country down?
    Mr. Short: This is the major cause of our trouble in providing telephones and of the congestion in the system. In the 1950s, the demand for telephones in the 1960s was under-estimated. However, the industry has in the last few years made very great efforts, especially in the development areas. The crisis now is not so much one of capacity. The capacity is coming up to the point where it is adequate. The problem now is one of control of production and stores and I think that the industry will shortly get this in balance. I certainly hope so.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is no longer continuing his threat to import equipment because of the supposed slowness of things being supplied at home?
    Mr. Short: If the choice at the end of the line was between utter chaos and importing equipment, I would not hesitate to import it. I hope, however, that the industry will not drive me to do that.
    Mr. Bryan: To what extent can foreign suppliers supply this type of equipment?
    Mr. Short: We are now using a certain amount of cross-bar equipment and I think that there would be a possibility of foreign suppliers supplying it. I repeat, however, that this would be done only in the last resort and that I hope that we will never be driven to do it.

    Telephones (Manufacture)
    Mr. Urwinasked the Postmaster-General how many telephones were manufactured in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967, respectively; and what will be the estimated number in 1968, 1969 and 1970; and what are the respective percentages for development areas, including specific figures for the Northern Region.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: As the Answer is a table of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Urwin: I trust that, when the figures are circulated, they will prove to be helpful to the Northern Region. May I ask my hon. Friend if he is fully
    638
    seized of the vital importance of concentrating as much of this work as possible within the development areas?
    Mr. Slater: Yes, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the greater proportion of the manufacture of telephones takes place in the development areas. When he sees the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I am sure that he will be pleased with them.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman say what effect the fire at the Plessey factory in Yorkshire, causing £3 million damage, has had on the production of telephones?
    Mr. Slater: No.
    Following is the information:

    Percentage

    Year

    Quantity

    In all DAs

    In Northern Region

    1964–65

    1,775,000

    19

    12

    1965–66

    1,400,000

    17

    15

    1966–67

    1,825,000

    49

    16

    1967–68

    1,525,000

    60

    9

    1968–69

    1,250,000

    82

    21

    A reliable estimate for 1969–70 is not yet available.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General what is the number of applications for the installation of telephone equipment at present on the waiting list; and how many of these have been placed for over six months.
    Mr. Edward Short: 131,200 and 46,000, respectively, at 31st January.
    Mr. Gilmour: Particularly in view of the requirement of a year's rent in advance, would not the Postmaster-General agree that the figure is still disconcertingly high, and can he hold out any hopes of reducing it?
    Mr. Short: It has shown that the year's rental in advance has nothing to do with it. In fact, the figure has gone up, and not down. As soon as the equipment supplies for the exchanges from the manufacturers are up to scratch, we hope that the figure will drop dramatically.

    Kiosks (Commercial Advertising)
    Mr. Cordleasked the Postmaster-General why he has decided to stop commercial advertising in telephone kiosks.
    Mr. Edward Short: Because the contract is coming to an end and I am taking the opportunity to review the position and will write to the hon. Gentleman when I have done so.
    Mr. Cordle: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much revenue the G.P.O. is likely to lose from this venture? Does not he recognise the usefulness of the service provided by commercial advertising, and does he consider that a proportion would be advisable in the service?
    Mr. Short: I have never said that we are ending advertising. The Press statement was put out by the firm whose contract is being ended. The figure is wrong. The revenue is £100,000 a year, and costs about £25,000. I am reviewing the position. We also run a business, and have to do advertising.

    Telephone Lines (Capacity)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Postmaster-General to what extent telephone lines are not being used in daytime and in the evening to their full capacity, and in which areas of the country.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: There is normally some spare capacity outside the busiest hour. The general pattern is a high morning peak, a lower afternoon peak and an evening peak, but because of a temporary shortage of plant there is at present little spare capacity during the working day on lines linking some telephone exchanges, particularly in the Home Counties, the Midlands and the North-East.
    Sir R. Russell: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether anything is being done to try to spread the load in those areas where the peak is too high?
    Mr. Slater: The whole aim is to provide enough lines between telephone exchanges to carry the traffic during the busiest hours of the day without perceptible congestion.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Local Sound Radio
    Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the progress of the local sound radio experiment.
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General what has been the total cost of establishig local radio stations.
    Mr. Edward Short: Of the eight stations authorised, five—Brighton, Leicester, Merseyside, Nottingham and Sheffield—are now in operation. The sixth, at Stoke, is due to open on 14th March; and the remaining two, at Durham and Leeds, by the early summer. On the cost and financing of the stations, I have nothing to add to previous Answers. I intend to review the experiment when the stations have been operating for a year or so. The right thing now is surely to let the stations alone to get on with the experiment.—[Vol. 756, c. 458–9; Vol. 757, c. 556–8; Vol. 759, c. 1750.]
    Mr. Brown: Looking ahead, and being confident of the success of this venture, would my hon. Friend assure the House that the B.B.C. will not be starved of revenue, however modest it might be, to encourage the creation of other local radio stations?
    Mr. Short: We shall have to wait to see. This method of financing the stations is one of the objects of the experiment. It looks as though it is going extremely well in some areas, such as Merseyside and Cheshire, where all the local authorities, including the Cheshire County Council, are co-operating, and less well in other areas. We shall have to wait for a year or so to see how the experiment goes.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side of the House think that this is extremely extravagent Government spending and that this matter would have been far better left to private enterprise?
    Mr. Short: I wonder whether all hon. Members on both sides of the House really think that. One of the great needs today is to improve the quality of communal life. I should have thought that nothing would have improved it more than a communal, publicly-owned station. I know that that means nothing to the hon. Gentleman, but a communally-owned station, tailor-made for the locality, can make a significant contribution to the quality of communal life.
    Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these stations have been extremely well received by the public in the areas in which they are situated and that there is not necessarily a conflict between public service and private enterprise if this is permitted throughout the country?
    Mr. Short: There is no conflict between public service and financing them commercially. That is the distinction which I would make.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many highly qualified engineers believe that the daytime use of medium wavelengths for local radio is not only possible but would be a great help to them? Is he absolutely certain that his own advisers are right in saying that this is an impossibility and there is no wavelength available?
    Mr. Short: I have taken the best technical advice I could get, and I am assured that this is not possible. In addition, there would be the difficulty that as soon as it got dark one would have to switch to a different wavelength. But, apart from that difficulty, I am assured that the use of medium wavelengths during the day is not "on".

    Television Act (Section 3(2, d))
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Postmaster-General if he will take proceedings against the Independent Television Authority for breach of their statutory duty under Section 3(2,d) of the Television Act, by allowing Lord Thomson of Fleet to appear in the Frost Programme broadcast on 29th November last.
    Mr. Edward Short: I am informed that the Independent Television Authority has drawn the attention of the programme contractor which produced the programme, and of Lord Thomson, to the fact that there was a contravention of the Act. The Authority is satisfied that the contravention was inadvertent. This will, I think, meet the purpose of my hon. Friend's Question.
    Mr. Roebuck: In view of the widespread concern in the country about the domination of most channels of communication by a tiny group of tycoons, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will use all the powers given to
    642
    him by Parliament to prevent those tycoons dominating the television screen? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the incident in question, my noble Friend Lord Wigg was enticed on to the programme by false pretences and subjected to considerable discourtesy and has there been any expression of contrition?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have the whole programme in a supplementary question.
    Mr. Short: In regard to the first point, the contravention of the Act was not that Lord Thomson appeared on television. It was something he said. All of us who know him would, I think, acquit him of any desire deliberately to contravene the Act. I think that it was an inadvertent contravention. However, I.T.A. has now drawn the attention of the contract company to this contravention.
    I understand that Lord Wigg has received an apology from the chairman of I.T.A. I very much regret what happened. There were two aspects of it. One was the appearance of Lord Thomson and the other was the appearance of another gentleman with whom Lord Wigg was involved in a libel action. I could not imagine any greater discourtesy than that to Lord Wigg. I am glad that I.T.A. has apologised to him.
    Dr. Winstanley: While accepting the Postmaster-General's answer, may I nevertheless ask whether he is aware that many hon. Members believe that the restrictions imposed by the Television Act are too strict rather than too lax and that we would, therefore, prefer to see them relaxed rather than tightened?
    Mr. Short: I should not have thought that the hon. Member would advocate that the proprietor of one of the stations should be allowed to express himself on a controversial issue of the day. This provision was deliberately put in the Act by Parliament.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Surely, the prohibition in question is footling and it is time that the whole question was looked into and restrictive provisions of this sort swept away.
    Mr. Short: It is not footling at all. It is something basic and important. We do not want television to degenerate into

    643
    the state in which the British Press at present finds itself.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was not the trouble on the occasion referred to in the Question caused by the appearance of the editor of the Spectator, for which the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) is completely responsible?
    Mr. Gilmour: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is at least a year since I sold the Spectator, so that his right hon. Friend is totally inaccurate?

    Broadcasts (Distribution by Cable)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General in view of the spread of television aerials and the inadequacy of existing master-aerial services, if he will take steps to establish a Post Office master-aerial system and piped television to compete with the existing firms in this field.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: A system for distributing television and sound broadcasts by cable is to be provided by the Post Office in Washington New Town. Further developments will be considered in the light of this trial.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the extension of public activity into the sphere of master-aerials would be very welcome on this side of the House? Would he accept that it is only by Post Office intervention that we can break the near-monopoly of the existing private firms and bring them up to scratch?
    Mr. Slater: We hope that the experiment now taking place in the Washington New Town will prove to be the success that we think.
    Mr. Bryan: As the Post Office has such difficulty in raising capital, would it not be ridiculous to go into the relay system business, which is notorious for its hunger for capital?
    Mr. Slater: This is a comprehensive cable which takes not only telephones but also radio, television and everything else with it.

    Television Programmes, Wales (Co-ordination)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Postmaster-General if he will seek powers to direct the British Broadcasting Corporation and
    644
    the Independent Television Authority in Wales to co-ordinate their programmes linguistically, so that Welsh language programmes are not appearing on both channels simultaneously and likewise that English programmes do not generally appear simultaneously on both channels.
    Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. I understand that the timing of Welsh language programmes is already co-ordinated to avoid undesirable clashes as far as possible; but that it would not be practicable to avoid the simultaneous presentation of English language programmes.
    Mr. Hooson: Will the Postmaster-General bear in mind that it is extremely annoying to non-Welsh-speaking families to have both channels showing Welsh programmes simultaneously, just as it is annoying to Welsh-speaking families if English programmes are shown simultaneously? I have already given him an example of a simultaneous showing in one language.
    Mr. Short: I saw the example on 14th February. I cannot pronounce the names of the two programmes, but I know them. The two broadcasting authorities have assured me that they keep in close touch about this. I think that the problem on the occasion to which I have referred was one of congestion due to a party political broadcast and to the Winter Olympics.

    Television Licence
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Postmaster-General, if he will undertake that there will be no increase in the cost of a television licence to viewers in areas which do not receive the B.B.C. 2 programmes.
    Mr. Edward Short: I cannot anticipate any decision about the level of licence fees.
    Mr. Digby: When can the people of the South-West, and indeed other areas, hope to get value for money in this and many other Post Office matters?
    Mr. Short: This is not a Post Office matter, but a broadcasting one. I have looked very carefully at the question of a differential for areas which cannot receive B.B.C. 2. I have also considered a geographical differential. If the hon. Gentleman considers this, he will realise

    645
    that the only way of working a differential for people who cannot get B.B.C. 2 is to base it on the set, and have a higher licence fee for a set which can receive programmes on 625 lines, but many people in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's have bought a set of this kind, so this would be unfair. I am, however, looking into the question of differentials.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everybody will be glad to hear that he is considering this? In that we have broken through the differential idea on colour television, I think that this should be given more consideration.
    Mr. Short: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we have established a differential with regard to colour television, but there are at least three other possibilities. All I am saying is that they are extremely difficult, if not impossible, but I am considering the matter.

  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his conversations with the Prime Minister of Canada, he will now consult the other Commonwealth countries and issue an invitation for a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to be held in London early in the summer in order to discuss Commonwealth and world problems.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the Answers I gave to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 13th February and to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 15th February.—[Vol. 758, c. 1149–50, Vol. 758. c. 412.]
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to get a conference called at a very early date, and will he put forward for discussion at that conference such matters as the troubles in Nigeria, a settlement in Rhodesia, and the public relations of the United Kingdom with India and Kenya?
  The Prime Minister: As I said in answer to the previous Question which I quoted, what is on the agenda is a matter for collective agreement by the 25 or so Prime Ministers concerned. Consultations are going on at the moment about the timing of the conference, and other arrangements. I have no doubt that all relevant matters affecting the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's attitude to world affairs will be discussed.
  Mr. Henig: If such a conference takes place, will my right hon. Friend consider putting forward the proposal that Commonwealth countries should cease to supply arms to the parties involved in the Nigeria conflict?
  The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will be aware, I have been in touch with a number of Commonwealth Prime Ministers about this, and my right hon. Friend has had continuing contact with the Nigerian problem. I do not think that it would help at this stage to go further into what has been said and done in these consultations.
  Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister say what discussions are going on now between the Government and Commonwealth Governments about the Commonwealth Immigrants Act? If there is not general agreement about a Commonwealth Conference, will he consider holding a meeting at a lower level than Prime Minister to examine afresh the whole concept of United Kingdom and colonial citizenship, and so on?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that is an important suggestion. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend has been in close touch with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers most directly concerned, and, indeed, so have I. We will consider whether this is a matter for discussion at or in the surroundings of a Commonwealth Conference, or whether some other meeting ought to be held.

  DEVALUATION
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure the co-ordination between Ministers with responsibilities for ensuring the protection of the less well-off members of the community from the effects of devaluation.
  The Prime Minister: No new steps are needed, Sir, because my right hon. Friends already work very closely together on these matters.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that there was a conflict between the two statements in his broadcast of 19th November, namely, that the pound in the pocket has not been devalued, and that some of our basic food prices would rise. Will he take this opportunity publicly to deny one or other of those statements?
  The Prime Minister: I think that we have been over this a number of times in the House. The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the answers that I gave on this question on Tuesday.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: I was here, and I heard them.
  The Prime Minister: I said clearly in that broadcast that prices would rise. I also said that safeguards were needed to prevent prices rising which were not due to devaluation. I said that action would have to be taken to help the less well-off sections of the community. I stand by those statements.
  Mr. Maudling: But does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in reply to my question on Tuesday, he tried to avoid the issue by quoting only one part of his self-contradictory broadcast? Since the Government now accept an estimate of a 7½ per cent. increase in prices this year, does he still regard this as consistent with talking about not devaluing the pound in our pockets?
  The Prime Minister: No such figure has been accepted by the Government so far as prices are concerned. With regard to the earlier statement, my statement was true in the broadcast, that the action of that Saturday night had not devalued pounds in pockets, bank accounts or—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it had not; it was perfectly clear, despite the legend which right hon. Gentlemen have tried to perpetuate. I said that prices would rise. I thought it right to say that, because it was a realistic assessment of the consequences of devaluation.
  Mr. Barnett: If we are equating price increases with devaluation, would my right hon. Friend tell us how many times there was devaluation in the previous 13
  648
  years? If we are really to help those who are slightly above the supplementary benefit level, would he consider raising the starting point for rate rebates, thus helping people in that direction?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that, in the statement on 16th January, we announced not only a forthcoming increase in the supplementary benefit but an improvement in the starting point for rate rebates.
  Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman were doing that telecast again, would he put the "pound in your pocket" sentence in?
  The Prime Minister: As a matter of accuracy, yes, but recognising the truth of Kipling's quotation,
  "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
  Twisted by knaves to make a trap for tools"
  perhaps not. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Prime Minister what arrangements he is making to co-ordinate the consumer protection work of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health, the Department of Education and Science and the Home Office.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends work closely together on this as on other matters and no new arrangements are needed, Sir.
  Mrs. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this arrangement is out of date today, when there are complex matters like labelling spread over three Ministries, with separate legislation, and that consumer protection is the Cinderella of all these Departments? Will he appoint a Minister of Consumer Welfare when he reorganises the Government?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware of the great importance which we attach to consumer protection and the work which has been done and,

  649
  of course, the Bill which hon. Members will soon be able to debate in greater detail, but, of course, there is a difference in the labelling problems in respect of chemists' preparations, for example, with which the Ministry of Health is concerned, in respect of food and the quality of food, and on the question of misleading descriptions in the matter of textiles or household goods. It is right that the Departments responsible for these should be responsible for consumer protection, under the general guidance of the President of the Board of Trade, who is, of course, the Minister for consumer protection.

  WOMEN (ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BOARD)
  Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Prime Minister if he will mark the 50th anniversary of women's franchise by taking steps to appoint an anti-discrimination board to which cases of discrimination against women can be referred.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's idea is an interesting one and if she would care to let me have detailed proposals I would be happy to have them examined.
  Mrs. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that women are fed up with being exploited as pretty birds when they are young and as "silly moos" when they get older as a substitute for equal human rights now, and that there is need for a board of this kind to which cases of sex discrimination can be referred if needed?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must be responsible for the choice of the words which she uses and she will know that Mr. Alf Garnett is not a fully paid-up member of the Labour Party. On discrimination, what I think my hon. Friend is concerned about—as are my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench—is the question of discrimination in appointments and other matters, where there is still a long way to go. That is why I look forward with interest to receiving her detailed proposals.
  Dame Irene Ward: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not having heard very well what he was trying to mumble. Would he be kind enough to confirm that detailed proposals have
  650
  gone to him to end discrimination against women? Can he assure us that these will be carried out this year without further delay?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady courteously responded to my invitation to send me proposals, but since, for the greater part, they involve tax changes, she will probably think it right that they should go first to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  Dame Irene Ward: They have.
  The Prime Minister:—and, secondly, she will understand that I do not want to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: Why does my right hon. Friend keep asking for letters from hon. Ladies? Will he accept my assurance that hon. Ladies would much more appreciate early action on the subject of equal pay rather than be put to the trouble of sending him any more useless letters?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the letter which I will get from my hon. Friend on this question will not be useless but productive and constructive. The answer to her first question is that I like getting letters from lady Members, but if she feels that these matters could be better discussed by personal interview, of course I would like that even more.
  Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, does your selection entirely of ladies to ask supplementary questions on this Question indicate a degree of discrimination from the Chair?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, I am afraid it does.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (SPEECH)
  Mr. Laneasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, to the Cambridge University Democratic Labour Club on 9th February, on economic policy, represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Lane: As the Secretary of State spoke enthusiastically about increasing

  651
  Government intervention in industry, would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that industry is fearful of more intervention by this Government and that continuing talk of this kind by Ministers will only set back further the return of industrial confidence?
  The Prime Minister: I remember exactly the same arguments being used, only at much greater length, in the debates on the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Bill, but now even the hon. Gentlemen who used them will, I think, be extremely happy about the achievements of the I.R.C.
  Mr. McNamara: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the Report of the Wilson Committee into Bristol Siddeley indicates that we should perhaps have more Government intervention in industry?
  The Prime Minister: That raises other issues, with which my right hon. Friend has dealt. That was, of course, the question of the degree of cost control operated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the matter of certain contracts, and, of course, the House by this time will have had time to study the Report on that stewardship.
  Sir C. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman just boasted about the work of the I.R.C. Is he proud that, as a result of that work, the Woolwich factory has been closed, to the great disappointment of his colleagues who want to see more employment created?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will know that that is one of the inevitable consequences of mergers designed to increase efficiency, but he will know also that his fellow trade unionists, since long before he joined the fold, have been pressing for much more consultation and much earlier notification when men's jobs are involved. As he heard me say the other day, I feel that there is a need for a code of conduct in these matters of mergers involving notification not only of the unions and the work-people immediately concerned but also of the Government Departments and the chairman of the regional economic planning council concerned.
  Mr. Hannan: If my right hon. Friend is in any doubt about the value of Government intervention, will he visit
  652
  Fairfields and ask the 2,000 workers there whether their jobs are safe or not?
  The Prime Minister: I am well aware, on this as on so many other questions in the industrial and economic fields, that, while there was a spate of questions and criticisms at the time, hon. Gentlemen opposite are now very slow to ask what is happening at Fairfields.
  Mr. Peyton: To return to the speech to which the Question refers, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that for his right hon. Friend to say that devaluation was a stick of dynamite which had been used to blow the prison gates open was going a bit far down the road of exaggeration and extravaganza which we expect from him?
  The Prime Minister: Hon. and right hon. Members are, of course, in all cases, responsible for the metaphors and imagery they use. I should have thought that, in view of the opportunities, as well as the problems, which devaluation creates, that was not an inappropriate form of words to use.
  Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his remarks today about the need for a code of conduct for the private sector will be warmly welcomed on this side of the House, particularly since that sector is getting £2 million a day of taxpayers' money in Government subsidies? When may we receive a Government statement about this code of conduct?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad that my hon. Friend feels that my remarks are worthy of that somewhat belated welcome, remembering that I said it last week. We are, of course, entering into discussions with those concerned in industry to see what can be done to work out a viable code of conduct between industry and ourselves.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

RHODESIA
Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to answer Question No. 6.

653
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary yesterday undertook that a further statement would be made about Rhodesia as soon as the Government had reviewed the situation arising from the events of the past few days. The House will wish to know that, in addition to the promised expression of the Government's view, which will be made available as soon as possible, discussions are taking place through the usual channels about the most appropriate arrangements to enable the House as a whole to express its opinion on these matters.
Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this whole matter is now a test for Britain, for the British Parliament and for the whole concept of the British Commonwealth, and that if some action is not taken we shall not merely be condoning murder, but legalising lynch law—of which, I hope, all hon. Gentlemen opposite disapprove? Will my right hon. Friend consider calling an emergency meeting of the Commonwealth to take some kind of action to bring down this régime, for unless this is done swiftly the blood that has been let loose this week might result in a blood bath which I warn my right hon. Friend could take place in Africa because of the vulgar actions of this illegal régime?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend said, this is a matter, first of all, for Parliament, and I would have thought that the reaction of all hon. Members in all parts of the House in the past three days has shown the sense of shock and horror which is felt in this House.
To answer my hon. Friend's question about the Commonwealth, my right hon. Friend and I are, of course, getting in touch with Commonwealth Prime Ministers because these are matters of deep concern to the whole Commonwealth, but I am far from convinced that, at this stage at any rate, an emergency meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers would be the right way to handle this matter. My hon. Friend will be aware that the matter has now been brought before the Security Council, so that it has become, as one must have expected, a matter for deep international concern.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Having been critical of the Commonwealth Office
654
from time to time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that some, at least, of my hon. Friends very much welcome the tone of the statement issued by the Commonwealth Office and made public in the Press; on, for example, the front page of The Times this morning?
The Prime Minister: I would want to look again at that particular point because my right hon. Friend is, I understand, not quite sure to which statement the hon. Gentleman is referring. [Interruption.] This is no laughing matter, and I hope that even the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) would agree. Certainly my right hon. Friend and I very much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Commonwealth Office, and I know that it has been the view in all parts of the House that, in this very difficult situation, my right hon. Friend has conducted himself not only with great firmness but also with dignity.
Mr. Gardner: In view of Press reports today of some most unfair comments at the United Nations on Her Majesty's Government, and while appreciating that my right hon. Friend faces this diplomatic difficulty in tackling this problem, would not my right hon. Friend think that an emergency meeting of Commonwealth heads might be worth while, if only to allay this sort of criticism?
The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that if this were thought by the Commonwealth to be the right way of dealing with the immediate problem, then it would naturally be something which we would want to consider. I am not yet convinced, however, that it would be the right answer. However, we will maintain the very closest contact with all our Commonwealth partners. I am, of couse, well aware, as is the House, of the deep feeling which exists in Commonwealth countries, particularly in African Commonwealth countries—but by no means exclusively them—and we will have to see what emerges from our consultations with them.
Sir C. Taylor: Did the right hon. Gentleman read the column in the Daily Mirror this morning, written by George Gale, which I believe considerably reflects the attitude of many people in this country?
The Prime Minister: I would be sorry to think that it expresses the attitude of many people, or of any hon. Member of this House.
Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety that exists in many quarters in Britain, arising from the murder of the three Africans, because of the fact that more than 100 other Africans in Southern Rhodesia are presently in prison with the death sentence hanging over them? Is he aware that unless something tangible is done resulting from the action that has taken place, we may be placing the lives of these 100 Africans in jeopardy?
The Prime Minister: The question of the other 100 who lie under sentence of death, many of them having spent very long periods in the death cell, must, of course, be a matter of deep concern to all who have any responsibility in dealing with this question—by no means all of them for murder; many are under mandatory death sentences under the repressive legislation in Salisbury. It is precisely for that reason that I appealed yesterday for some restraint, whether in action or words. Despite the natural desire of my hon. Friends—indeed, of us all—to find some way immediately of hitting back, I do not recommend that we should seek to deal with this situation by gestures which, however self-satisfying, are ineffective and meaningless. We must look at the whole deep lesson of the last three years, which came to a head this week—to the fact that, so far as some of these people are concerned, what we have been dealing with, even negotiating with and fighting, is essentially evil, and the House must recognise that this is so.
Mr. Hirst: While welcoming the Prime Minister's assurance that before making a further statement he will look at the matter in the full concept of the total period of three years, will he include in that the grave burden of responsibility which rests on the Government by way of their gross mismanagement of this problem from beginning to end?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views on these matters. We do not accept his strictures. Looking back, if there is one part of our record in this matter where I think that we took very great risks, it was to
656
offer to men of that character the right of independence and self-determination, without majority rule applying, and in circumstances where we would have had to trust their word as to the operation of the rule of law on an agreed constitution. What appalled us all—including, I hope, the hon. Gentleman—was the affidavit by Lardner Burke, which said that whatever the highest court of all, the Privy Council, decided, he would take no notice of it but would go ahead and hang them—a direct flouting of the rule of law, with which this House must he concerned.
Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the tragedy we have been witnessing is that quite humble people have been used by personally-minded men for ends which were base ones? When considering that, will he consider the position of the Governor, who has been in the forefront of this agitation, and consider whether it is not now time to remove him from the exposed position which he holds so that we can deal with this frontally between London and Rhodesia if need be?
The Prime Minister: I know that the whole House will want to pay tribute to the steadfastness of the Governor over these three years in a very lonely exposed position, for the wise advice he has been able to tender and the essential link he has provided, but it perhaps underrates the determination of the Governor to suggest that he would want such a suggestion to be made at this time. He is now in one sense more exposed and lonely than ever and he has the bitterness of realising how much he has been let down by those he trusted.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), can the Prime Minister say whether in fact on this occasion the Governor was informed of the decision as to what advice should be tendered and whether he was asked to communicate it to the de facto Government of Rhodesia? If, as I understand, we are to have a debate on this subject fairly soon, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there will be a general desire that all the necessary factual information should be available? Will he give an assurance that it will be possible for hon. Members on either side of the House who

657
want information of a purely factual nature to get it from the responsible Minister in some way or another before the debate?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We shall do our best to ensure that this information is available, and I think the hon. Member will be better served by getting it in that way and not from sources which some hon. Members have relied on in the past. So far as the Governor is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary yesterday made clear what communications there had been with His Excellency before the advice was given last Saturday. As to the suggestion that we should have asked him to communicate with what the hon. Member calls "the de facto Government"—which is not a phrase we can accept because, of course, it is still subject to further judicial process and consideration—I do not think it would be right for us to suggest that the Governor could get in touch with Mr. Dupont.
Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the British Press comment this morning, particularly George Gale's article in the Daily Mirror and the cartoon in the Daily Mail, is below the usual standard of the Press, and the inference that the policy of this Government is responsible for what has taken place is absolutely untrue, for the responsibility rests on those who deny the vote to the majority of people in Rhodesia?
The Prime Minister: Of course, what the Press says on these matters, as on all other matters, must be a matter for the British Press. The difference between our Press and the Press of Rhodesia is that our Press comes out every day with every column filled with print and there is no interference. There is not, as on Monday, a very large part of the Rhodesian Herald censored and the exclusion of any reference to the resignation and the words of Mr. Justice Fieldsend and Mr. Justice Denby-Young. So far as the British Press is concerned, it must be free to write what it wants to write, and it is.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the Prime Minister say whether the factual information which he has promised before the debate will be issued in the form of a White Paper? Will it include the con
658
siderations which in this case led to the recommendation as to the Prerogative of Mercy being exercised by the Secretary of State instead of the ordinary established procedure of recommendation by the Governor?
The Prime Minister: I thought my right hon. Friend had given all the possible information he could to the House on this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the situation facing my right hon. Friend on Friday evening was, first, a refusal of an appeal to the Privy Council, which is the highest court in these matters, a refusal based on an affidavit by Lardner Burke in which he said he would not be bound by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Furthermore, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, there were strong rumours of preparations immediately to hang the men concerned before even an application could be made on Monday morning to the Privy Council. In those circumstances I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would feel, as has been so clearly stated in all parts of the House, that my right hon. Friend's advice was right in the circumstances.
Mr. Hector Hughes: The Prime Minister has said, very properly, that this grave matter is being brought before the Security Council. Would he elaborate that a little with a view to indicating the urgency of the matter?
The Prime Minister: One cannot, of course, know exactly what the Security Council will do in these matters. In addition to the procedure of an individual country having to raise the matter with the Security Council, the Security Council has to decide whether it wants to hear a particular question or to raise a particular question. It would be premature at this stage, therefore, to forecast whether there will be a debate in the Security Council and what its outcome would be likely to be.
Mr. Hastings: May I ask whether the same high principles in regard to independence which the Prime Minister has enunciated were in his mind when he decided that we should leave Aden?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman and hon. Members have put that

659
question many times. We have a responsibility in the case of a country where uniquely since the history of South Africa—unique in all the decolonisation—independence has been proposed without adult manhood suffrage. We had a special responsibility to lay down the principles under which there would be guaranteed unimpeded progress to majority rule. Those principles were laid down by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), and he has stuck to them ever since including his recent visit there. I think we are right to stand by the principles agreed in this House. The situation in Aden, where there was no proposition of that kind, was entirely different.

DRILLING RIG "OCEAN PRINCE" (LOSS)
Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the loss of the drilling rig "Ocean Prince" in the North Sea.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): During the night of 5th–6th March, in a severe storm, the "Ocean Prince", which was standing on the seabed in 75 ft. of water, suffered damage and the derrick collapsed into the sea. All persons on board at the time were withdrawn to safety by helicopter. I am advised by the licensee that the stand-by vessel has been driven off by the continuing storm, but is expected back on station this afternoon. An aerial reconnaissance by the licensee confirms that the rig has now broken up, but I am awaiting further details from the licensee.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 45 lives were saved by the prompt and heroic action of a helicopter pilot? Is he satisfied that in case of any future disaster of this kind there will be helicopters available to take personnel off a rig? Will an inquiry be set up similar to that which examined the circumstances which resulted in the loss of the "Sea Gem"? Have the recommendations of that inquiry and other inquiries been implemented?
Mr. Freeson: I join with the hon. Member in paying tribute to all those,
660
and in particular to the helicopter pilot, who organised the safe deliverance of the men from the rig which was in difficulties. With regard to the general arrangements for safety, although legislation has not yet been introduced to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Inquiry on the "Sea Gem", the procedures which were recommended have been put into practice, and this includes regular servicing by helicopter. Legislation will be coming forward as soon as possible, but in the meantime we are in close contact by way of the Ministry's Inspectorate and safety practices are implemented.
Mr. McNamara: In view of the fact that this is the second serious disaster to a rig and there have been other problems affecting rigs breaking loose in the North Sea, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the position of these rigs at the moment and as to their general safety conditions? Will he undertake to see that they are particularly watched in the present bad weather?
Mr. Freeson: I can give the absolute assurance that there is close contact between licensees and the Ministry's Inspectorate in applying, by voluntary co-operation as at present, under our licensing procedure, safety regulations and procedures as recommended by the Report of the Inquiry. We cannot legislate or administer for acts of God. In so far as it is possible, we are maintaining safety practices.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 11TH MARCH—Supply (14th Allotted Day):
A debate on naval policy on an Opposition Motion.
Thereafter, the rule will be suspended for two hours for discussion of Vote A of the Navy Estimates, 1968–69.

661
TUESDAY, 12TH MARCH—Supply (15th Allotted Day):
The following Service Votes have been selected for debate:
Navy Votes 1, 4, 5, 8 and 9.
Army Votes 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Defence (Royal Ordnance Factories) Vote 1968–69.
Defence (Army) Purchasing (Repayment) Services Vote 1968–69.
Air Votes 2, 7 and 8.
I understand that it may be convenient to devote two hours to each of the three Services.
Afterwards, Motion on the Post Office.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH MARCH—Supply (16th Allotted Day):
Vote on Account of the Civil Estimates and Defence Central Estimates, 1968–69.
Debate on an Opposition Motion on the Government decision to lift the ban on imported beef.
Motions on the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme and the (Supervision and Enforcement) Order.
THURSDAY, 14TH MARCH—We shall ask the House to approve a Timetable Motion for the remaining stages of the Transport Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]
FRIDAY, 15TH MARCH—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 18TH MARCH—Supply (17th Allotted Day):
A debate on a topic to be announced later.
The Question will be put from the Chair on all outstanding Votes.
Motions on the Income Tax Transitional Relief (Extension of Period) Orders.
Motion on the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations.
Prayer on the Thames Valley Police (Amalgamation) Order.
It may be convenient for me to remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budge: on Tuesday, 19th March.
The general debate on the Economic Situation and the Budget Resolutions will be continued on Wednesday and Thurs
662
day, 20th and 21st March, and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 25th March.
FRIDAY, 22ND MARCH—The business will be consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Heath: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Standing Committee which is considering the Transport Bill has now discussed over 450 Amendments and covered 35 Clauses and five Schedules in 19 sittings, that the average time of discussion on each Amendment has been only 15 minutes, that the Conservative Opposition have taken less than 50 per cent. of the time of the discussion, that the Opposition at the beginning volunteered to sit three days a week, and that they have on three occasions since then offered to sit longer but the offer has been refused by the Minister of Transport, who is in charge? Is the Leader of the House therefore aware that the only reason which he can possibly have for guillotining this huge, controversial—
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On many occasions you have reminded hon. Members that they should ask about time and not seek to advance arguments when they are called to ask supplementaries on the business statement. Since this matter is to be debated next week, will you not apply to the Leader of the Opposition the same rule that is applied to other hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: I think that there is much in what the hon. Gentleman says. The Leader of the Opposition is, however, arguing as to why we should not take on Thursday the Motion which has been referred to.
Mr. Heath: Mr. Speaker, I am putting forward immensely powerful arguments as to why there should be very much more time than the Leader of the House is prepared to agree. I remind the Leader of the House that he is responsible for time in Committee just as much as he is responsible for time on the Floor of the House. Therefore, the only reason which he can put forward is that he has put ten—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—Bills into one and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now getting into merits.
Mr. Heath: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Leader of the House what possible—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise from either side does not help at all. Mr. Heath.
Mr. Heath: I am asking the Leader of the House what possible—
Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that two days ago you called Government back benchers to order on six different occasions. Today, because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is making points that they do not like, they are creating a disturbance every time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be an over-simplification of what happens in the House if the hon. Gentleman were to suggest that noise comes from only one side.
Mr. Heath: I am asking the Leader of the House what possible justification he can have for taking time during this coming week to guillotine the Transport Bill, other than the fact that he has put ten Bills into one and, through his own incompetence, could not start the Committee stage until January. Is he aware that we regard this as absolutely unjustifiable?
Mr. Crossman: I would not say that I was wholly surprised by the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition. He has put forward what he regards as powerful arguments. I prefer to reserve mine for next Thursday afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ellis—Mr. Heath.
Mr. Heath rose—
Mr. Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the point of order. I shall call him. Mr. Heath.
Mr. Heath: Can the Leader of the House, if he cannot find any justification for the guillotine, tell us when we shall have the debate on the Bristol Siddeley Report? It would be much better to have that than to have the debate on the guillotine Motion.
Mr. Crossman: I have been discussing with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee the statement he has made
664
that he has decided to have a special investigation. He has assured me that it will not take long, and I am hoping that we can have our debate well before the Easter Recess. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee cannot give me an absolute assurance as to how long his Committee will take. I thought, in view of his Committee's decision to hold this investigation, that we should postpone our debate until the Committee has completed its investigation.
Mr. Ellis: Can my right hon. Friend give us some more guidance as to how long the special investigation of the Public Accounts Committee is likely to take, when we can expect to have a debate on the Floor of the House, and whether the witnesses are likely to be recalled by the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. Crossman: It is not for me to discuss the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. I can only repeat to my hon. Friend that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, although clearly he cannot commit his Committee, is hopeful of completing the investigations in time for us to have a full debate on the Floor of the House before the Easter Recess.
Mr. Turton: Why is not the Leader of the House using the procedure he himself devised in Standing Orders for timetabling Public Bills?
Mr. Crossman: If there is a strong demand from the Opposition, we shall be delighted to use a procedure which gives the House only two hours to debate the matter instead of what I propose.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that many of us in the House believe that it is extremely urgent that we should have a debate on Vietnam? Will he take into account that a few weeks ago more than 100 hon. Members on both sides of the House asked for an early day debate on this issue and, although the Opposition have retreated from this demand and have thereby devalued Early Day Motions, some of us were serious in tabling that Motion? Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to having a general debate on Vietnam, when we can discuss what many of us regard as the most serious matter in the whole world at present?
Mr. Crossman: I gave some account of what business we shall be doing in the next fortnight. We have to deal with the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, and that will take us into April. I am hopeful at that time that we shall find time for some of the urgent topics, including Bristol Siddeley and Vietnam, which the House should and must debate.
Mr. G. Campbell: Can the Leader of the House tell us what precedent there is for imposing a guillotine on a Bill on which so far there has been no need to move a single Closure Motion in Committee?
Mr. Crossman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should hold himself in patience until I introduce the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: " Answer."] This is a business statement. I intend to explain the justification for the Timetable Motion when I move it on Thurday afternoon.
Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that for at least the 19 years that I have been here all guillotine Motions follow a pattern of attack and defence in precisely the same sort of phrasing, whatever Government are in power, and we have now got to the point of tedious repetition? Will he, therefore, dispatch this in the shortest possible lime by a simple vote?
Mr. Crossman: No. I always reflect on suggestions about procedure which my right hon. Friend gives me. This is a guillotine Motion. There is certainly much to be argued, and I am greatly looking forward to the arguments when we start the debate next Thursday.
Mr. Thorpe: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is the Leader of the whole House on these occasions and, therefore, has an obligation to the House as a whole, not merely to one side? [Interruption.] Does he recollect that last week the House was asked to rush through a very important piece of legislation and there were complaints from all quarters of the House that there was inadequate time for debate? Do we take it that the chaos in that case has gone to the right hon. Gentleman's head? Since he is justifying this Measure, will he confirm that it is the longest and most intricate, except for the Finance Bills, to be introduced since the war, and that
666
the Standing Committee, without any closures, has made the best progress of any Standing Committee this century?
Mr. Crossman: We had better wait until Thursday before discussing the merits of the Timetable Motion. I would only reply that the case for a timetable is to ensure that the debate is better organised, not worse.
Mr. Alfred Morris: As the debate on the Bristol Siddeley affair will mainly be about the workings of private enterprise, am I to understand that the Leader of the Opposition will be offering time for this matter?
Mr. Crossman: No. I have decided, on the whole, that the Government should offer time. This is a matter of great public concern which the Government are anxious to have debated.
Mr. Webster: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is his duty to protect the House against a most ill-digested Measure introduced half-way through the Session? He has failed. Nevertheless, he has a residuary duty to protect the right of a Standing Committee to debate it properly. He has failed and should resign.
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we shall be debating this on Thursday.
Mr. Milne: Arising from yesterday's statement by the Minister of Power on the pricing of North Sea gas, and bearing in mind the conflicting statements from the heads of the nationalised industries relating to power, can we expect an early debate on fuel policy?
Mr. Crossman: I do not see any prospect of a debate on fuel policy during the next fortnight. It will go into the list of priority debates which we must have at the beginning of April.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Reverting to next Thursday's debate on the guillotine Motion, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking not to introduce a guillotine Motion later for Report stage so as to avoid the constitutional impropriety of an Act being put on the Statute Book with large parts of it not subject to any Parliamentary debate or consideration
Mr. Crossman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must await the terms

667
of the Motion which I shall submit to the House next Thursday.
Mr. Swain: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, during the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill, the Minister of Power appealed to the House for the utmost speed in passing the Bill through all stages so that the benefits could be paid by Christmas? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister of Power to make an early start in presenting the Regulations to the House so that there is a possibility of the payments being made by next Christmas?
Mr. Crossman: I am not aware of any delay in the Regulations, but I think I should tell my hon. Friend that the necessary consultations with the unions are taking a little longer than expected.
Mr. John Hall: Would not the Leader of the House find it possible to meet the very important point put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), a point which is shared by many of his hon. Friends, that we should have a debate on Vietnam by having it next week in place of the timetable Motion?
Mr. Crossman: It is a matter which I would seriously consider before decisively rejecting it.
Mr. R. W. Brown: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the B.B.C. broadcast this morning concerning his timetable on the Transport Bill? Is he aware of the travesty of the facts contained in that broadcast and will he ask the Postmaster-General to do something about putting those facts right?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, I am aware of the terms of the broadcast. As always, we should not believe all we hear on the B.B.C. or read in the Press.
Mr. Heath: Following the Lord President's answer to the last question—
Mr. Crossman: On the contrary, one might wait to hear what the Lord President has to say about the business for next week and not try to anticipate it on the basis of unauthorised rumours from other parts of the House.
Mr. Heath: I was attempting to ask the Leader of the House about his reply to my hon. Friend concerning giving further consideration to the debate on Vietnam next Thursday. I understand that he does not want to give arguments for a guillotine, but can he tell us why it is necessary to have a guillotine next Thursday? Perhaps he will tell us when he will make a fresh business statement announcing that we shall have a debate on Vietnam instead?
Mr. Crossman: I think the right hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I said that I would consider the matter before decisively rejecting it. I said that I would explain next Thursday why, in my view, we have to have a timetable introduced straight away.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could find time next week to debate the advisability of him relinquishing his position as Leader of the House and letting us have somebody who would really reflect the opinion of the Leader of the House.
Mr. Crossman: The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that there are ways and means of putting that suggestion to the House in the correct form.
Mr. Moyle: Can my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to get the long awaited and long promised debate on industrial mergers and their consequences?
Mr. Crossman: I think I must explain again, that I have stated the business for the next fortnight, and that subject is one which we must look for not earlier than the beginning of April.
Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that four Regulations have already been laid by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, respectively, following the Government's decisions about the future of Civil Defence, that two further Regulations will have to be laid by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that these six Regulations raise separate matters which should be debated separately? In arranging future business, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need for providing

669
sufficient time for them to be debated separately so that each is debated on its merits.
Mr. Crossman: I will give careful consideration to the idea that each should be debated separately. My own view was that the four on Civil Defence could be grouped together. Certainly they need adequate debate and I will give time for adequate debate.
Mr. Winnick: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether, in the next few weeks, we will be able to have the long awaited debate on Rhodesia, which is all the more important because of the crime committed yesterday?
Mr. Crossman: After the interchange following the Prime Minister's Answer to the Question, it seems clear that whether we debate Rhodesia will depend a good deal on events. Certainly if there is a case for debate the Government will not be reluctant to have one, but we must consider carefully whether it would be suitable.
Sir J. Eden: Is it not quite clear, since the right hon. Gentleman has failed to give a proper explanation of why he must hay e a guillotine Motion next week that whatever happened in Standing Committee the Minister of Transport would have forced this on him? In those circumstances, is he not guilty of complete betrayal of his position as Leader of the House?
Mr. Crossman: I gathered from hearing the B.B.C. this morning that the accusation was the other way round. However, neither is true. I have been watching the progress of the Committee very carefully, as it is my job, and I came to the conclusion that we should have a timetable now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is what we shall discuss next Thursday. I am answering questions on business, and next Thursday we shall have six hours to discuss this. That seems to me to be time enough.
Mrs. Renée Short: Why not two hours?
Mr. Judd: With reference to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), would he not agree that as ultimate responsibility for everything that
670
happens in Salisbury lies in this House we must have a debate on Rhodesia, and the sooner the better?
Mr. Crossman: I think that it is very probable that we shall need a debate on Rhodesia fairly soon. But I am not prepared to say more than to ask the House to study the interchange which took place after the Answer of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today. If that is looked at, people will realise why I am not prepared to commit myself precisely on a debate on Rhodesia now.
Mr. Hirst: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, quite apart from the discourtesy involved, his attitude of refusing to recognise his responsibilities to the House as Leader of the House is inefficient in itself, and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly right to draw attention to the size of the massive Transport Bill, notwithstanding which one-third of it has been got through in 19 sittings, which shows a high efficiency?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can raise that point on Thursday in the debate.
Mr. Crossman: From my experience in the House, I think that discussions on timetables follow a fairly orthodox, routine course, whichever party is in power. Since the war, the Conservative Party has timetabled 15 Bills and the Labour Party 3.
Mr. Henig: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early Day Motion No. 187 on the Order Paper, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) and other hon. Members? In view of the concern felt by many hon. Members that British arms are being used in the Nigerian conflict, and British interests are thereby making a profit from the continuation of this horrible war, will he find time very shortly for a debate on the Nigerian situation and the possibilities open for this country to hasten a peaceful settlement?
[That this House welcomes the support given by Her Majesty's Government to the peace initiatives taken by the Commonwealth Secretariat with a view to ending the Nigerian conflict, but urges that as a pre-condition Her Majesty's Government take all possible steps to prevent the supply of arms for use in the war in order to demonstrate genuine neutrality.]
Mr. Crossman: I can only tell my hon. Friend what I have said to other hon. Members, that I cannot hope to do it in Government time. If my hon. Friend can find opportunities of another kind, it is up to him to seek them.
Mr. Peyton: Is the Leader of the House aware that his last answer on the guillotine Motion, when he referred to the routine nature of the discussions, showed how superficial a study he had made of the problem? Is he aware that many of us think that it is a pity that he has not allowed his newly-emergent sense of shame about the Bill to lead him to withdraw it altogether rather than to seek to stifle discussion of it?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware that at Business time opportunities can be taken for putting over views which concern not only the timing of business, and the hon. Gentleman takes them. I prefer to retain my arguments for Thursday, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to come and listen to the case I shall then make on the timetable.
Mr. Peyton: There is no case.
Sir T. Beamish: Can the Leader of the House think offhand of any year since 1265 when Government business has been in a greater muddle?
Mr. Crossman: I could think offhand of a number of years. When I measure our chances of getting through our business by the summer holidays I see no reason for the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his family to be dejected about their summer holidays at present.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We should keep Simon de Montfort out of it.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that by introducing the guillotine on Thursday he could ensure that parts of a Bill which could cripple Scotland will not be properly discussed? Is it not a constitutional outrage to use a means designed to protect again filibustering to prevent proper discussion of a Bill involving £1,900 million of public money introduced within two weeks of devaluation?
Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman should wait and see the terms of the timetable Motion, the object of which will be
672
to ensure that adequate discussion does take place.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those of us on Standing Committee F considering the Transport Bill are rather concerned about the way in which some hon. Gentlemen opposite have preferred to make use of the two all-night sittings we have so far had not to make progress—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on business questions at the moment.
Mr. Dean: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early Day Motion No. 190, which points out the heavy damage which Government policy is inflicting on the economy of the South-West? Would that not be an excellent subject for debate next Thursday?
[That this House deplores the damage Her Majesty's Government has inflicted on the economy of the South-West by unemployment, the selective employment tax, discrimination against the tourist industry, defence cuts and transport legislation; further deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to implement any of the main recommendations of the Report of the South-West Economic Development Council which was published over seven months ago; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take urgent action on these matters.]
Mr. Crossman: There is a long list of subjects which we should all like to debate on days we could choose, but I would not think that next Thursday would be the right day to debate that Early Day Motion. The signatories should study the terms of the Government's reply to the South-West Economic Development Council before suggesting that we have a debate.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the Leader of the House aware that I was a member of Standing Committee E, which dealt with the Transport Act, 1962, and reached Clause 11 after 19 sittings? The Standing Committee on the present Transport Bill has reached Clause 38. In those circumstances, why is it necessary to have a debate next Thursday on the guillotine Motion when so many other urgent matters could come before the House?
Mr. Crossman: I hesitate to enter into the merits of the matter, but the two Bills are not pf precisely the same length. I suggest that we both reserve our discussion on this until next Thursday.
Mr. John Wells: As the finance available for the Agricultural Training Board runs out on 31st March, can the Leader of the House tell us when the Government intend to lay a new Order to enable that undesirable body to continue, so that we may pray against it?
Mr. Crossman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts that question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or gives me notice of it. I could not answer it off the cuff.
Mr. Wells: I should be out of order if I put it to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because it belongs to the Minister of Labour.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  SUPPLY

    LONG-TERM AIRCRAFT PROGRAMME
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we begin the business of Supply, may I announce that I have not selected the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to the Motion relating to military aircraft?
    With regard to the Amendment to the Motion on Vote A, also in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, I cannot forecast whether the hon. Gentleman will be successful in catching the eye of the Chairman during the debate on Vote A, but if he is successful he will have an opportunity to move that Amendment.
    4.19 p.m.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I beg to move,
    That this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government's precipitate actions and vacillating policies have jeopardised this country's long-term aircraft programme, both operationally and industrially, and made Great Britain deeply dependent on others for vital elements in our ability to defend ourselves and contribute to the defence of our allies.
    The first part of the Motion hardly needs debating or arguing. It refers to "precipitate actions", and it is clear from the three days' debate we have already had on defence that action was taken first and the thinking will follow later. We are now saddled with an interim Defence White Paper which will lead to a full Defence White Paper in the summer.
    The question of "vacillating policies" has also been well argued by the Secretary of State for Defence himself, who has explained that he wanted, I think on five occasions, to see a period of stability for the Services, and on each occasion a crisis swept him and the plans into the wastepaper basket. I shall deal with the operational repercussions and will leave my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) to

    675
    concentrate on the industrial repercussions. I also want to deal with repercussions on the balance of our forces and on our alliances.
    The total defence budget this year is up by £66 million. The introductory paragraph—which, I believe, must always be written by Ministers, for it contains so much more politics than the rest of the White Paper put together—has a whole lot of excuses, presumably thought up for the Left wing. I am sorry not to see members of the Left wing here for it explains that this, that and the other were unforeseen, all of which has meant extra cost. This, of course, happens every year.
    Of course, defence estimates often have to be adjusted because of unforeseen contingencies and I recall that, last year, there was a Supplementary Estimate of £43 million. But the same people are in the same jobs this year. They are a little more tired and will, therefore, probably make a few more mistakes and be more hurried in their preparations in view of the crisis, so that we can expect an even bigger Supplementary Estimate at the end of the year.
    In addition, this defence budget does not allow in any way for the cancellation costs of the F111 or of the Buccaneer or of the Chinook. One hazards the guess that these together will add another £70 million, much of it in dollars, to the bill we are debating.
    Much has happened since our debates last year. First, there was the crisis of the paper aircraft which the Defence Secretary thought up and in which he put so much faith—the Anglo-French V.G. Then there were the economic crisis of July and, as always happens under Labour, the defence votes took the brunt. Then we had the devaluation crisis and again defence cuts. In this instance, the air side of the Ministry of Defence took the brunt, and we had the cancellations of the Chinook and the Buccaneer. Then came the January economies and the cancellation of the F111.
    The country and Parliament find it difficult to anticipate just what the Government are going to do. There is, however, one certainty. Whenever the Government get into an economic crisis and look for things to cut, the great majority of the cuts come in the defence programme. That is very popular with
    676
    the Left wing but had for the defence of the country and our commitments. Sometimes they say that sacred cows are to be slaughtered, but defence always bears the brunt. This is a typical reaction—a sort of Pavlovian dog reaction—of the Labour Party to an economic crisis.
    On page 68 of the Grey Paper—in semimourning, as it should be—one sees the division of the responsibilities and of the vote as between the different Services. The Ministry of Defence (Central) has the biggest percentage increase—Parkinson's Law at work, presumably—with an increase of 14 per cent. the air expenditure shows the smallest increase and in real terms is a cut, for it is only 2 per cent. up. The Ministry of Technology shows a reduction of £17½ million. It is not clear why this should be so. I hope that it is not because the Government are eating the technical seed corn and cutting back the development of future advanced weapons and aircraft, because if that is so we shall feel the strain even more in the mid and late 1970s.
    The biggest percentage increase of 12 per cent., is for the Ministry of Public Building and Works, providing an extra £21½million. I understand that this is largely for bricks and mortar, in most cases providing or re-providing in this country facilities which already exist overseas. It is worth remembering, too, that we were told on Tuesday that £30 million has already been spent on extra barracks and married quarters. This seems a strange way of spending money in order theoretically to save it.
    We condemn the Government for the repercussions of these affairs on the present and future operational strength of the Royal Air Force. We remember the brave words of the Defence White Paper in February. 1966, which said that the Anglo-French V.G. was to be both operationally and industrially the core of our long-term aircraft programme. I feel rather sorry for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence who, I believe, is to follow me in this debate.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): No.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Last year, the hon. Gentleman went very far in his praise of the F111. He referred to his visit to

    677
    Texas—I do not think that his journey was really necessary—and highly praised the aircraft, saying how desperately essential it was and quoting the paragraph of the Defence White Paper, 1967, which said:
    "The key to the deterrent power of our armed forces is our ability to obtain early warning of an enemy's intentions through re-connaissance to strike at his offensive forces from a distance in case of need."
    The hon. Gentleman then said:
    "Although we do not plan to indulge in major operations without the co-operation of allies, this does not absolve us from the responsibility of maintaining a balanced force capable of making a contribution which those allies would value.
    …the principal rôles of the F111 aircraft will be tactical and particularly reconnaissance—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol 743, c. 245 and 247.]
    I think our first concern is how we are to replace the reconnaissance power which has gone. The Minister of Defence for Equipment said on 13th December that this responsibility would fall on France and the United States. Later, the Defence Secretary said that it would not fall on the French but on the United States. But can we be sure that the United States will always be able to provide these facilities for our troops wherever they may be engaged? Can we be sure that the Americans will not be involved in a serious conflict in the Pacific or other Harts of the world where their troops may be endangered, and that they will pass to us all the up-to-date and essential information on the distribution of potential enemy forces gained as a result of their reconnaissance? We cannot carry out such reconnaissance ourselves.
    I imagine that we had a pre-eminent position in the development of reconnaissance equipment, particularly in the avionics for the TSR2 which we are now trying to sell, quite rightly, for the F111 reconnaissance version. I hope the firm is successful. I believe that we have adapted some of this equipment for the Phantom. What aircraft is to carry out the rôles which every Minister in the Department has said is absolutely vital for the success and safety of our troops?
    On 4th March, the Minister of Defence for Equipment told us of the Warton studies, referring to the variable geometry aircraft which is likely to have an engine from the 13ristol-Siddeley division of Rolls Royce. He told us that it might go for
    678
    ward in the mid-1970s. One wonders whether this is a realistic approach because, if one examines the research and development list in the White Paper, this does not seem to be any more than a paper project. It is even put down as a project, followed by the words "a study". It is nothing more than a study at this stage. If it is really only a study, how are we to have hardware in the mid-1970s? Can we be told in firm terms what is being done to replace th reconnaissance abilities of which we have deprived ourselves?
    Under Labour's constant barrage of cuts the capability and number of first-line aircraft in the Royal Air Force are beginning to go down. Too much money has been spent, and not enough has been done to develop or provide new aircraft. Money has been spent on cancellations. HANSARD of 28th July, 1967, contained an interesting list of all the cancellations that had taken place. It showed that the TSR2 cancellation had cost £195 million; the HS 681, £21 million; the P1154 £21 million; the Anglo-French variable geometry study—the paper aircraft—£21 million. That adds up to £240 million, and no aircraft to show for it.
    I have added up all the figures for cancellations which we made when in office, and it will be found that these current costs, in two and half years, are already greater than all the costs which were listed, and of which so much was made in the 1964 and 1966 General Election campaigns. More money has been wasted in the last two and a half years than was wasted in the entire 13 years of our Government. This is not the end—I wish it were. Added to the—240 million we will see, presumably in this financial year—negotiations are going on now—the cost of cancelling the 50 F111s. I wish the Government well and hope that they will be very tough in their negotiations with the United States. They understand tough and realistic talk, but I doubt whether it will cost less than £50 million. The cancellation charges for ten Buccaneers and 15 Chinooks have also to be costed. In all another £70 million may be added to the £240 million, making £310 million in cancellation costs, and not one single aircraft to show for it. This makes the £30 million spent on peanuts in the last Labour Government look very small beer.

    679
    As time runs out and new aircraft are not developed, what is worrying is that the strength of the Air Force is running down. I take my information from the March edition of the Air League publication, "Air Pictorial".
    It is stated there that by the early 1970s the following will be the modern aircraft in use by the Royal Air Force: 100 Royal Air Force Phantoms; 60 Harriers; 150 Jaguars; 50 surviving Vulcans; 100 Lightnings and possibly 80 Buccaneers, which will be transferred from the Royal Navy. There will be 460 R.A.F. teeth aircraft. We have heard it said that Britain cannot afford to have more. This is always the flabby excuse of Little Englanders. If we cannot afford it, how is it that other nations can? It is interesting to look at a list of those nations which have over 400 teeth aircraft.
    Poland is the premier one among the Soviet satellites with 870. We are likely to have 460. There are over 400 possessed by France, West Germany, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Turkey and even Sweden with a population of eight million, about the same as Greater London, is able to afford 400 combat aircraft, some of which are excellent Swedish aircraft and are nationally developed, not developed conjointly with others. It is not a question of cost but desire. Other nations can do it and we could if we wanted to.
    Compared with the 460 which I have given, the shiny brochures which the Royal Air Force puts out tell a different story. Earlier this week a friend of mine telephoned the recruiting office at Kings-way and got most prompt service and excellent brochures. They are beautifully printed, very well prepared and in every respect admirable. The first page says:
    "The new aircraft coming into Royal Air Force service by 1970 will number over 1,000."
    I hope that in reply the Minister who is responsible will tell us where these are coming from, because we know of no such figure. Over the page the first glossy picture, and how impressive it is, is said to be the first aircraft to which the Air Force can look forward. This is trying to get recruits for the Air Force, and the picture is of the swing-wing strike reconnaissance aircraft, the F111K.
    There is a eulogy about how good it is and it is exactly the same in another
    680
    brochure. This aircraft was cancelled two months ago. Has the Minister not yet got round to telling his recruiting officers about it? Could he not have a printed slip put in? This is a manifesto, admirable and glossy, like the Labour Party manifestoes in 1964 and 1966, but it is totally and absolutely inaccurate and the sooner it is corrected the better.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a flabby Little Englander, and one who is not ashamed of it, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to make clear what he wants his aircraft for, because this is out of the context of what we are discussing?
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I shall do so. The hon. Member calls himself a flabby Little Englander. I did not know that it was a current term, but he has described himself in that way. He is far from flabby on the Select Committee on which I sit with him. In some respects he is very robust.
    I turn now to the maritime patrol. From time to time the Minister has spoken of the changing pattern of the Russian armed forces, the concentration which they are now making towards the maritime rôle, towards the use of large submarine forces which are often on patrol in all the oceans of the world. In these circumstances, have we really enough maritime aircraft? We should never forget what we nearly suffered in the way of starvation in World Wars 1 and 2. We must remember that 2,500,000 tons of raw materials come to this country every day. We are utterly dependent on the security of our shipping. Money spent on maritime aircraft is infinitely worthwhile. Are 38 Nimrods as successors to the Shackletons enough to do this job? Can we really watch our vital interests, and above all detect and help to detect submarines, with the total use of only 38 aircraft? All of these will not be operational, because some will be training and some will be in Operational Training Units. That is a small and unecomonic buy and perhaps the Government will consider whether we ought not to have a follow on order in the future.
    I want to look at the other part of the Motion, which talks about the part that we are able to play with our Allies, and the way that we are likely to let them down. In a way the game is given away

    681
    by the phraseology of the White Paper. It says on page 5, paragraph 17:
    "We intend to reach a new understanding with the Government of Malaysia about the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement after 1971".
    What has happened is that we are withdrawing from Malaysia. We have said that we are not to have a capability to carry out any defence agreement there. We are unilaterally abrogating a solemn treaty to the Malaysians and to Singapore. How can we say that we are to stand by our alliances? This is entirely wishful thinking and it certainly cannot fool our enemies or our friends. It is presumably put in to give some comfort to those who do not probe very deeply. There is another remark, later in this same paragraph:
    "We shall, however, maintain our interest in the stability of the Middle East and the Far East".
    Of course we will, we have vast investments and interests in that part of the world, not least our raw materials. Over half of our oil supplies come from the Middle East, and from Arab countries. Of course we will retain interest but where is our capability? The Secretary of State has temporarily fallen asleep. [Interruption.] If he has not perhaps he will tell us now where is the capability to carry out these commitments?
    We come reluctantly to the conclusion that we cannot carry out commitments, either in the Middle East or the Far East. The right hon. Gentleman was fond of saying, when he came back from Australia how essential it was that we should play a part in Australia. He was singing the praises of the F111, and said that this was the one weapon which had the capability to help the Australians if they needed help. Now that has gone how are we to help Australia and New Zealand? How are we going to help our S.E.A.T.O. allies? Are we ratting on every one of these commitments as we are ratting in Aden and the Persian Gulf?
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious charge—that we are ratting on agreements we made with the Malaysians, for example. I am not aware that the agreement has ever been published, but he obviously has some inside knowledge of it. Are there revision clauses in that
    682
    treaty, or are we committed to remaining in the Far East indefinitely?
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I looked at the Treaty clauses very carefully. In the case of Aden they clearly said that the treaty could not be unilaterally abrogated by one side. It can only be done by mutual consent of both sides. This is the normal wording for such agreements. I have not got it with me. I know the Secretary of State for Defence did not know about it when he made the announcement about pulling out of Aden.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The hon. Gentleman made a serious charge. We never had a treaty with Aden. There was a great argument between the two sides of the House about whether a private undertaking given by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was binding on the present Government, but that was an undertaking to make a defence agreement and to keep a base in Aden. No such agreement was ever made, and that is why the party opposite criticised us.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: It was said that we would make a new defence agreement after independence, and the Minister wriggled on that. Prior to that there was an agreement between this country and Aden.
    Mr. Healey: On a point of order. The hon. Member has now confessed that the words he used were totally wrong; surely he should withdraw them.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): That is not a point of order.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I understand why the Minister is sensitive on this, because treaties have been broken, and I hope he will stand by the Malaysian Treaty. I see the right hon. Gentleman dissenting. Is there no defence agreement with Malaysia? The Minister does not answer. He knows perfectly well there is an Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement.
    Mr. Healey: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer there is the Anglo-Malaysian defence agreement, which is binding so far as relations between Britain and Malaysia is concerned. His right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) gave his view of our commitments under

    683
    that treaty and the S.E.A.T.O. treaty as meaning everything or nothing according to the view one takes. Those are not my views, those are the views of his right hon. Friend.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: He does admit there is an Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement. I am interested to hear it. I am sorry he did not take the opportunity of telling us how we were going to carry it out. There is no capability to honour that agreement. It is going to be renegotiated. It says so in the White Paper.
    I come to our N.A.T.O. obligations. We are told that with the air forces assigned to N.A.T.O. the balance will be altered so that there will be fewer nuclear and more conventional forces in the strike rôle. This is fully understood, and there is a statement here which deals with the new N.A.T.O. agreement. Most of us have read Mr. McNamara's statement to Congress, which sets out the philosophy in regard to N.A.T.O., which means strengthening our conventional forces this year. The Minister has endorsed this, and the Under-Secretary nods. Page 4 reads:
    "It is also agreed that, within the total resources available to N.A.T.O., adjustment should be made, particularly in the air forces, with the object of extending the conventional phase of hostilities should war break out."
    Are we going to have sufficient aircraft to do that? As I understand it, Phantoms will provide local air superiority and give protection to the Harriers. But we have only 60 Harriers. This is a good aircraft, but is 60 enough to make a viable force and give tactical support to our Army in West Germany? I have some doubt about this. The Harrier is an improved aircraft. It started as the Kestrel with a small 9,000 lb. thrust engine, went up to 14,000 lb. thrust and is going up to 21,000 lb. This gives it more lift and greater flexibility with its weapons system. I wonder whether the Minister is right in sticking to 60. It is too small a number and cannot allow for the reserves to be built up.
    The Minister for Defence for Administration, when he was winding up last night, said that these statements about strengthening N.A.T.O.'s reserves were based on the assumption that a conventional war would last three, four or
    684
    five days. He said last night that this idea of strengthening the mobilisation reserves in N.A.T.O. amounted only to a conventional war which might not last a week or more but would be stretched from two or three days to three, four or five days. The Minister nods. That is not the wording which Mr. McNamara used in his address, and this was put before N.A.T.O. and approved by N.A.T.O.
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Member was in the House on Monday when I explained this. There are certain conventional types of conflict in Europe for which N.A.T.O. agrees at last we should retain a capability to deal with purely conventionally. A large-scale conflict in Europe N.A.T.O. has always believed and still believes is bound to lead to the use of nuclear weapons, and if it continues to the use of strategic nuclear weapons. When we are talking about prolonging that type of conflict, we are thinking of extending it from the two or three days, which the Commander-in-Chief of Northern Army Group said in a recent television interview he could fight, to four or five days prolongation which could make the difference between the survival of humanity and its destruction.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: If it was from two to three to four or five days, I hardly think it is necessary to have a N.A.T.O. reappraisal. The phraseology, which is entirely new, seems to overstate the case. The Minister recognises and we understand that he wants more reserves. Ought he not to order more Harriers? Is 60 enough to provide sufficient reserve? In the old days one used to be able to build an aircraft relatively quickly. They were relatively simple. Now they are very complicated weapons systems indeed, and should the need arise an aircraft cannot be built in less than 18 months even if it is proven and in production, if it is jigged and tooled. In fact, it is much more likely to be 24 months allowing for the avionics and other sophisticated equipment. Would it not be wise to have a follow-on order and to let Hawker Siddeley have the go ahead on the long-term delivery materials and on some of the components which take a long time to produce? I cannot believe 60 is a viable or economic force.

    685
    Everyone recognises that the smaller the number the more expensive the unit. If we want real numbers to get the export potential out of this aircaft, then it would be worth while going ahead with a worth-while number if the Government agrees this is a good and useful tactical aircraft to support our troops in Germany.
    To summarise, by mismanagement of our economy, we have had successive crises. In each crisis, it is defence which has had to bear the brunt of the cuts. Of the three Services the Air Force has taken the biggest cut. The operational strength of our aircraft and the weapons we are now using was developed over the 13 years of Conservative rule. First this Government cut the replacements—the T1154, the HS681, the TSR2—and substituted other aircraft to do the job. Now these aircraft too have had to be cancelled. Money has been spent in bricks and mortar—£30 million extra last year, £20 million extra this year. Money has been spent on cancellation charges—£310 million—without a single aircraft to show. We have had the philosophy about bringing the troops back to this country. Then when they get back, we learn that their numbers are to be cut. Deprived of numbers and aircraft, we have to go back on our treaties and understandings. This is what has happened over the last two and a half years.
    Now the Secretary of State for Defence is concerned to work out the full implications of the cuts, which he knows and acknowledges will be agonising, to honour the announcements made in January. We understand that we shall have a White Paper in June. I ask him whether he will try to avoid being too intellectually arrogant in this matter. Can he remember that we are making plans for the defence of our country and commitments in the mid-1970s and late 1970s? The one thing which we cannot possibly foresee is the state of the world at that time. Would it not be wise to leave options open? There will be a different Government and a different set of circumstances. Where there is a choice, surely it would be sensible to leave the option open.
    The classic case of the option not being left open occurred when the jigs and tools of the TSR2 were destroyed just
    686
    before the 1966 General Election. I cannot understand that. One would have thought that perhaps the next Government, if there had been a change of Government, might need this as a bargaining counter with our American suppliers. I hope that this mistake will not be made again and that next time a sensible option will be left open so that if the state of the world changes, if there is a settlement in Vietnam, if there is a spread of Communism and our friends appeal to us for help, we have the means of honouring our agreements and answering their cries for assistance.
    We see broken treaties and cancelled contracts all around us. We see revised and re-revised plans; they must litter the Ministry of Defence. I feel sorry for the Service planners, who must be beside themselves. No plan has been brought to fruition before the next plan has to supersede it. The Secretary of State for Defence and his two senior colleagues must have had a very difficult time. They must have searched their souls as to whether they should go on living among the ruins of their own defence plans or resign. I hope that they know where their duty lies.
    4.53 p.m.
    The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. Roy Mason): We have listened to a most surprising speech by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) calling for more aircraft for every conceivable rôle, in spite of our plans gradually to withdraw from the Far East and Middle East, we are lessening our international commitments, and yet, irrespective of cost, he demands more sophisticated aircraft for every rôle which he can conceive for the Royal Air Force. My intention is to deal with the industrial aspects of the Motion and to explain the reasons for our decisions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye during the latter part of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will deal with the operational side of the Motion.
    First, let us see just how much truth there is in all the suggestions that the present Government programme represents a grievous blow to the health of the British aircraft industry and that there has been an irrational and indefensible

    687
    refusal to continue with sensible and cost-effective projects. To help our survey, it is necessary to delve a little into history.
    After the First World War, it was the R.A.F. which pioneered the development of air services. More important, it was the R.A.F. which in the years leading up to the Second World War was responsible for pioneering and giving the industry the means to develop all the most important improvements in aircraft performance. It was the Air Ministry which in 1925 instituted a research programme into high speed flying, and thereafter the R.A.F. teams won the Schneider Trophy contests, developing the speed of racing seaplanes to over 400 m.p.h. A similar effort was devoted to long-distance and high-level flying, and it is worth remembering that distance records of over 5,000 miles were established as early as 1933 and of over 7,000 miles in 1938, and height records of over 50,000 feet were set in 1937.
    This is not irrelevant to the Motion. All these figures are relevant to a comparison of performance—cost increases which I shortly propose to make.
    In the 20 years which passed between the World Wars, it was the R.A.F. aircraft programme which led the way in industrial development and in improvements in aircraft performance. Yet at the end of that process, plus the industry's contribution—good industrial organisation and production methods—the unit production cost of each aircraft had not appreciably increased. A fighter aircraft at the start of World War I, built like a Rolls-Royce—[Interruption.] We built them. I am praising the British industry for its performance. But the research programme by the Ministry was giving the industry the chance to prove it. This was happening particularly between the two world wars.
    A fighter aircraft at the start of world war one, built like a Rolls-Royce cost several thousand £s—indeed, it cost £4,000. At the start of the Second World War, Spitfires and Hurricanes cost £5,000. What, by comparison, has happened since the end of World War II?
    First, as one would expect and hope, the R.A.F. has continued to lead the way in performance improvements, and has stimulated the British aircraft industry
    688
    accordingly. But what about costs? Let us take as a fair standard the case of a very successful modern non-British aircraft, the Phantom, an aircraft which has won many world records. In terms of performance this aircraft represents a remarkable improvement over the Spitfire, as the Spitfire did over the 1914 aircraft. But the Spitfire cost almost the same as the 1914 aircraft to produce. Each Phantom, on the other hand, is several hundred times more expensive than the Spitfire. The line of the graph relating performance to unit cost was more or less horizontal during the thirties. But during the fifties and sixties it has become more or less vertical, the type of vertical take-off we can well do without. Then, big increases in performance were achieved without increasing very much the unit production cost. Today, every increase in performance brings a huge increase in production cost—and the increases in research and development costs are, of course, even more marked.
    This is the essential background to our debate today. This, if we must talk about history, is what history tells us about the most essential industrial aspect of the aircraft programme—that is, the relation of improvements in performance to increases in cost and the difficult decision of when to stop paying much more money to get a little more performance.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: We do not disagree with that argument. But does not exactly the same apply to Sweden and all the other countries which I quoted which have modern aircraft in even bigger numbers than we have?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman must not try to mislead the House or myself. He must not try to compare the size and sophistication of Sweden's aircraft with the research and development costs of a highly complex machine like the TSR2, Phantom or F111. There is no comparison, and it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to try to mislead hon. Members who may not take such a close interest in these matters.
    Let us relate this essential background to more recent times. Let us see what changes in the aircraft programme it has made necessary, not only in the last three years, but in the last seventeen—ever since the Korean War started off new

    689
    equipment programmes which have continued from successor to successor to this day.
    In this context, it is worth examining the Conservative record. On 28th July last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology published an interesting list of the aerospace projects cancelled since 1951 and the money spent in each case. The Motion relates to the effect on the aircraft industry of cancellations, and, therefore, if it is true, it is worth while looking at the list of cancellations and how many there were when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were in Government; because it makes a fairly long list even in the small print of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    I will not weary the House by going through it all, but it is worthwhile to choose just some of the aircraft which have been cancelled. There was the Swift and its variations, the de Havilland fighter aircraft, the developed Hawker Hunter, the thin wing Javelin fighter, the Fairey supersonic fighter, the supersonic bomber, a naval interceptor, the Vickers military transport—all aircraft cancelled during the term of the hon. Gentleman's Government.
    Missile projects were cancelled, and this, too, affects the aircraft industry just as much, because engines, aeroplanes and missiles are part of the aircraft industry. They cancelled a guided bomb with television eye, the Vickers flying bomb, an air-to-ship guided bomb, an air-to-air missile, a long-range surface-to-air guided weapon and Blue Streak, worth £84 million, which was completely lost.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman admit that £70 million of that has gone into E.L.D.O.? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to be fair and would not want to make capital to which he is not entitled.
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman should not make suggestions like that. Some £84 million had been spent on the development of Blue Streak as a military project and what remains is a launcher, part of the equipment, in a civil application form: and it has not been worth all that to the European Launcher Development Organisation.
    Apart from Blue Streak, there was a medium-range surface-to-surface missile
    690
    in August, 1962, Blue Water, which no doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember, on which £32 million had been spent; and then the Prime Minister of the day cancelled Skybolt at £27 million. And it is not only aircraft and missiles. The same can be said of aero engines; cancellation after cancellation, £200 million lost, and I do not exaggerate as the hon. Gentleman did in the course of his speech. Here was a series of cancellations, repercussion after repercussion hitting the aircraft industry all the time that Government were in office.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman is getting carried away with the situation. He has quoted types of aircraft to suit his convenience; but the Swift fighter was ordered by the Attlee Government and was cancelled not for financial reasons but for technical reasons. It was not up to the job. The specification was wrong. The cost to the taxpayer was some £35 million.
    Mr. Mason: I do not have to argue with the hon. Gentleman about the reason for which a project was cancelled. The terms of the Motion relate to the effects of cancellations on the industry, and it does not come well from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman to put down a Motion of this kind and to seek to chastise this Government when they have been more guilty than we ever were.
    What about the most startling event in the calendar of hon. Gentlemen opposite when in Government, the 1957 White Paper introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)? I do not blame him, for it was the then Government's responsibility, but they cannot escape what effect this had on the industry and on the Royal Air Force, too; because here was the then Government's missile mythology "We are to have missiles for attack and missiles for defence. The days of manned aircraft are numbered. They are to go." That Government never fully realised how much they frightened the British aircraft industry and upset the R.A.F. Never in recent history has one White Paper had such serious, frightening and undermining results, particularly in the aircraft industry. Parliament, too, was seriously disturbed and, as we all know, the White

    691
    Paper was quickly buried. But the irresponsibility of that Paper and its effect upon the industry, on the R.A.F. and on the House can never be forgotten.
    Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about Conservative Government cancellations, but one thing he has not said is that the Conservative Government never cancelled a successor to the Canberra, which is absolutely vital for the R.A.F. if it is to fulfil its functions in N.A.T.O.
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman does not take much notice of the Questions an Answers about such things that have recently taken place. All that has been fully debated. I will deal with it later, as, no doubt, will my hon. Friend.
    As far as the record of the present Government is concerned, the decisions taken during the last three years, unwelcome as some of them undoubtedly are to the R.A.F. and to the aircraft industry, have reflected three consistent main lines of thought, all aimed at greater effectiveness and greater cost effectiveness. The hon. Gentleman and the Government of that time can take a little credit, and I want to give credit where it is due. The first example of this new line of consistent thinking, of placing the needs of the Services first, was set not by my right hon. Friend but by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, his predecessor.
    There was the decision taken early in 1964, during the last months of the Conservative Administration, which I applaud, to order the Phantom for the Royal Navy. It was a very good decision, and that is why we confirmed it; and it is only charitable now to remember that in those days, at least, the Tories did not always allow themselves to be distracted by Jingoistic talk of "becoming deeply dependent on others" to the detriment of the Services' re-equipment programme.
    Let us recall the situation at the time of the then Government's decision early in 1964. It had been hoped to develop the P1154 into a common aircraft suitable for both the R.A.F. and the R.N., but this turned out not to be possible, and to develop a naval variant of the P1154 would have cost more than the relatively small number needed by the
    692
    Navy would have warranted. In any case, the naval variant would have arrived late. Therefore, it was decided that it would be better to buy a version of the American Phantom aircraft.
    I believe that the noble Lord, the then Minister of Defence, although he has much else to answer for, is to be congratulated on that decision at least, because it was arrived at in accordance with just the same correct principles as we have tried to follow ever since he set us that example. As he recognised, while any reasonable person would wish to help the British aircraft industry to the greatest possible extent, cases might arise in which the industry was not able to produce what the Services wanted at the time when they wanted it; and when that happened we must in the last resort put the Services' needs first. That is what he did, and rightly. But how does his decision—and those on Skybolt, Polaris and Martel—square with the Opposition's Motion today? Completely contradictory. What about "jeopardising the long-term aircraft programme"? I have mentioned projects on which the Conservatives, when in office, went elsewhere to get equipment at a better price, on time, for the Services. We have tried to follow that excellent example set by the noble Lord.
    Mr. Lubbock: In speaking about the Phantom, should not the right hon. Gentleman remind the House that the United Kingdom content of its manufacture is getting on for 50 per cent., and does not he think that because of the superior performance of the British version over the American version there are prospects for selling it to other countries?
    Mr. Mason: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his detailed knowledge of the topic. There is at least 40 per cent. British content in the Phantom, with the new Spey engine power unit, a bypass engine with reheat, which may prove very superior indeed. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning it.
    I said that since 1964 the major developments in the Royal Air Force aircraft programme have reflected three main, consistent lines of thought. These are, first, reaffirmation of the validity of the philosophy of the Royal Air Force about the essential place of tactical strike/ reconnaissance in the overall defence concept, about the flexibility afforded to

    693
    the Forces by means of air transport, and about the greater economy of land-based as opposed to carrier-based aircraft. Second, we have recognised the need to accelerate the programme for the replacement of obsolescent R.A.F. aircraft, such as the Canberra, Hunter, Beverley and Hastings. Here let me say that although our plans have not all worked out as we would have wished, the Royal Air Force is at the beginning of a re-equipment programme which will provide it with aircraft greatly superior in performance to those they replace.
    It is silly to make comparisons of the kind made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North and others about Sweden when we are to have aircraft which, in some instances, no other country has and which will be in advance of those of every other nation or air force.
    Mr. Victor Goodhew rose—
    Mr. Mason: I am sorry, I must get on. I am taking a long time. Thirdly, we have recognised the need for a change—a need based on the cost considerations which I have mentioned. They have been spelt out many times by detailed inquiries, especially the Plowden Report. There has been a change from a purely national production programme to an interim programme based on a combination of United States procurement and national production and a long-term pattern of joint development and production combined with either foreign procurement or national production where appropriate. [Interruption.] Of course it is not the intention of the present Government to ignore completely the interests of the British aircraft industry.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does that mean that we might have a national aircraft development, primarily developed in this country, for our own military purposes and to serve overseas?
    Mr. Mason: I cannot at this stage prejudge the studies which are taking place at Warton, but I warn the hon. Member that the sort of aircraft which might be required might prove to be very expensive and, therefore, collaboration may be the answer if it is to be fully de-developed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Absolutely wrong."] Hon Members opposite
    694
    say that that is wrong, but those who have listened through the debates of the past two days will remember that in winding up the debate for the Opposition on Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Can) said:
    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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 347.]
    It appears that hon. Members on the back benches opposite disagree with what their right hon. Friend said from the Front Bench.
    Throughout this time we have reviewed not only the cost and timescale of the production programme of individual aircraft, but also basic defence philosophy, which is interrelated continuously with the selection of the individual aircraft types. A more logical and coherent picture of the review can be given chronologically rather than tracing each aircraft in turn. If the House will bear with me for a few minutes, I would like to do that.
    The first stage was our successful attempt to cut back the escalating costs of the aircraft programme and to improve on the dates by which the Royal Air Force would be equipped with the more modern aircraft it needed. During this period, it was decided to cancel the TSR2. This aircraft, as all hon. Members know and most are honest enough to admit, was escalating in cost far beyond the capacity either of the defence Votes to pay for its research, development and production, or of the Royal Air Force to maintain it throughout its operational life.
    We also cancelled the P1154 because it was going to be too expensive and too late, and we decided to go for a combination of the Phantom and the P1127. We decided to replace the HS681, on grounds of both timescale and cost, by the United States Hercules, and we selected a version of the Comet to replace the Shackletons. These were all logical steps. The Hercules came into service in 1967 and the Phantoms, the Harriers and the Nimrods are on order for the Air Force and are coming into service next year. That was sense; it was logical and it has worked.

    695
    Next we were involved in negotiations with the United States authorities over the three United States aircraft, including the F111, in which we were interested, making arrangements about cost, delivery and British components. These negotiations resulted in extremely favourable financial terms, including credit terms, which we were able to extend to the Phantoms for the Royal Navy ordered by the previous Administration. It was also agreed that British items, amounting to about 40 per cent. of the total cost of the Royal Air Force Phantoms, would be incorporated in those aircraft. All that is to the great benefit of the aerospace industry.
    During the time which followed, the defence review of capability and commitments resulted in the conclusions that we needed a land-based strike reconnaissance capability, that greater emphasis was in future to be placed on the tasks of the Royal Air Force in the conventional rôle and that in view of changes in capabilities the R.A.F. should take over from the carriers the maritime tasks in the later 1970s.
    In parallel with the defence review, there was a good deal of fundamental rethinking about the size and rôle of the British aircraft industry—[Interruption.]—in which the report of the Plowden Committee in December, 1965, is the obvious landmark. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) to keep smirking from the back benches. The Plowden Report has had a great impact on the minds of most hon. Members who take a serious interest in these affairs.
    The general outcome of the review was to confirm the correctness of a reduction in national effort and a change in emphasis towards joint development and production and, in particular, co-operation with France. We signed a memorandum of collaboration with the French in 1965. We then signed the first procurement order for the F 111 and linked it with procurement of United Kingdom equipment under the offset arrangement. We also settled the final buy of the Hercules, fixed a price for the Nimrods, decided on the first order for Harriers, and made progress with the Anglo/French projects, including the Jaguar and the Anglo/ French helicopters. Then we established
    696
    the optimum specification of the A.F.V.G. All this was towards the end of 1966, although it became increasingly clear to us that the French Government were having difficulties about financing the A.F.V.G. and, as we all know, it was cancelled a short time after that.
    If I may come right up to date, I remind hon. Members who were not here on Monday of what my right hon. Friend said about the continuing need to place as much emphasis as possible on European collaboration in the research, development, production and procurement of defence equipment, and this is particularly of aircraft.
    I have made this chronological review because it can be clearly shown that the same consistent lines of thought run through what, to some people, may otherwise seem a bewildering pattern. The first principle now, as when we began, is that once the needs of the Royal Air Force have been established, the various means of meeting the needs have to be considered without any other consideration in view than that we must have aircraft with the right performance delivered at the right time and at the right price.
    The previous Administration had planned a tactical strike/reconnaissance aircraft which could not have come into service until three years after its target in-service date, and at almost incredible cost. They planned to introduce the P1154 in about 1970–71 at the earliest, whereas in our programme the Royal Air Force will get its first Phantoms this year and its first Harriers next year. They planned transport aircraft to replace the ancient Beverleys and Hastings which were unlikely to have been in service even by 1971, whereas under our programme there are Hercules aircraft already in operation and the whole of the Hercules force should have been delivered by the end of the summer.
    In fact, as my right hon. Friend said when he opened the defence debate on Monday, the Royal Air Force will be receiving more than 400 modern combat jets over the coming years as good as if not better than any in Europe. [Interruption.] There will be 1,000 aircraft in the hands of the Royal Air Force but more than 400 modern combat jets. These are what will be in the hands of the Air Force in a few years' time.
    Mr. F. V. Corfield: In regard to the costs of the TSR2, can the hon. Gentleman say why it was al the fault of the previous Administration when expensive modifications were ordered by the Royal Air Force up to within a fortnight of cancellation? In view of his emphasis on land-based aircraft, can the Minister tell us what aircraft are to be used in support of seaborne exercises in the future?
    Mr. Mason: I do not want to go into all the details, but, as far as the TSR2 is concerned, three air frames were being built, and some of the research which went into the aircraft has since been used. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hendon, North said so, and his knowledge of the industry is such that I would not attempt to mislead him. He knows that some of the research is now being embodied in other modern aircraft. The electronics especially are being developed, which will be very useful in sales overseas.
    The Royal Air Force will have a highly sophisticated force of more than 400 modern combat jets in the next two or three years. Its Phantoms will be the most advanced aircraft of their time for another decade. For several years, the Harriers will be the only fixed-wing operation 11 aircraft in the world with a vertical take-off and landing capacity. The Nimrods will be the most advanced maritime aircraft in the world, too. I make no apology for repeating those facts, which I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to wish away but cannot. We are talking about first-rate equipment for a first-rate Air Force, and none of their cries and none of these Motions will alter it.
    So much for the present state of the Royal Air Force, but what of the state of the British aircraft industry? I repeat that, wherever British industry can meet the needs of the R.A.F., it will get the orders. The industry is working now on a military aircraft programme worth over £100 million in 1968–69 in research and development alone. The bulk of it relates to the United Kingdom Phantom, the Nimrod and the Harrier, for which very valuable production orders will follow the R. & D. stage, just as they will for the Jaguar and the other new aircraft coming along. There is the Bucaneer improvement programme in
    698
    train as well, and we are saying little about the very large guided missile programmes, though they are just as important to the aerospace industry.
    It is not for me to speak about Government assistance to the industry generally, but, as the Opposition Motion is drawn in pretty wide terms, let me quote one or two significant figures. Comparing 1963 with the present day, employment in the industry is almost the same, with 264,000 in December, 1967, compared to 268,000 in December, 1963. But output is up by £133 million at current prices. Exports are up by £90 million at current prices. Government assistance for civil transport aircraft has nearly quadrupled. The Government expenditure in the industry has gone up by £20 million to £350 million, which is equivalent to about 60 per cent. of the industry's output. If this is a case of an industry ruined by Government action, I can think of plenty of other industries which would gladly be ruined in the same way.
    Nor is that the end of the story, because the offset agreements with the United States, which I am confident will not now be altered so as to affect existing contracts placed under them, have enabled our aircraft and aero engine industries to make sales worth scores of millions of pounds in markets which would otherwise have remained closed to them.
    The trouble is that the Opposition Motion is not even like the curate's egg. It is not even good in parts, because it is a bad egg all the way through. It talks of "precipitate action", though they complain incessantly that we are taking a long time to make up our minds. It talks about "vacillating policies", when we have operated consistent ones and, moreover, some which were begun by a Tory Minister of Defence. It talks of our becoming "deeply dependent on others", when every rational study of the British aircraft industry in recent years has shown that international collaboration, especially European collaboration, is the proper pattern to follow. It is a muddled Motion and an irrational one. I am glad to ask my hon. Friends to reject it.
    5.24 p.m.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: We know the right hon. Gentleman to be a most energetic Minister, but today

    699
    he has had his own reheat system in operation. He went through his brief at supersonic speed.
    I have become more and more depressed recently about the outlook for the Royal Air Force, and I am in no way reassured by listening to his speech. I criticise even his historic record of costs because, when he talks about a Spitfire costing £5,000, there must have been many organisations which gave Spitfires when we asked for £10,000 for one who felt that they had been held on a string. Putting a Rolls-Royce engine into an airframe and then adding the necessary armament would have cost a good deal more than £5,000, so the right hon. Gentleman appears to have been wrongly briefed on that.
    In the course of his speech, he referred to cancellations. He really must do his homework. The fact is that it is good to have cancellations. Even in the days of a Conservative Government, my argument was always that we did not cancel often enough. The moment that a specification appears to be going wrong, is over-weight, or does not measure up to what it should do, it is right to cancel quickly. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the situation in America, the percentage of cancellations there is considerably higher proportionately than our own.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman apply that line of thought to the Skybolt cancellation, which cost the nation nearly £300 million?
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was doing at the time of Skybolt, but I went to Los Angeles to see it. Britain did not cancel it. It was cancelled by the United States Government. We were led up the garden path by the Americans. It so happened that I signed a Motion bearing a hundred signatures which was sent to Mr. Macmillan when he was in Nassau, and I went to see him there. A week after, I went to Los Angeles. The weapon flew 1,700 miles. There was nothing wrong with Skybolt. The Americans cancelled it because it suited them. In doing so, they let us down. That is why I do not like being dependent on America or any other foreign Power to that extent.
    700
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about employment in the industry. Three years ago, I understood that we were to get the surplus capacity out of this industry and into others. He now boasts that it is employing just as many people.
    Mr. Mason: I gave specific figures to the effect that there are 4,000 fewer people employed in the industry. It is not much less in 8 years, but there are 4,000 less. Nevertheless, the aircraft industry has stepped up output considerably, increased exports, and has had a fine record over the past few years.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I was involved in the industry for a number of years and, from personal experience, I know that there are always too many people employed in it. There is always a lot of "fat" and no firm likes to let its workers go in case it gets a contract and cannot recruit workers. We want to get the surplus people out of some sections of the industry and into other export industries.
    What the right hon. Gentleman did not say is what is happening to the research units, because they comprise the most important aspect of the situation. Scientific workers will not stay in an industry unless they have something exciting to aim at and something which is as good as any other country has. We have lost the cream of our research workers to North America and elsewhere. Very few of them will come back, because they are involved on the West Coast in exciting projects in supersonic flight, and so on.
    I have always attached the greatest importance to research in this industry as giving an unknown figure of fall-out to the engineering business as a whole in such subjects as metallurgy, electronics and hydraulics. An example of this is, the hydraulic pit prop, which was developed from one of Dowty's undercarriages. This is where we shall fail in years to come unless we have a viable aircraft industry with efficient research teams behind it.
    The right hon. Gentleman then talked about land-based aircraft being substituted for the carrier aircraft. I am sure that the House would like to know what aircraft these are, because I do not know them. Perhaps we can be told by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for

    701
    the Royal Air Force when he winds up the debate what is taking the place of the carrier aircraft.
    I have listened to many of these Air Estimates debates over 23 years, together with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). We have had many battles, usually from a different standpoint. To me, however, this is by far the saddest occasion on which I have taken part in such a debate. It is not the amount of money that is being spent; it is the way in which the Government have mutilated the Royal Air Force and the research programme of the aircraft industry.
    I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Defence has left the Chamber. I have known him for many years. He is highly intellectual, but highly arrogant. He speaks to us in this House as though he were a don, which he was at one time. Nobody knows anything except him. He is the thickest skinned politician that I have ever come across. He misquotes what hon. Members say, and does so with a broad grin on his face. He does not even take the matter seriously. I suggest that the Government would have been well advised to have made a clean sweep and got rid of the right hon. Gentleman after the mess they made of our defence affairs. Put him out to grass for a year or two. It will do him a lot of good. We have to live with him, but I hope that he will be reminded of his record every week during the life of this Parliament.
    The Defence Review of 1966 made the most of the decision to order the F111A from the United States and to produce the Anglo-French geometry aircraft. Both these aircraft have now been scrapped, and there is no replacement for them. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was rather proud. He called me a flabby little Englander. I take a different view about my country. Many people in Britain expect to us to ensure that we have a front line Air Force which is comparable to that of other Powers of our size and means.
    The key to the deterrent power of our Armed Forces lies in the ability to obtain early warninig of an enemy's intentions—we do this by reconnaissance—and to strike at his offensive forces from a distance. Britain will no longer be capable of doing that when the V-bombers, which are ageing, have gone. The Government
    702
    have taken a clear decision which means that Britain no longer holds the key to the deterrent power of our Armed Forces. Thus the Royal Air Force will lack a critical part of its capability.
    I expect the Government to break their election promise about improving our economy, and so on, but when it comes to the defence of the country, I think that it is unforgivable to go back on a promise which was made less than two years ago. In their 1966 election manifesto they claimed that the Defence Review,
    "Has made certain that our forces will be able to carry out these tasks, without overstrain, with the full range of weapons needed for the job."
    The F111A capability will to some extent be provided by the V-bombers until about 1975, but many of these V-bombers must be getting tired, and I shall be surprised to see them last for so long. A few may, but when will the last Canberra be flying? Some are now 20 years old. Over the years the Government have boasted that they, not us, would give the Royal Air Force the best equipment with which to operate and defend our country, but in future the whole burden, in Europe and elsewhere, will be carried by the United States Air Force if it is willing and free to do the job.
    On 1st March the Secretary of State for Defence said:
    "…we shall need a replacement for the Canberras, the tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft, whether we are east of Suez or not. This aircraft Fill K replaces the cancelled TSR2 designed by the previous Government primarily as an aircraft for use in the European theatre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 476.]
    On 13th December last the Minister of Defence for Equipment said:
    "It"—
    that is the F111K—
    "is required as much in Europe as elsewhere for this type of operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 399.]
    What has changed the situation in the meantime? The Minister said that it was required in Europe.
    Mr. Lubbock: It was not really.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I am talking about what the Government said. The hon. Gentleman was not elected to the Government. The Labour Party was, and it took on this responsibility to the electorate.

    703
    What do our friends and allies think about us? Today I had lunch with an American—obviously I cannot name him—who has a great affection for this country. Politically he is unbiassed, but he is depressed about the way in which we are tackling these affairs. He remarked on the remarkably fine speech, in depth and breadth, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made during the defence debate. It certainly was a fine speech. It was well thought out, and I am certain that he wrote it himself. What must our friends and allies think of us? In my travels abroad I find it—[interruption.] If the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) wishes to intervene, he should stand up, and I will give way, otherwise he should hold his peace.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: I was merely saying that an equally relevant question is what do we think of them, particularly in regard to the Vietnam situation?
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I shall not get involved in that emotional subject, because I shall probably be ruled out of order if I do. I have a high regard for the Australians and New Zealanders who are playing their part out there, whatever other views there may be on this subject.
    Speaking about the Harrier, the Secretary of State said on 27th February, 1967:
    "We hope shortly to conclude a fixed-price contract for an initial order of the P1127…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 98.]
    I imagine that the Government issued an instruction for the firm to get on with it, but that was a year ago. When is the contract to be signed? I am as much concerned as anyone about unduly large profits being made on contracts, but, if someone has an instruction to proceed, and a year later there is still no contract, it is quite likely that we shall have another nonsense. I would like to see the matter settled with a firm contract.
    We are told that 170 Phantoms have been ordered, but, as the carriers are to be scrapped by 1971, what is the position now? Are any of these aircraft to be cancelled? I put this question to the Minister the other day when he was speaking. What will happen to the aircraft when the carriers are phased out of service? Will they be cancelled, or will
    704
    the Royal Air Force take them? Will they have to be modified if the Royal Air Force takes them over? The cost of these Phantoms over 10 years, including spares and running costs, is about £755 million. I estimate that 46 per cent. of the aircraft has a sterling content, but the extent of the sterling content has put up the overall cost of the aircraft.
    Mr. Lubbock: And the performance.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I understand that the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech. I hope that he will stop interrupting me. I shall make my speech as I want to make it.
    I propose, now, to say a few words about the TSR2. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) referred to the question of jigs and tools. I remember going with a deputation to see the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Minister of Aviation. The TSR2 had been cancelled. We implored him not to dismantle the jigs and tools for this aircraft in case they were required in the next two, three, or four years. We said that while the jigs and tools were in existence we would have some hold over the Americans if they started doing another Skybolt on us, yet in a matter of months the Government ran a steamroller over the jigs and tools and destroyed them. The only reason that I can think of for them doing that was that if the Conservatives had won the 1966 election we might have proved how wrong they were. Why was it done? There were empty hangars all over the country in which these jigs and tools could have been stored without any charge. All that we have today is a set of drawings.
    It may have been an expensive aircraft, but the fact was that anything we spent on it would have been in sterling. We would have been using our own skills and research. Our own men would have been building the aircraft. It is not comparing like with like to say that the cost of the F111A was this, and that of the TSR2 was that, because in the latter case we would have been using home materials, and getting the "know-how" and fallout. It would have been a cheap proposition. I remember the chief test pilot, Mr. Beamont, after having flown about 50 or 60 hours, saying that he

    705
    would have had less trouble with this aircraft than with the Canberra at the same stage of development. Getting rid of it was a great mistake.
    The right hon. Gentleman boasted about the transport aircraft, but it is about 16 years old, although still quite useful. A total of 66 were provided at just under £1 million each before the Government changed their policy in the Far East. How are they to be employed in three or four years? What will we get for our money? What will happen to the number of VC 10s on order for Transport Command? They are very expensive, but could be very useful to one of the airlines if not required by Transport Command.
    My hon. Friend spoke about the combat strength of the R.A.F. It was pointed out by Air Commodore Donaldson in the Daily Mail that we have a combat strength of 460. lower than at any time since the 1939–45 war. It is one-fifth the size of the Communist Chinese Air Force. I know something about the Chinese Air Force, since I helped to form it and teach them to fly in the early 1930s in Southern China.
    Our Air Force includes 144 obsolete Canberras which are not a suitable weapon today, 96 V-bombers which are nearing the end of their useful life, 204 Lightnings, and 50 marine piston-engined Shackletons. The Government said that they would give the R.A.F. the best equipment, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman said what we shall get in the 1970s—but that is their reply to everything. If I want a new hospital in Macclesfield, I am told to wait until the 1970s.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: To take the hon. Member's point about a replacement for the Shackleton, would he not concede that it was only when the Labour Government came in that an order was placed for the Nimrods, which go into operation very soon? He complains about this Government but his own Government did not put in an order for a replacement.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: By the hon. Gentleman's own admission, his Government have not put in an order for the Harrier but have given an instruction to proceed. The Conservative Government did much to prepare the specification for the Nimrod. That is almost three years'
    706
    work by a Conservative Government: the hon. Gentleman must get his facts right—
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The important thing for my responsibility is to see that an aeroplane is in service. The hon. Gentleman complains about the Government not doing something. The order was placed as soon as the Labour Government came to power and it was impossible to have a new aeroplane for Coastal Command because the Tory Government had not placed an order. The process takes three years.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I am prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the point, but some of the work was done by the Conservative Government, and there are not enough on order.
    The Soviet influence in the Mediterranean, in Alexandria, and Algiers, and the problems of the west coast of Africa, means that we shall need a large Coastal Command to police the area. This may be our biggest problem, to control that Atlantic coastline effectively. All that the Government have done over the Simonstown base is to antagonise the South Africans. This Government never seem to learn from experience. This happened also with the previous Labour Government, although the Attlee Administration were an efficient team compared with this lot.
    The cost of the Canberra replacement—of the TSR2, on which about £178 million has been spent, the A.F.V.G., which cost £2·5 million, and the F111K, which cost £56 million and could cost £70–£80 million—will be at least £236 million, and we have nothing to show for it. This is incredible. Then we have the other cancellation charges, all resulting in very little.
    My experience leads me to believe that this Government do not understand defence, with one or two exceptions. I am sorry for the Under-Secretary, who is well liked in the R.A.F. and does what he can, but living under the present Secretary of State and trying to put his policy into practice is quite something to take on. What disturbs me is that the Left-wing of the Labour Party will want more cuts. They said so last week. They will not be satisfied with what has been done already—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes indicated assent.—
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I am glad to see the hon. Member supports my contention—
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that our attitude, which he has accurately described, will continue so long as we spend roughly 75 per cent. of our aircraft manufacturing capacity on the military instead of the civil side?
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is confused about the figures. We must relate this to a proportion of the gross national product, since we can spend only what we can earn. Our present percentage is not far out, and Britain can afford an efficient front line Air Force with British-made aircraft, which it has not got today.
    What will happen in the Persian Gulf after British withdrawal? We have heard about the possibility of rulers buying some aircraft and getting an air force together, but we do not know for sure. Twenty-six British advisers were sent out of Aden at a few hours' notice a few days ago. The Soviet Union will probably send officials and technicians to replace them. There is a frightening situation in the Middle East, through which runs our blood line to Australia and the Far East.
    Even more important, I was bold enough last year to say that I thought morale in the R.A.F. was not too bad, but I cannot say that today. It is bad. The hon. Member must know it and recruiting figures show it, and it will get worse. What young man in his senses will opt to enter any of the Services? I do not say this to put anyone off, since my own children are involved, but they cannot see a career. They see men in their thirties being axed in the same way as happened in the 1920s and early thirties. These young men want a good career, and the Government keep saying that they will guarantee it, but this is a false prospectus. The R.A.F. prospectus about Fl I Is and numbers of aircraft is "not on".
    The Chief of Air Staff, with his usual great loyalty to the Government, has faced a personal crisis in recent months. I am sure that his colleagues will do their best, but I cannot see how any Government can continue as they are, with this
    708
    most necessary fighting Service. I have been involved with the Air Force, either flying as a regular, a reservist or an auxiliary, or making aeroplanes for about 40 years—all my working life—and this is the worst moment that I have known when I see what is happening to the R.A.F. The hon. Gentleman boasted of what they are doing instead of admitting that they are under pressure from the Left-wing to make these alterations.
    5.49 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have followed the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) many times over the last 20 years, and, although we have differed fundamentally, I believe that we understand each other's point of view. He regards me as a spokesman of the Left wing of the Labour Party and I regard him as a typical Conservative Member who is greatly interested in developing the aircraft industry and who has frequently acted in a dual capacity, as a director of one of the big aircraft companies and as an M.P.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I have not been connected with the aircraft industry for 12 years.
    Mr. Hughes: That is news to me. I do not follow the ramifications of the Stock Exchange as closely as I should. For many years the hon. Gentleman was a director of Handley Page, but if he is no longer connected with that company, that is a loss for Handley Page and a gain for Parliament. I am likely to misunderstand people, but certainly there is evidence to show that the hon. Gentleman is often regarded as a sort of respectable, pushful, enterprising, political commercial traveller for the aircraft industry.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: But not a fellow-traveller.
    Mr. Hughes: I am a fellow-traveller. I travel with all sorts of people along the road which leads to the abolition of the whole military aircraft industry, for I realise that it is out of date.
    I have a good memory. I recall a famous speech in which the hon. Member for Macclesfield was despairing about the future of the aircraft industry. That was 12 or 15 years ago, when he said that the industry, under the then Tory Government, was in such a bad state that he would not encourage his son to join

    709
    the R.A.F. I believe that he was right and I congratulate his son for going into something more productive. I appreciate, however, that if all the nation's sons had thought the same way, we would never have had an R.A.F.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I must put this right. My eldest son, who is now 25, was not, owing to inefficient eyes, eligible to join the R.A.F. My youngest son considered the Army, but decided against it. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong and he must be fair.
    Mr. Hughes: Whatever the position, I recall the hon. Gentleman being despondent about the future of the R.A.F. and I clearly remember him saying that he would not encourage his son to join it. In any event, I hope that his son is prospering in another career.
    Over the years the hon. Gentleman has gone from despondency to elation about the R.A.F. and the future of the military aircraft industry. Today he is in a state of despondency because he thinks that the Labour Government have ruined the industry and that there is not much future far it. My view is entirely the opposite. I have criticised this vast expenditure and I am here today to continue that criticism. We are being asked to vote £557 million, which is £30 million more than last year. We are supposed to be in a financial crisis. We are worried about the state of the £. All these financial considerations seem to vanish through the door when we discuss the Votes for the Services.
    As in the past, I am here as the unofficial representative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to know what we are getting for this money. I also have a constituency interest to declare. At last I am able to say that we in South Ayrshire have got something for this expenditure of £557 million. In the recent storms in South Ayrshire an R.A.F. helicopter fed sheep on the hillside with turnips from the air. It was the first real contribution that I have been able to acknowledge for my constituents in the last 20 years from the Services. The only value we have got for our money over the years is this action by the R.A.F., which sent out a helicopter to save 600 sheep from starvation in the snow.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend probably knows that along the shores of
    710
    this country every year the R.A.F. saves many civilian lives. Perhaps some of those people come from Ayrshire. Perhaps in 1940 his constituents were grateful to the R.A.F.
    Mr. Hughes: I do not want to go back 25 years. I want to know what we are getting for our money now. I cannot understand why, when I express my gratitude to the Minister and say, "Thank you very much for saving the sheep of South Ayrshire", he rebukes me. I am not often in a mood of thankfulness.
    The farmers of my constituency want to know how to get in touch with the R.A.F. when they need assistance. They also want to know why some farmers got turnips while others did not. Is there any class distinction here? Are the big farmers and landlords who have a certain amount of social influence provided with turnips from the sky while the small farmers are not? And how do farmers generally apply for this assistance? Do they send in application forms or merely seek help verbally if their sheep are isolated and need to be fed by helicopters?
    I acknowledge the philanthropic attitude of the R.A.F. However, it is not a philanthropic institution. It is supposed to be capable of fighting a modern war. While its subsidiary activities are important, do they justify our spending £557 million on them? Even if the Minister adds up the cost of all the helicopters for feeding sheep, saving lives and so on—including the Aberfan disaster; I am not sure whether he has taken the storm in Scotland into account—I am sure that it would not work out at £557 million. Whatever the cost of these subsidiary activities, I would be glad to meet it out of public funds, but that does not include vast sums being spent on American aircraft when I do not know the purpose of the R.A.F. or what part it could play in a modern war.
    The country is supposed to be in a bad financial state. The £ is in difficulties and I cannot understand how expenditure of this magnitude can help us in this crisis. As I study the financial Press, it seems that the greater the military expenditure, the weaker becomes the position of the £. If it is not helping the economic position of the country, we are entitled to criticise and to oppose this expenditure.

    711
    What do the latest figures of expenditure mean to the average household? The latest figures I have been able to get from the Ministry of Defence show that the defence bill is costing 16s. per head per week for every individual in the country. A man and wife are paying 32s. a week and a family of five pay £5 a week for the various defence forces. I do not know how this can be justified. All the philanthropic facilities, all the dropping of turnips in storms and the various things done by the R.A.F. would not amount to £10 million.
    So far as I can reason this out, it is done for the purpose of preparing for a war against the Soviet Union. During the years when we have had arguments about this there have been enormous developments which make the R.A.F. almost obsolete for a modern war. The hon. Member for Macclesfield will remember that I asked a question which had never been asked in this House before. It was almost sacrilege to ask it in an Air Force debate. We were talking about fighters and I asked a very simple question, how can a fighter aircraft, costing a lot of money, defend us from a bomb coming from a rocket? I do not know and the hon. Member cannot tell us.
    Since we have had these arguments there has been tremendous development in the technological armament of the Soviet Union. I think the Soviet Union has larger helicopters than we have. I am not an authority on this, but I understand that in Paris recently Russian helicopters were on sale.
    The whole character of modern warfare has changed. If we got into a nuclear war the possibility would be that the bombs would not descend on us from bombing aircraft but from rockets. Someone in a distant part of the Soviet Union would press a button and three or four megaton bombs would knock this country to smithereens. Apparently we would have the satisfaction of knowing that someone in the United States had pressed a button and that the Russians were destroyed. The hon. Member cannot contradict this. Instead of coming from modern fast-flying aircraft, the bombs are more likely to come from rockets. If so, we are not entitled to spend this large sum of money without further inquiry.
    712
    Science has completely changed war. Hon. Members opposite, and on the Government Front Bench, are thinking in terms of a war 20 years ago, but they are talking about aeroplanes for the 'seventies. What will happen in the 'seventies I do not know, but I have heard an interesting argument put forward with great passion by the Under-Secretary. He passionately denounced the wickedness and futility of what the Conservative Government did in office. In turn the pots on the other side will call the kettles black. On the last occasion when the Labour Party was in Opposition we moved a Motion of censure on the Conservative Government. We were asked to censure the Tory Government because in 13 years they had spent £20,000 million of the country's money without having anything to show for it.
    That was the argument of George Wigg. It was the argument put by our Front Bench. We trooped into the Division Lobby to denounce the Conservative Government because they had spent all that money on Blue Streak, Skybolt, and all the other paraphernalia and had nothing to show for it. Now the hon. Member for Macclesfield makes the same accusation against our Government. Our Government produces the same excuses and talks in the same way. If this Government lasts for another decade or so and piles up the same expenditure, all that the Tory Government in another 10 years or so will have to do is to move a Motion in the same terms as we moved against the Conservative Government for having wasted £20,000 million of the taxpayers' money and having nothing to show for it. So I object.
    The one occasion on which I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield and I were in agreement was when he appreciated my argument that, instead of spending these vast sums on military aircraft, we should spend them on the development of civil aircraft. For about two minutes we agreed. I lost him after about the third minute. I put the proposition seriously to the Government today that this £500 million would be better spent in developing civilian aircraft.
    I am interested in civilian aircraft because I have a near-constituency interest. In Prestwick there is a large aerodrome and a comparatively small aircraft industry. I am not against the aircraft

    713
    industry. I am not against its research or organisation. I want to see this organisation, money and resources put into civilian aircraft. We should do that on a large scale and forget about expenditure on bombers.
    We should realise that in many underdeveloped countries comparatively small aircraft are needed for transport and freight purposes. There is a huge market awaiting us, but at the moment we are spending our money on obsolete military aircraft. We are doing almost the same as the Conservative Government did. We are in a competitive age. Our competitors in countries such as Japan are not wasting their money in this way. They would think it ridiculous. I was in Japan last August. I found that they are spending only 1 per cent. of their national income on any kind of defence. The Japanese Diet, especially the Socialist members of the Diet, would immediately table a vote of censure if a defence Minister there came forward with a bill of this kind.
    Every intelligent Japanese businessman puts his resources into modern industry. It is because we are not doing that; because we are going on in this blundering, old, Conservative way that the Japanese are beating us in the competitive markets of the world. One proof is this: in Hong Kong, until recently, the Japanese yen was stronger than the British pound and that is because the Japanese are living in a modern age and they have done away with the paraphernalia of so-called "defence".
    In voting this money to the Government in these Air Estimates we are not thinking of the economic welfare of the country. We are wasting our men, our resources and the brains of the younger generation in going on in this way and imagining that this in any way defends Britain.
    Ours is an over-crowded island. If there is an atomic war it will not be a question of whether our aeroplanes are a second slower than those of the so-called enemy. It will be a question of rockets and ballistic missiles being used by one power or another. We are spending our money wastefully on obsolete weapons which do not lead to our defence. I speak as one who is interested in seeing this country solvent. I regard this as a waste of money and I am opposed to it.
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. Hector Monro: I cannot say it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in this debate, but I can say his views make me all the more passionate that the Royal Air Force should be the finest Service in this country.
    He dwelt for some time on the humanitarian efforts of the Royal Air Force to help farmers in times of difficulty. I am glad he paid tribute to the help given recently in South Ayrshire. It is not only humanity that brings the Royal Air Force to help in this way. It is an important part of Service training for pilots. The fact that there were pilots of helicopters helping in Scotland recently bears very fully on the remarks made this afternoon by the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about the magnificent demonstration of airmanship of the helicopter pilot in the North Sea yesterday. That pilot was an ex-Royal Navy helicopter pilot and it is likely he gained great experience and skill in doing this work in Lossiemouth, in the North of Scotland.
    The only point on which I agreed with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire were his remarks about light aircraft. It is true that there is a great market and potential for them. I shall come to this a little later in my speech. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the great work done by the Prestwick Pioneers in the Royal Air in Malaysia. These were built not very far from his own constituency.
    This Motion deals with the long-term. I do not think one can deal with aircraft in isolation as far as the long-term is concerned; one has also to look at the short-term and the expected life of the aircraft themselves. Basically, the debate is about the Royal Air Force.
    I was glad that in the opening remarks of the Minister of Defence for Equipment tribute was paid to the great service of the Royal Air Force. This year it celebrates its 50th year of active service. It was interesting to hear the comments he made on some of the highlights of the Royal Air Force, particularly before the war, of flights of endurance to South Africa and India, at great altitudes, and high speed, because these are the types of operation that the pilots of the Royal Air Force enjoy. They like to be able

    715
    to take initiative, and the sense of achievement in completing a flight of this sort is something which has to be felt. The Royal Air Force should, whenever possible these days, give its operational pilots the chance of making the unusual types of flights and operations because there is a wealth of experience and achievement to be gained from them.
    We in the House tend to look at aircraft procurement entirely in relation to defence, particularly in commitments overseas and their operational rôle. I do not think it is coupled sufficiently with the Service that flies and operates them. I accept what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has been arguing: we must keep a careful eye on the financial considerations. We must also consider the Royal Air Force far more than we do. The Royal Air Force itself must sit in silence and think very strange things about what we politicians have done for it over the years.
    We have to view our purchase of aircraft with regard not only to our operational rôle but also to the aircrew and ground staff who will fly and service these aircraft. This, in turn, has a very significant effect on recruitment. This may well be more self-evident in the future.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) has shown that there is very excellent recruiting material provided by the Royal Air Force, but it is disappointing that the latest edition has suddenly become out of date.
    Let us look at the point of view of the aircrew. Why does one join the Royal Air Force? Surely, it is because one wants to fly. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), I was also in the Royal Air Force and later in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The reason that one joins the Air Force beyond the desire we all have to serve our country, is simply to fly.
    I am disappointed that so few of the senior Royal Air Force officers—wingcommanders, group captains and air officers—are not able to be in constant flying practice and, far less, be up to date with instrument rating conditions.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: In fairness to the Chief of Air Staff, Sir John Grandy is in constant flying practice as senior officer.
    Mr. Monro: This is, of course, so. I include Air Marshal Sir Augustus Walker who does it all with one arm. But the point I am arguing is that a large number of senior Air Force officers have very few opportunities to fly.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: When I first took up this appointment—and I am sure the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) will bear me out in this—I found that about 10 years ago the decision was made that aircrew generally would not have to fly while doing desk jobs. The reason is that to put a man in a modern aeroplane, when not in constant flying practice, is, these days, extremely dangerous. When I inquired why this was no longer done, I found that the American Air Force also carries out exactly the same policy. It is not for want of trying on their part; it is that they are not allowed to do so in many cases.
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate the Under-Secretary's view. He is trying to make my speech for me. I know that what he says is true, but I was going to argue that there should be a slight change in emphasis of policy. The policy which the Under-Secretary has pointed out is either that of the Ministry of Defence or is brought about because suitable aircraft are not available. In the last days of the Auxiliary Air Force, when we were flying Spitfires or Vampires once a month, it became slightly illogical. I shall come later to the question of the provision of suitable aircraft.
    The strength of the Royal Air Force has been discussed. On Monday the Secretary of State said that there would be 1,000 aircraft in the R.A.F. in the early 1970s. That figure must include every possible aircraft—not only jets, piston-engined and training aircraft, but no doubt those in museums also. I want to look at this question in a little more detail. Hon. Members have quoted the Press and the very excellent publication Air Pictorial for details of aircraft presently available.
    In round figures there are about 85 squadrons. To realise how the Air

    717
    Force has changed, that figure should be compared with the figure of 487 squadrons in service in 1945. Of these 85 squadrons, 45 are jet and combat squadrons and eight are maritime squadrons. Therefore, the first-line defence is fewer than 500 fighting aircraft—the V-bombers, Canberras, Lightnings, Javelins, Hunters, and the 50 Shackletons. If we phase out, as we must, the Canberras, Victors and Javelins, we shall be down to about 350, plus the Buccaneers, if they are transferred to the R.A.F.
    We have listened with interest to details of the aircraft which will be brought into the Royal Air Force in the near future—the Phantoms, Harriers, Jaguars and Nimrods. I appreciate that a proportion of the new aircraft will have to be diverted to training. Then there are 200 transport aircraft—Hercules, VC10s, Belfasts and Andovers. Presumably, the Argosies will be phased out in the not too distant future, because the type originally flew in 1959 and these aircraft will be getting rather elderly in the early 1970s. I expect that, in designing the Nimrod, the Government have allowed for the fact that they could be converted to transport aircraft at relatively short notice in an emergency.
    The Shackleton has had a long and good career in the Royal Air Force, bearing in mind that the prototype flew in 1949. It is now getting old. The Mark III, which was a very big improvement, came into service much later. I am glad to know that these aircraft are not to be retained for much longer. I hope that the Under-Secretary can assure us that by 1970 certainly they will all be retired from service. There are relatively few of them in each operational squadron and they fly about 200 hours a month, which imposes a big strain on servicing. The R.A.F. ground crews are to be congratulated on the way in which they have maintained these aircraft, particularly for flying in difficult weather conditions in the far north of Scotland. We have all been very sad at the crashes which have occurred in the last year, all of which occurred. for a particular reason and which certainly were not due to age or to faulty servicing.
    These aircraft will be replaced by the Nimrod. Although I accept that there is no alternative to the Nimrod, I wonder
    718
    whether it is the best choice for maritime reconnaissance work. I know that it can get out into the far Atlantic or the very far North very quickly indeed, but I do not think that flying what can be termed a stiff aircraft like the Nimrod—as opposed to the Shackleton, which is flexible, for its wings go up and down in the air currents—at low level for long periods in bumpy conditions will be an experience that aircrew will enjoy. I doubt whether the highly complicated radar equipment will enjoy the experience either.
    The other aircraft which I am glad to know will soon be phased out is the Canberra. This aircraft is 20 years old. I agree that many of the Canberras now flying are much younger than that. In my experience—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will agree—older aircraft, however many new engines they have had, never fly quite as well as new ones. When they reach the age of about 15, it is high time that they departed for the scrap heap. One of the first aircraft I flew on operations was an old Catalina from a lake in India. It had flown 2,500 hours, which was a high number of hours for an operational aircraft during the war. It took about three and a half minutes to get off in a flat calm, whereas a new Catalina would probably get off in two and a quarter minutes. The age of the air frame made a tremendous difference.
    We have aircraft now for operational squadrons and for transport squadrons. I want to ask the Under-Secretary a little more about what is in view for training units and what aircraft can be provided for the host of pilots who have joined the R.A.F. but who have little or no opportunity to fly. Most pilots who are keen on flying would think that only 20 hours a month flying was a pretty miserable ration. We should make a real effort to provide some type of light aeroplane which pilots such as these could fly on the average R.A.F. station.
    I will not go to extremes. Naturally, I do not expect R.A.F. officers who are out of flying practice to fly jets, V-bombers, Lightnings, or even helicopters or Shackletons. However, I believe that it is the duty of the Ministry of Defence to make every effort to maintain the enthusiasm to fly and to provide an aircraft for this classification of R.A.F. officer

    719
    to use. I should have thought that out of this huge amount of money a few hundred thousand pounds or £1 million could be found for this purpose. A few more Beague 206s would be the thing. I am sure that those who have seen the Beagle Pup will recommend it highly as just the type of thing to keep officers in touch with the air, with radio procedures, and perhaps with simple transport duties. The Jet Provosts and the Gnats are too advanced for this type of use. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider this suggestion with as much seriousness as I advance it.
    Whilst talking of the Gnats, I am sure that the whole House will want to congratulate the R.A.F. and its aerobatic team on the tremendous demonstrations they have given throughout Europe in recent years, which do so much to enhance the morale of the Service.
    My suggestion about flying in the Royal Air Force in less rigorous conditions might do something towards retaining younger pilots in the Service, rather than letting them go to the civil airlines.
    I do not want to talk about the Reserves, and I should not do so on the Motion, but in passing I should like to mention that I wish we had the much closer link between the Service and civilian life provided by the Auxiliary Air Force and the R.A.F.V.R.
    This week my hon. Friends have shown in the House why Britain needs air power and the best aircraft. I have tried to show that we should balance our requirements in an effort to raise the morale of the Royal Air Force. We must never let it run down and I am sure that the House will always be prepared to provide the money if the Government's recommendations are sound and sensible. Certainly, where the Royal Air Force is concerned the Government can count on my support.
    6.31 p.m.
    Mr. James Johnson: It is not my habit to intervene in defence debates. As an amateur, I usually sit and listen to my betters in these matters, but occasionally I walk in and hear cryptic comments by Ministers and by hon. Members opposite about
    720
    what will happen to a particular plane. That plane is the Buccaneer.
    Many people, particularly in the South of England, who should know better—but perhaps they are a little ignorant about geography—seem to think that Hull is mainly a fishing port. Some even seem to think of it as a fishing village. But if they came to Humberside they would know that we have many thousands of engineers, and that Hawker Siddeley makes at Brough a very fine plane called the Buccaneer.
    The Motion has to do with cancellation of contracts. We have suffered from cancellation of the Buccaneer. In the first week of January it was announced by Hawker Siddeley that about 1,000 workers were to be made redundant, with 400 starting straightaway. There was a bit of scaremongering on the part of an hon. Member, if not some hon. Members, opposite in Yorkshire. But at present just a little over 400 are likely to be unemployed, of whom quite a number are women in the offices. We hope that that other fine new plane, the Harrier, will give us work, although it may unfortunately mean that Portsmouth will lose some. But that is one of those things that happen in the aircraft industry. I had the pleasure of seeing the Harrier in action a short while ago with some of my colleagues on the Aviation Committee.
    Hawker Siddeley has done very well with Buccaneer contracts in the past, including the arms deal with South Africa which we cut back after coming to office. The 1967 Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which is the financial watchdog of the House, indicated that excessive profits were made on those contracts. The Times said:
    "It now looks as though the sum involved in the Government's over-estimating of costs on the Buccaneer aircraft contracts awarded to Hawker Siddeley is at least £12,500,000."
    We make fine planes at the Hawker Siddeley plant—the old Blackburn works—and much money has been made in the past. While we hope that we shall make more Buccaneers in the future, that will be done, perhaps, with not quite the 17½ per cent. or more profit that there has been formerly.
    On the question of Buccaneers for South Africa, let there be no doubt that South Africa would have used them not

    721
    only for the usual purposes of defence but also—and I say this quite clearly—in case of any internal disaffection. I know that South Africa has many Harvards which I am told it could and would use, as our Government used them in Kenya 10 or more years ago in the Mau Mau emergency. Perhaps South Africa as 600 for this purpose.
    Although my colleagues and I are against selling Buccaneers to South Africa, I hope that in the light of comments in the debate on Monday and today we may see the Mark 2 made in larger numbers. As the Minister said, it would be of distinct value to our defence in the future. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Equipment said:
    "As for our existing aircraft, I think that it is worth mentioning that we are planning how to improve the Buccaneer 2s which the Royal Air Force will inherit from the Navy so that it has a useful naval-attack and reconnaissance capability for use against land targets. We also hope to place an order shortly for the improved basic trainer, the Jet Provost 5."
    When he follows an important statement about the Buccaneer by saying
    "We also hope to place an order shortly"
    I assume that perhaps in the sentence before he was thinking of placing a first order. We shall see. Later he said:
    "I know there is concern about the F111 cancellation but we shall have to await the outcome of the present Warton studies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 167.]
    I do not know what these Warton studies will be, but I hope that they will come down in favour of what I believe to be a magnificent plane, the Buccaneer 2. I had the good fortune to go with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Minister of Aviation, to the plant where the Buccaneer is made, and I have been over it since then more than once. I have talked to shop stewards who are my constituents and to the design team. When I speak to shop stewards in the A.E.U. who belong to Hull, competent and highly-skilled workmen, I am left in no doubt that it is a fine plane. There is an excellent management under Captain Duncan Lewin, and first-class workmen are engaged on production. They are hard-headed and competent constituents of mine—they are bound to be
    722
    hard-headed and competent if they are my constituents.
    They asked "Why should we worry unduly about cancellation of the F111?" Speaking as a layman, I can only give the gist of what I am told. I understand that the F111 concept originated in the requirement for a TFX—tactical fighter X. I am told that that is the justification for its variable sweepback; it was required to do long patrols for which endurance was vital. For that purpose the swing wing spreads to its maximum span. It is brought back to a "paper dart" shape when there is a need for full speed in interception. I understand that the swing wing seems fully justified for that type of operation. But it also offers other things.
    The fully-spread wing offers the advantage of development of high lift for take-off. This must have been one of the attractive features of the plane when comparing it with other aircraft. On the face of it, the fully-spread wing enables a heavy load of fuel and bombs to be taken off, after which the wing swings back.
    But I also understand that the performance of the F111 is somewhat disappointing. This may be because the F111 was designed and built in something of a hurry. It may be that the extra weight and bulk of the swing wing outweigh the aerodynamic advantages. Without too much detail, I have here some figures about the F111. It weighs 80,000 lb. and has to go up to 100,000 lb. for long-range missions. As a result, I am told, the promised gain in the plane's performance has been eaten away and it is now virtually no more than a big aircraft of conventional efficiency with two by-pass engines of identical design to that of the Spey.
    I heard my right hon. Friend say today that there would be a further development of the Buccaneer, and I hope so. I understand that it is a similar aircraft to the F111, with similar overall efficiency. It does not carry the same penalties in volume and bulk of the swing wing. There is almost the same performance as the F111 offers on long-range trials.
    We have been told the performance of the F111—dimensions, fuel capacity, etc.—but it is important at this stage to

    723
    distinguish between the limited fuel load which could be lifted from an aircraft carrier and the potential fuel load which simple development could provide. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell me what are these simple developments which possibly the Government have in mind to make the Buccaneer a better plane which will live up to these statements on its behalf. We believe that it is such a plane.
    The F111 has a strike radius with a 2,000 1b. load of about 1,550 nautical miles. The Buccaneer, developed, as we hope, as the Mark II, has a range of 1,450 nautical miles with a 2,000 lb. load. The F111 carries a 20,000 lb. full bomb load for 500 nautical miles and I understand that the Buccaneer can carry 16,000 lbs. for 400 nautical miles.
    Where the Buccaneer comes out better is in what is termed the low-level dash of about 100 nautical miles or more. The supersonic nature of the F 111 makes it almost useless for this because it burns up so much fuel on a low-level dash. Indeed, I am told that its internal fuel load of 32,000 lbs. could be used up in a little over 200 miles of top speed at low level. So we claim that the Buccaneer is certainly superior in this respect.
    The two Front Benches disputed earlier about the sophisticated equipment which would have been built up in the TSR2 and which hon. Members opposite claim has been wasted. I understand that this is not so. This equipment can be and is being used in our later aircraft and that it is being and will be carried in this advanced type of the Buccaneer, which can carry all the known equipment we have so far and whose large weapon bay is an obvious advantage.
    The Buccaneer would be invaluable in any use made of it in the European theatre, whoever may be the potential opponent. I submit that this plane has an excellent case, both technical and military, as well as on other grounds, for development. But I also speak unashamedly from a constituency point of view. On Humberside we have a claim because of rising unemployment; and on behalf of the men who make the Buccaneer, and who could make its development, I make an open plea that we should continue to make this aircraft in larger
    724
    numbers at the old Blackburn works, west of Hull.
    It is important on the Humber to maintain employment for skilled and qualified men engineers. We are generally an area of low-paid workers. By and large, we have unskilled workers on low wages and with a comparatively low standard of living. It is important not only to keep industries of this nature, therefore, but to expand them for the good of Hull and of Humberside as a whole.
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman is worried about employment prospects in his constituency. Why, therefore, did he vote against the possibility of selling more Buccaneers to South Africa?
    Mr. Johnson: Because I happen to possess some moral qualities which have been consistent and constant throughout my political life, and I will not vote to sell any kind of aircraft, whether made on the Humber, the Mersey or any other estuary, by any firm anywhere, which would be used in any possible conflict with coloured peoples in the Commonwealth or elsewhere. That is why I voted as I did.
    Of course, I am here to fight to get jobs and employment for my people, and I say again that we have fine engineers on Humberside and can make a fine plane. The Buccaneer is a good plane and I think that my right hon. Friend may share that view. If it can be built in larger numbers and can be shown to be of value to the defence of my country, that is the case I make.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) for a reason which will emerge, as he probably realises. But first I would say what a very good case he put on behalf of his constituency for a developed version of the Buccaneer and how interested I was in his comparison of its performance with that of the F111.
    This matter was the subject of a little discussion between the hon. Gentleman and myself two years ago, during the Kingston upon Hull, North by-election, when I warned the people of Hull that it was not likely that the Government would order the Buccaneer as a replacement for the Canberra. I was followed

    725
    that same day by the present Home Secretary, who held up a copy of the Hull Daily Mail which had a story headed, "Royal Air Force unlikely to get the Buccaneer". He poured scorn on my speech, which was there reported, and said that there would be work ahead for at least four years at Brough, taking the works up to 1970.
    I rather think that the hon. Gentleman also made some remarks about my speech during that by-election, although I have not got the cutting to hand. The hon. Gentleman has had to plead in the House, two years later, for work for his constituents. Two years ago, responsible Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, made the same speech for electoral reasons in Hull saying that there was four years' work for the people at Brough. Now they are unmasked, and although the hon. Gentleman has put up an extremely good case on behalf of his constituents, I must blame him partly for what has happened, because of the unjustified faith which he placed in the promises of Ministers. There was never a chance that the Buccaneer would be ordered as a replacement for the Canberra.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that someone in Hull said, at that time, that the Buccaneer was to be ordered as a Canberra replacement?
    Mr. Lubbock: The proposition had been advanced in some quarters. There were three alternatives—I do not say that they were all taken seriously—the F111, the developed version of the Mirage and the Buccaneer. All that I said when I went to the Hull by-election was that it was highly unlikely, to put it at its most modest, that the R.A.F. would get a developed version of the Buccaneer, and therefore it was time for the Government to make contingency plans and decide what alternative work would be made available to the workers in Brough when employment ran down on the Buccaneer.
    This was the speech for which the present Home Secretary criticised me so violently, accusing me of making election capital out of this Buccaneer programme. All I was trying to do was to persuade the Government to adopt some sensible plan for creating employment for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Now he pleads
    726
    in the House two years later. Why did he not join with me on that occasion in pleading with the Government to make some long-term contingency plans—when it might have done some good—to anticipate the difficulties, so that these workers would not be dismissed, as they will be during the coming year?
    Mr. James Johnson: You have made a point which is not correct.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the traditional form of address.
    Mr. Johnson: The hon. Member for Orpington would perhaps allow me to say that he is not correct in saying that any of us, including the Home Secretary and myself, said that this was the replacement for the Canberra. This is not a factual statement. I will accept what the hon. Gentleman said earlier about the cancellation. We on this side maintain that the employment of these people is an internal matter for Hawker Siddeley, whether or not a plane is made at a particular time. It is up to the internal resources of the firm to plan work for these 417 people, and I am glad to say that it is doing this.
    Mr. Lubbock: What the right hon. Gentleman said, leaving aside the question of how one was to use the version of the Buccaneer, was that there was four years' work at Brough, taking us up to 1970. I quite rightly pointed out to the people of Hull at that time that there was nothing like four years' work available on the Buccaneer programme, unless it was to be sold to South Africa, and I absolutely agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said on this score.
    Unless he was envisaging an order from South Africa, where was the work to come from during these four years? I do not want to go into this at any great length. It was only because I happened to follow the hon. Gentleman and remembered this controversy so vividly that I raised it. It came to my memory recently when I saw this threat of redundancy in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    I ought now to turn my attention to the Motion on the Order Paper. I am very pleased that at last we know what the Tory defence policy is—at least I hope we do. At last we have this version,

    727
    and we are not to have the policy of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) which has sometimes been put forward from the Opposition Front Bench. It is very confusing, when they keep altering their policy every five minutes. I would much sooner that they stuck to this one, as it is a distinct and clearly recognisable Tory policy. For that reason I violently disagree with it, because it will be colossally expensive, and I hope that this will be clearly explained to the electorate.
    I can assure hon. Gentlemen that I will make sure that my constituents know of the bill that they will have to foot if the Tory Party ever get into office again. What have they said? The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr Ewing) said that the F111 cancellation was harmful because we had no early warning reconnaissance capability. Does that mean that if and when the Tories are ever returned to office they will reinstate the order for the F111 at a cost of £450 million, plus whatever escalation in price will have taken place between now and then? They would not negotiate this contract at the favourable rate of fixed prices which the present Government obtained as part of the offset agreement. They would be paying something like £700 million to £750 million for the F111.
    I have always been violently opposed to the order, ever since it was first mooted. I do not often quote myself but I wish to do so now, from my speech of 13th April, 1965, during the debate on the cancellation of the TSR2. I said:
    "…the decision to cancel the TSR2 was acceptable only on the assumption that we would not replace it by an American aircraft. We shall certainly resist any proposal to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 1253.]
    I was speaking officially on behalf of the Liberal Party on that occasion. I reiterated our opposition to the F111 on 13th December, 1965; 1st February 1966; 21st November, 1966; 14th March, 1967; 1st May, 1967; 7th November, 1967.
    All along we have been warning the Government that this aircraft was a highly undesirable addition to the capability of the Royal Air Force. We were never convinced that it was essential to defence requirements in Europe. I was always certain that the reason why hon.
    728
    Gentlemen opposite were insisting on buying the F 111 was because of their misguided and foolish policy east of Suez. If we had been confined, as we suggested, to a purely European rôle and we reaffirmed our policy on this during the course of the defence debates, no question would have arisen in the first place of ordering the F111.
    It was not until we got around to looking at our strategic and political posture in the world and came to the conclusion that we could no longer play this world military policeman rôle and withdrew from the Far and Middle East that we decided that the F111 could be cancelled. What has been the consequence of delay in arriving at this decision? The Government, and through them, the British taxpayer, will be faced with a very large bill, estimated at £70 million.
    We want to know from the Minister who winds up—I do not know whether we shall, because the Government are chary about giving figures of this nature—what has been the cost to the British taxpayer of the Government's foolish policy in pursuing the F111 order until the very last moment, thus being faced with these enormous cancellation charges. We would like to know from the Opposition whether it is true, as I inferred from their opening speech, that if they were returned they would reinstate the the order, at a vastly greater cost.
    Mr. RidsdaleCan the hon. Gentleman say what his party's replacement for the Canberra would be?
    Mr. Lubbock.Certainly. This has been dealt with in the defence debate, when we said that, as far as we could see, in a European rôle the Phantom aircraft was perfectly capable of carrying out the tactical strike and reconnaissance rôles allocated to the F111. One of the Defence Ministers in a previous debate poured ridicule on me when I suggested that many of the reconnaissance functions of manned aircraft had now been taken over by satellites.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I constantly listen to advice from professionals, and so on, about this and I remember the hon. Gentleman saying this. Is he seriously saying that a tactical reconnaissance rôle, bearing in mind that it often has to be

    729
    performed when cloud is about, can be performed by satellites?
    Mr. Lubbock: I said many reconnaissance functions. I did not itemise them. If the hon. Gentleman reads the American scientific magazines—one never gets this information in British journals or from hon. Gentlemen in the House; defence information is practically impossible to get—he will see that the resolution of photographs taken from satellites is constantly being improved, and the use of infra-red photography is enabling the detection of military equipment to be made from satellites in very poor weather conditions. The hon. Gentleman has tried to distort what I said. I do not say that every reconnaissance function could be discharged by means of a satellite but the technological capability of satellites in reconnaissance is being constantly improved.
    I wish hon. Gentleman sitting on the Government Front Bench would not misquote me all the time. The hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence for Administration yesterday, in his winding up speech, without giving me any warning at all, referred to something I was alleged to have said in 1965 which I never said at all—something about the Territorial Army. The hon. Gentleman, before he makes these allegations in the Chamber, should have the courtesy to inform hon. Members that he is going to do it and, secondly, he should look up the reference to avoid making these mistakes.
    The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I have just cleared with Mr. Speaker a statement I was going to make at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. Since I have been attacked on the point, might I say that I did, in fact, allege that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) made a certain statement in the House, and I realised later that the statement was made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). It was a slip of the tongue and I apologise to 'the hon. Member for Orpington for any embarrassment he may have suffered as a result of my mistake.
    Mr. James Davidson: This interruption was made during a speech I was making last night,
    730
    when the hon. Gentleman referred to this alleged remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). This he says now was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) in December, 1965. We looked carefully through all the indexes of HANSARD for December, 1965 and no such remark was made. I would like the precise reference.
    Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. The remark he was referring to, made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), was on the occasion of the preliminary statement in July, 1965, when my hon. and learned Friend said that we welcomed the reorganisation of the Territorial Reserve forces, but he never said anything about their abolition. It was wrong for the hon. Gentleman to give that impression last night, but I shall be out of order if I pursue this topic any further.
    I want to come back to the Tory Motion and the speech made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North. I have already mentioned the expense that would be laid on the British taxpayer if his policies regarding the Fill were pursued, if we reinstated the order which is now being cancelled, or if any future Government decided to develop separately for the Royal Air Force alone, without entering into co-operative arrangements with some foreign Governments, an aircraft for this purpose. The Government were right in going to the French Government to see whether we could get some co-operative agreement to develop the AFVG, but because of the French Government's financial difficulties we were not able to pursue this. I still hope it will be possible to come to some agreement with perhaps the Germans and other European nations to go ahead with variable geometry aircraft. I would like to know what is happening to the contract at Warton.
    When I put a question to one of the Defence Ministers some months ago he said the study was coming to an end and we had not come to any agreement with our allies but in the meantime a holding contract would be awarded. We want to know the position of the design team and whether they are to be kept in existence pending some agreement with

    731
    the Germans or other potential collaborators and how we are getting on with negotiations.
    The hon. Member for Hendon, North also spoke about maritime reconnaissance. As a maritime nation we want to make sure that this job is done properly. He asked whether 38 Nimrods would be enough to carry out all the functions we have in mind. If we are withdrawing from the Far East and the Middle East this will be entirely a home defence function and we will be having Nimrods based in the United Kingdom, or not further away than the Mediterranean theatre. Therefore, I would have thought that 38 was quite a reasonable number and would be fully capable of discharging the task we are intending to lay on it.
    The hon. Gentleman said further that 60 Harriers was too small a force, but all the time he is adding to the bill. In the end we are going to be faced not with a £2,000 million defence estimate but with something like £3,000 million. I understand at the same time that it is the policy of the Conservative Opposition to reduce taxation. I would like them at some time—probably this is not the occasion, but it ought to be done so that the country can see where they stand—to try to reconcile the two demands they constantly make. On the one hand, they speak of reductions in taxation—an admirable sentiment of which I entirely approve although I cannot see that happening this year. I think this should be a long-term aim. In my opinion taxtion in this country is too high, but I do not see how it can be reduced if at the same time one demands more of everything and a very sophisticated aircraft such as the F111 or an equivalent for tactical striking reconnaissance. The Conservative opposition want more maritime reconnaissance aircraft and more vertical take-off and landing aircraft, such as Harriers, they want to retain aircraft carriers almost indefinitely, and in addition have a large number of aircraft such as Phantoms based on them. I want to know whether they have made any effort to tot up the bill to find out the total, and whether they would care to express it in terms of the standard rate of Income Tax so that everyone could know what the Tories want.
    732
    They know this Motion criticises the Government for the fact that it has made Great Britain deeply dependent on others. I would remind the Tories that it was their Government who originally ordered the Skybolt, that fiasco which has been mentioned already. In regard to the Polaris submarines we are heavily dependent on the United States. As I understand it, the Americans are going to phase out the Polaris missiles and replace them with a more sophisticated version. We therefore have to consider how we can keep our Polaris force in operation if we are not able to get spare parts and servicing equipment from the United States.
    As already mentioned in the debate, it was the Conservative Government who placed the order for the naval version of the Phantom. They were quite right to do this, and it is surely inconsistent now to say we should not get tied up with the untrustworthy foreigners who might withdraw. That is the impression given by the Motion in speaking about the nation becoming deeply dependent on others. This is part of the dependence on others. We have bought these versions of the Phantom and the naval version which in my opinion will be a very good plane. I am pleased to say that it is coming on very well, although I know that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not agree with me. I have learned from the experts with whom I have discussed the matter that the Speyengined Phantom will be an absolutely first-class aircraft with a much better performance than the American-engined version. As I said in an intervention in the speech of the Minister of Defence for Equipment, there are very good prospects for selling this aircraft overseas when the time comes.
    I know that there has been a short delay in introducing the Phantom into service and that it has cost us rather more money than we had hoped in fitting the Spey engine, but there is always some escalation of costs. I do not know any military programme in the last 20 years in which there has not been an escalation in costs.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In the United States?
    Mr. Lubbock: In the United States as well. One has only to consider the experience with the FB111 to realise that the introduction into service of the Phantom has been relatively smooth and it will be only about three months late.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman says airily that there are always escalations in costs. But the escalation here is of the order of 70 per cent., and 70 per cent. is quite some escalation in cost. The unit cost has risen from £1½ million to £2½ million, basically because of research and development involved in the adaptation of a British engine to an American airframe. Would the hon. Gentleman deny that?
    Mr. Lubbock: The Minister will be capable of dealing with that later. If we com pare the cost effectiveness of the Spey-engined Phantom with that of the American-engined equivalent, we find that we have made a very good buy.
    I was talking about our being deeply dependent on others. I agree with the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) who said, although not in this debate, that it was desirable to co-operate with our European allies on sophisticated projects. Therefore, I entirely approve the Jaguar, the Anglo-French helicopter programme and the Phantom. This is how we must proceed in the next few years. It is impossible for Great Britain to undertake all missions without taking account of the needs of foreign air forces and the numbers we might require in our Services.
    It is not fair to point to Sweden and say that because that country has more front-line military aircraft than we have we should do everything on our own. The Swedish aircraft programme is far more limited. Sweden does not have any maritime reconnaissance aircraft. It does not believe it necessary to have v.t.o.l. or s.t.o.l. aircraft such as those we have coming into service. As far as I can see, the Swedish Air Force is confined to an interceptor capability and, because it is able to order quite a large number of a single type of aircraft, it makes it look as though Sweden has done well. But if it had the same defence rôles as Great Britain it would have to depend to some extent on co-operation with others.
    I do not think that even the Conservatives genuinely think that it was worth
    734
    tabling the Motion. Judging by the number of them who have been in the Chamber in the last couple of hours, they do not seem to have much enthusiasm for it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense", but if he wants chapter and verse I can give it to him. At 5.10 there were six Members present, apart from those on the Front Bench. At 5.25, there were six Members present—
    Mr. Cranky Onslow: That was because at that time the House was listening to a speech by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) which we have heard three times before in these defence debates.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I should point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) was reporting to our party on his recent visit to South Africa and Rhodesia. Therefore, the Liberal Party will understand why many people wanted to attend that meeting and hear his report, in view of recent events in that part of the world.
    Mr. Lubbock: It must have been a very fascinating meeting. Unless the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire is still speaking—and I gather that he is not—
    Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman is speaking now.
    Mr. Lubbock:—there are four Tory Members in the House at the moment. The end of the speech by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire elsewhere has not caused a flood of Tories to appear in the Chamber. I do not wish to make a lot of this, but one might have expected that if the Tory Party felt so strongly about the Motion, as the hon. Member for Hendon, North might have led one to think, one would imagine that a few more of them would have turned up for the debate, not only to listen to him, but later in the afternoon to participate in the debate. I excuse hon. Members from attending the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The fact that it has been so difficult for the Conservatives to keep this debate going, as has been evident to me, indicates that the Motion is just a charade.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps I had better point out that at 5.30 on Thursdays there is the regular weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. These, too, are fascinating occasions. Therefore, any accusation that the Labour benches are unduly empty is perhaps misplaced.
    I realise what a gulf separates me from hon. Members opposite—not only from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), but from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) when he talks about a Mediterranean commitment. Very kindly, the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who made an important speech, offered to stay. I said that he should do no such thing, because it is an imposition for an hon. Member to have to stay for a speech, when a Member may or may not catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I warned him that I would take him up on some of his basic assumptions.
    The hon. Member for Macclesfield argued that by removing British power, and particularly air power, from Aden, we invite the Soviets to walk in. If we assume that the Soviets will walk in in our absence it may be legitimate to argue that we would need a great deal of air power there. But who thinks that the Soviets would have any easier time in Aden than we have had? Surely it is certain that if there were to be a Soviet occupation of Southern Arabia, they would meet the same sort of unpleasant and formidable resistance as we have met. I should have thought that that was the guarantee against the argument of the hon. Member for Macclesfield of a Soviet take-over.
    The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about what we should do in the face of the Chinese threat in the Far East. Yes, I am a Little Englander, or Little Briton. I believe that we have no business to meddle in the Far East and that our presence there at this time is counterproductive. The same goes for West Africa. In the long term, although not perhaps in the short term, the same resources would be much better devoted to helping the Cocoa Marketing Board to get a proper price for its product than embarking on some fruitless and counterproductive military adventure.
    736
    That is not to say that people like me who are Little Britons are sneering in any way at our history. It is possible to argue that Britain's history is extremely honourable in many ways. But people like me adopt a very simple attitude on which our philosophy is based. Either our country is a great imperial power holding sway in India, Pakistan, Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong and throughout the vast part of Africa and we do empire properly, or we do nothing at all. In our present kind of situation, we get the worst of all possible worlds.
    I would wish that we put the 19th century behind us as part of history. It is not a subject which we want to debate today. But there are many people in this country, particularly among the younger generation, who say, "We are really Little Britons". I should like to see us overcome a degree of self-importance which we do not have, because it is this idea of self-importance that has led us into so many ludicrous commitments.
    For example, there was a discussion between the Front Benches on the AngloMalay treaty. The actual details of the commitment are not important in this debate, but what I believe is important is the reason why the Malays are angry with us—which is not because we have withdrawn troops from Malaysia. I do not know what Sir Norman Walker has told the Government, but my Malay friends say that the reason they are angry is that if the undertakings had not been given they themselves would not have entered into commitments such as those they made to Eastern Malaysia. Therefore, I believe that not only are these commitments that we make costly, difficult and counter-productive; they are positively dangerous to our allies in that inevitably they lead those allies into false positions.
    If one thinks all this, and more, it alters drastically one's attitude to the question: what kind of planes should we have in this country? There is one vital point I wish to make. I am not for opting out of the common financial burden of the West. I am not one of those who believe that America should pay for Britain's defence and that Britain should do nothing in return. We should bear a part of the common burden of

    737
    the West, particularly in relation to developing countries; and if the British defence budget is cut in the style I would wish to see, the corollary is that we could spend a great deal more money in helping the developing countries. So it is not just a question of sheltering under some kind of American umbrella.
    I would say one thing to the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who made a plea for a hospital in Macclesfield. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench wants new schemes, hospitals and training colleges in Bishop Auckland. I know I want them in West Lothian, and I have no doubt they are needed in Orpington and elsewhere. But we cannot do both, though it is silly to believe that overnight we can wave a magic wand and beat swords into ploughshares. Nevertheless, there is a central economic issue. As long as we go on with the kind of demands made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) we will not be able to do the kind of things, at home and abroad, that many of us are agreed should be done as a matter of urgency. We really do have to come to a long-term choice.
    The hon. Member for Macclesfield made a serious point when he spoke about research and how exciting jobs were being provided. But has not research also changed?—because one of the most interesting developments is the part that Britain has played in the development of the C5A, the world's largest transport. As the hon. Member for Orpington knows, many of the designs for that were made in London and transmitted day by day, early in the morning to the Lockheed computer at Marietta, Georgia; so the hon. Gentleman should not assume that simply because research is highly expensive, therefore, it necessarily goes to the United States of America.
    I believe there is scope for using British skill not only in competition with the U.S.A. but in conjunction with it. That is the kind of thing we ought to develop. like everybody else in this debate, I am concerned about the B.A.C. design team at Warton. The question I ask is whether simply in order to keep a highly competent group at B.A.C. we should embark on all kinds of expenditure on which we otherwise would not embark. This is a matter of value judgment. As many Members here will know, demands for
    738
    other kinds of research are such that there is really a central issue: whether one should devote quite so much to design teams, however distinguished in the aircraft industry, in relation to other research which might be done.
    I would like to follow the hon. Member for Orpington, because I am not a pacifist. I believe there have to be forces in this country. I am a "fortress Britain" man, and a "fortress Britain" man has to be clear how he is going to arm the R.A.F. I believe there are various ways of doing this in the form of either buying a small number of aircraft from the United States of America—because only a token force is wanted—or, impious thought, making some agreement with the French to buy the Mirage, the interceptor aircraft, or to buy a Swedish plane. There are such things as package deals, and if we go a step further than Concorde or develop some other project we can gain on the swings what we have lost on the roundabouts. But the idea that this country should settle down with the Germans and other European Powers to build a swing-wing aircraft, after all our experience of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft seems highly doubtful.
    I am also doubtful as to the extent to which, in such a complex operation, one can go ahead with more than three or four partners involved; and if we do not have more than three or four we create tremendous market problems. If it is decided to accept this philosophy and we are all to go ahead with this type of operation we should be clearer about markets at an early stage. Let us get the markets right before we embark on any kind of commitment; because unless the market is right we shall run into the kind of financial trouble with which we are all too familiar.
    Turning now to the words used in the Motion—
    "precipitate actions and vacillating policies"
    I do not blame the Ministers on this kind of issue. Nor can I bring myself to scorn the Opposition. Frankly, the exchanges which took place between the Front Benches did Parliament no good in the eyes of serious people, and technically they were a little naïve on both sides. Perhaps these things should be discussed more objectively; but while in many ways I have sympathy with the Government on this, I must say in public that

    739
    I now regret many of the speeches I myself made, very eloquently, about Thunderbird, Seaslug, Skybolt, Firestreak, Bluestreak, and the rest, because I believe one learns that these problems are extremely complex, and not easy.
    That should be said. But after the cross-talk between the Front Benches there is another question which hon. Gentlemen are entitled to ask themselves: how good is the advice that successive Defences Ministries have had from their official advisers? I am not one to get up in the House of Commons and attack civil servants either by name or particular Ministries, but as Select Committees go into these matters perhaps one gets more and more concerned at the advice processes by which successive governments have landed themselves in a series of cancellations.
    Another truth may come home. Can a country of our size such as ours afford mistakes of this kind? It may be said that such mistakes are almost inevitable in view of the rate of technological advance and innovation in almost every country, but that reinforces my argument, that such weapons are not to be made by economies such as ours.
    Mr. James Ramsden: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member says, and I agree with it to a great extent. Does he agree that the fact with which we have to contend is that true advice about technical problems leading to advanced projects is difficult to obtain without the commercial yardstick which, by definition, is denied to one in this sort of subject? The problem is that the truth is difficult to obtain.
    Mr. Dalyell: I am impressed by arguments for commercial discipline in these matters, but in great sectors of life that is impossible and the Government have to do their best. I would not care to dispute the point, which is becoming more self-evident, and if one talks to the Russians about this, they, too, have considerable costing problems, which they would not have admitted five years ago. Yes, advanced projects are very difficult.
    Part of this issue is the question of research costs. I do not want to develop in too much detail the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Orpington. It is, however, striking that when, at
    740
    Farnborough—this has been published and, therefore, I may say it—we asked the Director why, after the cancellation of the P1154, the HS681 and the TSR2, there was no pro rata cut in research, a long explanation was given. It is incredible that even though one cuts back, rightly or wrongly, on major projects, one is told that basically the research costs continue at the same level for another five years or more. Therefore, there has to be the closest scrutiny of this kind of issue.
    That is why I welcome the Government's initiative in setting up a Select Committee—and how often in defence debates we have asked for this—to probe the details of how the mechanism works. When our results are published, it will be up to the House of Commons to see that at least an explanation is given, if not considerable action taken, radically to change the mechanism whereby these things operate.
    I would like to refer to the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary knows that I argued about this at great length in February, March and April last year. Surely, the lesson to be learnt is that before one enters any kind of cooperative system with another European Power, or any other Power, one informs oneself about the market possibilities. It was clear from the middle of February, 1967, that when Marcel Dassault was going ahead with his Mirage 3G, it was extremely unlikely that the French aircraft industry would be prepared to cooperate. I am glad that the project was brought to an end in time without going to a great deal more money.
    I accept in general the point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Equipment that we must get the right aircraft, with the right performance, at the right price and at the right time. That is very difficult to do. That is why I go back to the sort of proposition, of which I am in favour, of tailoring our aircraft commitments to our strategic needs; and in my view, since our strategic needs are very modest indeed, we should buy off the shelf.
    One then disposes, on the basis of the assumptions which I have outlined, of the need for a long-term military aircraft programme. However, people like myself

    741
    are in difficulty because we want Concorde. The issue is whether we can go ahead with Concorde and, at the same time, have virtually no indigenous military programme.
    That brings us to one of the major problems which any Government must face at the present time: how to give the same urgency to civil research as has been given to military research sponsored by the Government. I would like to hear from one of the Defence Ministers in the not-too-distant future what is the Government's overall strategy for providing a way in which we can get the proper rate of technological innovation without resorting to large-scale military expenditure. This is one of the central problems of any modern Government in a technical society.
    I hope that some senior Government Ministers will devote themselves to this difficult problem and explain their overall strategy. I happen to think that the Government—at least, individual members of it—have given a good deal of thought to this. I praise my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I am sure that he is conscious of it. Next time that an opportunity presents itself in the House, I hope that either he or the Secretary of State for Defence will give attention to this problem. In a sense, it is also the problem of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson).
    Urgent also is the question of the F104 replacement. I do not think that any aircraft can have the right automatically to reincarnation. When I am asked about the F104 replacement, is it not a legitimate reply, before any deterrent aspects are considered, to say that we have Polaris in the rôle of the V Bombers? I am one who has defended Polaris—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) takes a different view—in Tribune, now that we have got it. If we keep Polaris, what is the point of embarking on an aircraft programme other than a short-range interceptor programme or buying interceptors? That is a fair point.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Polaris programme was introduced, we were told and we thought that expenditure on the Air Force would fall because we had Polaris?
    742
    Now, we have expenditure on both systems.
    Mr. Dalyell: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend. I have always understood that Polaris was the successor to the V-bomber.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: But we have got both.
    Mr. Dalyell: I do not see why one has to add another requirement on top of the successor to the V-bomber.
    I should like to raise the question, of which I have given notice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, of the Phantom. It is quite true, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Equipment said, that the Phantom is many hundreds of times more expensive than the Spitfire. My right hon. Friend spoke in terms of a vertical rise in cost.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I point out one small thing to the hon. Member? In these recent debates he has been fortunate enough to address the House for nearly two hours all told, and many other hon. Members have not been as fortunate. In the light of these circumstances, perhaps the hon. Member would consider addressing a letter to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not present, on a point which is of interest to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member between them.
    Mr. Dalyell: I have more to say, but that is a fair point. If there are hon. Members who have sat throughout the evening, the hon. Member was quite right to make it. I shall stop dead, therefore, though on previous occasions I was keeping no Member out. To squeeze the point, therefore, I am a bit concerned about the whole problem of the re-adaptation of engines. I gave my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary notice that I would raise with him the specific question of the costs of adapting the Rolls-Royce Spey engine to the Phantom. The general problem which arises is whether, even to save dollars across the exchanges, it is worth while going through all the research and development to fit engines into American aircraft for which they were never intended.
    Having put that question, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and, as other hon.

    743
    Members are waiting to speak, I will sit down.
    7.40 p.m.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for so kindly accepting the point which I put to him. He will have done much to restore the confidence of the House in the way in which we conduct our proceedings by so readily acceding to it. Not all of his hon. Friends would have done so.
    Perhaps this has not been the best attended of debates, and we have heard good reasons why it has not been, since we understand that important matters are being debated elsewhere. It is unfortunate that this should be so, although it was rather ungallant of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), having persuaded one or two of his hon. Friends to stay and listen to him, to complain that other hon. Members were not similarly inclined to stay.
    Mr. Lubbock rose—
    Mr. Onslow: No, I will not give way.
    Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me.
    Mr. Onslow: I do not consider it necessary to give way to an hon. Member every time I refer to him.
    One of the other reasons why this debate has been less than satisfactory is that the facts of the Motion scarcely need debating. I do not see the Minister of Defence for Equipment in the Chamber now, but, when he opened the debate on behalf of the Government, he suffered from a singular misfortune in that he appeared to have brought with him the wrong set of notes. Instead of a set intended for a serious debate in the House where hon. Members who know something about the subject could be expected to attend and question him, he appeared to have a set intended for a by-election meeting in the South Kensington constituency, where he might have had two or three supporters at most, none of whom would have understood what he was saying. That got us off to a bad start.
    Since then, matters have improved a little. I am certain that the House is interested in the Motion and that there are still important matters to be said
    744
    about it, particularly on its two main aspects, which are the future of the Royal Air Force and its present condition, and the present condition and future of the industry.
    I was fortunate enough to speak briefly in last year's debate on this subject. I ended by saying to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force:
    "However proud the Under-Secretary may be of the new Air Force he claims to be building he must understand that the R.A.F. will serve the nation best only when it knows what it is expected to do. That, so far, it does not know, and nor does the House of Cornmons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 393.]
    Since then, that comment on the situation has not been invalidated. There have been changes. The F111 has gone. The AFVG has gone. The hon. Member for West Lothian would no doubt claim credit, justifiably, for the fact that Aldabra has gone. All those matters figured largely in that debate.
    It is ironical to reflect that we now have a situation where the Government say that the morale and state of the R.A.F. are better than ever, when one of the main pieces of equipment that it was to have has been snatched away from it. For the value of this equipment to the R.A.F., I can quote no better testimony than the Minister's own words. Speaking about the F111, he said:
    "It will form a vital element in our strike/reconnaisance force and can go wherever it is needed from its base in the United Kingdom … The reconnaissance rôle is vital if it is thought politically that an outbreak of war—not necessarily global, but possibly limited—is imminent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 246.]
    Today, we have a situation where, in the European sector, we have a need for the capability which the F111 was intended to meet even in conditions not necessarily of global but of limited war. The R.A.F. has been deprived of that capability.
    One is bound to ask oneself why the R.A.F. ever wanted it. The Secretary of State for Defence was pretty firm about wanting it, saying that he would cancel TSR2 but that it must be replaced. He told us a number of matters about it which have a strange ring today, perhaps all the more so in the light of his remarks at the end of the debate on 5th March of this year, when he told us about

    745
    the capacity which existed for low-flying aircraft to penetrate hostile radar screens, a capacity which the TSR2 and the Fill would both have been able to meet, the TSR2 probably better, and which he appeared to cast into the discard pile as being something for which we never needed the Fill. He said:
    "It was never our intention to develop the F111 in this particular rôle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 356.]
    It is remarkable to have contemplated having a most advanced aircraft with no intention of using it for a task for which it would have been most suitable.
    All that we are left with to block the gap is the statement on page 32 of this year's Defence White Paper which says:
    "The effect of this decision on the future equipment of the Royal Air Force is now being studied."
    I should think so. It calls in question the whole purpose of having a Royal Air Force at all. I suppose that we should be grateful that the Government are sensible enough to see at least they have a problem which deserves some study.
    Taking another point from the Defence White Paper, we are told in the preamble on page 2:
    "The order for 50 F111 aircraft has been cancelled and the Royal Air Force transport force will be cut."
    I find the second part of that statement rather puzzling, and I have not been able to find much elucidation of it in the remainder of the White Paper. Indeed, I have fold contradictions of it. In paragraph 5 on page 10, we find the words:
    "The strategic and tactical transport aircraft of Air Support Command will retain, with an increased capacity, their ability to maintain and reinforce units overseas."
    On page 51, we are told something which I am very glad to see:
    "More stores, particularly high-cost items will be moved by air where it is possible to meet urgent requirements overseas rapidly and economically."
    Obviously, that is sensible. But what does the preamble mean in this context when it says:
    "… the Royal Air Force transport force will be cut"?
    Are there cuts to come which have not yet been revealed to the House? If the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army would be good enough to take note of this point, perhaps it will be possible for the hon. Gentleman who is to
    746
    reply and who is more experienced in these matters to deal with it.
    One other point which I find puzzling in the Defence White Paper concerns tanker aircraft. In paragraph 47 on page 33, we are told:
    "The equipment of the tanker force with the three-point Victor tanker has been completed."
    I think that that was so last year, and I wondered if the words which now appear do not conceal a somewhat dangerous situation. We have had a fairly major reappraisal of the functions of the R.A.F., and it seems possible that this will have involved a requirement for additional tanker capacity, but there does not seem to be any indication that this has been re-examined and, for instance, referred to D.O.A.E. so that they can do a run-through of it to see how the Government's calculations stand out. I am afraid that there is a hidden deficiency here which would be felt by the Air Force if ever it had to undertake the task which we are told that this nation will retain of having a general capability rôe outside Europe. I should like to be assured that the Government believe that the tanker capacity is adequate and that its existing state is one which has been reviewed in light of the latest defence re-review.
    Perhaps I might move now to the second part of the Motion, which concerns the industry. This is a point where the transition is easy enough, because the aircraft industry exists to make and sell aeroplanes. Unless it serves that purpose, we might as well stop thinking about having one at all.
    In this context, for historical reasons, although not precisely according to the history that the Minister read to us, the defences of this country have fulfilled a rôle in stimulating development and often, I believe, of stultifying it. These are important subjects which need to be studied with some care.
    There are areas in which the defence services could provide valuable stimulus to our industry at this moment in respect of existing aircraft, for instance, the Islander, or the Jetstream, or the Beagle Pup, all of which exist and are flying, but none of which, so far as I know, has been ordered by the Royal Air Force. At least one of these has been considered and turned down for R.A.F. needs, and

    747
    international customer confidence is certainly not going to be increased by the fact that our defence Services do not appear to want to buy any of them.
    Last year I made the point about the Chipmunk replacement. The Minister indicated that there were plenty of Chipmunks in crates on a number of airfields, and they could be taken out of their mothballs and used. If the Beagle Pup is a good aircraft, which it is claimed to be, it is one which might be brought into service with the Royal Air Force. There may be people who would be prepared to buy the superannuated Chipmunks and use them. There may be others who would be prepared to buy other aircraft which we would not need in Air Support Command if the Islanders were introduced. And if the deal was done properly, the Royal Air Force might show a profit.
    There are at present 19 different types of aircraft operational with Air Support Command, and by 1971, at the lightning pace of modern rationalisation, this figure will have been reduced to 18. This is causing the most enormous additional on-costs to the Service, because it means that it is necessary to maintain a large variety of stores, to train men in a large variety of different types, and to run a whole series of different operations. If the number of aircraft could be rationalised and reduced, and the number of types not only reduced but made to consist of more modern types, this would be a sensible long-term programme, even though it might entail some small additional immediate cost. In the end, however, it could lead to a real economy.
    I propose, now, to discuss cancellations. Some time before the 1964 election the Prime Minister wrote a book with a highly satirical title, "The Relevance of British Socialism", which he has since then done his best to forget, and which none of his colleagues can ever have read, although they will find it contains an interesting indication of how we can expect to see the Prime Minister manage our affairs in the period up to the next General Election. I am sorry that I have not a copy of the book from which to quote, but one point he makes is that cancellations are frequently necessary. I think that it is extremely juvenile as a method of argument to
    748
    say "Sucks to you, you cancelled so many", and think that that disposes of the matter.
    It is the nature and timing of the cancellations that are significant, and it is often equally significant that aircraft are brought to the point of flight—two or three competitive types of the same kind—and then, of the three, two are cancelled, because this represents an overall gain, an overall increase in skill, and certainly a wider range of choice. I think that this is something which we should now consider, because there is a growing need to reduce the period which it takes to construct a new aircraft, to get it from the first design on the back of Sir George's envelope all the way into squadron service. We are accustomed to thinking of this as a seven-year period. We ought to be considering how we can reduce it to three or four years. The Minister of State at the Ministry of Technology frowns. I am not surprised, because I do not believe that if his Ministry were faced with a problem of this kind it would have any concept of how to solve it. This is not a problem which should be left to his Ministry to solve. I believe that the right answer to problems of this kind is to let the makers set the pace and to give them a wider discretion and influence in—
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing that argument, will he also address himself to the question of who will finance the construction? Is he arguing that the constructor should put up the major part of the finance?
    Mr. Onslow: I am prepared to argue that, provided the constructor is assured of an overall climate of operation in which he can make profits, and which will make this risky venture worth while. This situation does not exist at the moment, but it should be made to exist.
    I think that the most dangerous statement in the Defence White Paper in the context of the long-term technological future of this country is on page 37, where it says:
    "Studies of a new combat aircraft will continue as a basis for a possible collaborative project."
    That is a shorthand way of saying that nothing is going to happen. The right

    749
    hon. Gentleman frowns again. The parameters of indecision have been drawn, and all the makings of cancellation are there. Studies will continue while time passes and others take decisions. The Minister knows how difficult he is finding it to get anyone to make up his mind about the airbus. In the context of this country's military hardware, does he expect collaborative decisions to be taken more quickly? Does he expect national air forces to make up their minds more quickly than national airlines do? It is an interesting thought which I leave the right hon. Gentleman.
    This idea that we can proceed only at a sort of three-legged pace is a tremendous handicap on our ability to progress, because if we choose the right projects, and go it alone, and do not dissipate our efforts over the whole field, we have a much greater chance of beating the industrial problems which face us. At the moment we have an industry whose core, to use an unpleasant word, or a word which may be unpleasant to the Secretary of State for Defence, is Concorde, with work on the Trident, the Harrier, the BAC111 and some military work coming in with the Jaguar in prospect.
    The Jaguar is certainly an interesting venture, and I believe that it has considerable prospects, but this is not where the story should end. It is time now to consider what is likely to come next. It is time that we had an answer to the sort of report which has appeared in today's Evening Standard that the Germans plan to build a super fighter. They are going for a replacement for the F104. and they are prepared, if necessary, to go it alone. They are prepared to move. They may in the end have to cancel, but they may get the market. Once people in Europe start looking for a replacement for the F104, they will see that the Germans have something flying. It will mean nothing if we go along with designs and brochures and bland assurances from the Minister of Technology, "If you only give me a declaration of intent I will go to the Italians, to the French, to the Germans, and in five years' time we may reach an agreement to manufacture something".
    All that also presupposes that nothing happens on the other side of the Atlantic. This is an area in which we have to
    750
    move, in which we have to stop being afraid of making mistakes. We have to recognise the kind of mistakes that we are likely to make, and to guard against allowing ourselves to make mistakes, the price of which we do not always recognise. If we are not prepared to take risks of the right kind, and on the right information, it is time that we stopped thinking about having an aircraft industry at all.
    We must guard against one final danger, that of over specification. This is what killed the AFVG, the attempt to build into one aeroplane two basically contradictory requirements. It would have been much better if our Air Force had agreed that a match was impossible. Anyone who wants to look at the history of specification in this country, and the ghastly consequences that it can bring, can do no better than look at the history of British tank design during the Second World War, which was very costly and for many years remarkably ineffective, simply because of over-specification.
    I am glad to see that the Minister of Defence for Equipment is now back with us, and I hope that he has dined well. He said something surprising earlier—that all the Government's plans have not worked out as they wished. I was amazed. I do not know what he is talking about. It has always been my impression and that of the public that this Government's plans have worked out precisely as they wished. Anyone in my constituency will testify that they cannot imagine that the Government could be so foolish as to have launched by accident upon plans which have had these consequences. Most of my constituents imagine that the Government intended what has happened.
    One told me, shortly after that well-known phrase-coiner the Secretary of State had been talking about "superannuated Hitler Youth", that the conduct of the nation's defences at the topmost level seemed to have fallen into the hands of superannuated Young Communists, and he was not at all sure that the accuracy of this description was improved by the words "superannuated" or "Young".
    I believe that the Government intended the logical consequences of their actions. They have brought the R.A.F. to a new low in morale and to a point at which it does not know what its rôle is meant

    751
    to be, and they have brought the aircraft industry to a point at which, although it may have orders—all of which date back to ventures launched before this Government came to power—and work in hand, and although its overall employment is likely to increase over the 1964 figure—there is redeployment for you and there is Plowden, that load of old rubbish—the future of the industry is in grave doubt, because we are in danger of being forced out of the technological race by indecision and wrong decisions. Only one right decision remains, and that is for the Secretary of State and this Government to get out.
    8.2 p.m.
    Mr. John Rankin: We are committing ourselves tonight to an expenditure of £557,320,000, an increase over last year of £13,567,000, and it is worth while noting that, of that vast sum, £52 million will go in wages and salaries to civilians and £270 million to building new aircraft. Thus, over £320 million of this Vote is for work, salaries and wages. That should be remembered in all the criticisms which have been made.
    That prompts us to look ahead. Many hon. Members have spoken about the need to look forward in the aircraft industry. A total of 3,500 fighters and 2,200 fighter-bombers will be required by Europe from 1970 onwards. This is a market in which Britain must share, but it is essential that we do not lack the determination to gain as large a share as possible. Over the past few years, despite what hon. Members opposite have said, we have shown that we can sell airframes, engines and sophisticated equipment which earns follow-on orders from satisfied customers.
    Our total exports since the war—this proves what I am saying—total £2,000 million, with an all-time record last year of £217 million, or £50 million more than our previous best. Our current order book is substantial and includes over £1,000 million worth of civil aircraft orders. When we take into account Concorde and the airbus, this total could be over £3,000 million. In addition there are the engines, the missiles, the equipment and the electronic sectors, for all of which there are large orders.
    752
    Our military potential is also substantial and could well total over £1,000 million. This is exemplified by new aircraft like the Jaguar and the Nimrod, which are now under development, and Britain's indisputable world lead with the Harrier, which I had the good fortune to see in operation only last week, is acknowledged by all connected with the industry.
    Also, the equipment industry is maintaining its place and progress in the development of the sophisticated new aids which must keep pace with the design of larger and faster aircraft—for example, automation in flight control and advanced standards of air safety. Last year the industry provided no less than £50 million of our £217 million of total aerospace orders. We have been a world leader in the advance of international communications and there is no reason why that dominant position should not be recovered in the space age through the development of communications satellites. We must continue in this field if our technological leadership is to be maintained.
    Spin-off from the aerospace industry gives the lead for many other industries to expand their technological capability. Micro-electronics, which are employed in the new range of miniaturised computers, is one example. They not only contribute to our export drive but are now being applied to industry generally to speed up and streamline new techniques and processes.
    The aircraft industry, which contributes so largely to our defence and industrial needs, could also help to solve our balance of payments difficulties. For example, from 1960 to 1966, the dollar earnings of the British aircraft industry completely outweighed the burden of our dollar imports. In 1965, our airframe and engine exports to the United States were nearly two and a half times the level of imports from the States. In 1966 they were more than five times.
    Then the situation changed dramatically. Between January and October, 1966, Britain imported £42,445,000 worth of American aircraft against exports to the United States of £20,252,000—imports in that year being more than twice those of exports, a disastrous story and for this the aircraft industry has absolutely no blame. My right hon. Friends

    753
    will not deny that this was purely and simply a Government responsibility. The exports of the industry this year are the second best in its history.
    Much has been made recently of the allegation of excess profits, and since an inquiry is under way it would be out of place for me to comment on that. In fairness, however, it should be pointed out—and if I am wrong I am sure that I will soon be corrected—that responsibility for the costing of Government contracts rests equally between Whitehall and the industry. Again, therefore, if any misdemeanour in quoting prices and so on has occurred, and if what are called excess profits have been earned or can be shown to have been earned, Whitehall stands in the dock beside the industry.
    As a result of its own activity and development, the industry's labour force is returning towards its earlier standards. At 254,000, the labour force is lively and active. This is the figure at which it stood before the major cancellations were made. However, the industry is now faced with a new challenge, that of co-operation with Europe, and it is absolutely essential that this co-operation takes place if we are to survive.
    At present Britain's aircraft industry manufactures everything it needs. It is broad based and produces everything from aerospace nuts and bolts right up to complete airframes and engines, plus all the sophisticated equipment that is required. It designs, builds, tests and sells missiles, space systems and complete aircraft. I hope that that broad-based function of the industry will not be altered if and when, as I hope it comes about, we enter into co-operation with other nations in Europe. I believe that the future of this great technological industry no longer rests in the hands of any one nation or separate nations. We are living in an age when the big group counts in the world of space affairs, and particularly in technology. It is by co-operation with our immediate neighbours in the European complex that this nation will carry on the successes in technology which have adorned the industry's past.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), in his
    754
    sturdy Scottish way, standing up for the aircraft industry and pointing out that if private industry is to be accused of charging excess prices, Whitehall must have equal blame. I am certain that if the experts are not in Whitehall, it is the duty of those in Whitehall to find consulting engineers whom they can employ to do this job. They must realise the shortcomings of the people to whom they are giving instructions to negotiate with private industry.
    Mr. Rankin: I do not think that I went so far as to equalise the blame. I said that if one was held responsible, the other also had its responsibility.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Equally, those who wish to support the aircraft industry must have been disturbed—considering the enormous success we are having with our aircraft exports—at the break-up of the scientific and technical teams. It is regrettable that the men who have formed these teams have been steadily dispersed to virtually the four corners of the world since the Labour Party came to power.
    I last spoke in an Air Estimates debate four years ago, when I found myself having to reply to the debate. After these four years in purdah, as it were, I am speaking in this debate—not having spoken on air affairs in the interim—because much as I deplored the cancellation of the TSR2, the P1154 and the HS681—all the planes are laid down for the R.A.F. for the 1970s—I had hoped that the Labour Government would honour their pledge to buy the F111, which would have enabled the R.A.F. to carry out not only its world-wide capability cheaply and effectively, but also to fulfil what, for the R.A.F., is so vital: its tactical strike and reconnaissance rôle in N.A.T.O. This replacement was vital for this rôle because of the ageing Canberra, now 20 years old. It is vital that a replacement for this aircraft should be found.
    I have been surprised at how easily this solemn pledge, given to the R.A.F. at the time of the cancellation of the TSR2—given not only by the Secretary of State but by the Labour Leader in the House of Lords, the then Minister responsible for the R.A.F.—has been shrugged off without a murmer of a resignation. We must face the facts, even if the defence Ministers have run away from them.

    755
    Without this aircraft we are in grave danger of having to face many of our potential enemies who already have such a capability. I regard this cancellation as the breaking of a solemn pledge.
    I have been surprised that the Secretary of State has not seen fit to resign on this pledge, let alone the other pledges which lie scattered around the political arena rather like the Order Papers which lie scattered around the Chamber at the moment. He knows what the cancellation of the F111 has meant to the Royal Air Force. We shall regret it for a long time. Even more shall we regret the decision to cancel the TSR2. The present Government have been able to do a lot of things, but probably they are the first Government who have been able to spend £250 million without a single plane flying. Yet the losses go far deeper than £250 million. This prevents us honouring pledges, which we gave to carry out a rôle east of Suez, in a cheap way and, alas, it means that we have to withdraw now and probably carry out an entirely European rôle. It prevents us protecting British interests.
    As the Leader of the Opposition said so forcibly in the defence debate, Australia and New Zealand have been left on their own. Our Asian friends will have to look elsewhere for help which we might have given to them. These are some of the diplomatic consequences. But has the Minister considered the implications for recruiting? Now the R.A.F. will have to be content with operating in Germany and the United Kingdom alone. I am sure that the pull of the civil airlines for pilots will be greater and the attractions of pay will be greater. In order to get some of the pilots into the R.A.F. we shall see much steeper rises in pay than there have been for some time past.
    Is the Minister making preparations to help those who are having to leave the Service because of the cut-backs? I have a feeling that not enough consideration has been given to looking after and helping those who will suffer considerably and will have to end their careers in mid-flight, as it were, because of the cuts in defence spending.
    To me the loss of the strategic rôle for the Royal Air Force is far more serious.
    756
    Time and again this week the Secretary of State has talked about the tactical rôle of the Royal Air Force. Let us face it, there is a real danger that in its fiftieth year it may become almost a branch of the Army like the new Canadian Army Air Corps.
    Have we learned nothing from history? Surely the concentration of air power, the intelligence, expertise and technical know-how which goes with air power is a vital principle of modern war. Disperse the experts and those who know about air power and aircraft production, and we are in grave danger. Underestimation of the enemy's air power was a prime factor in our defeat in France in 1940 and in Malaysia in 1941. The skill and quality of pilots and plans in the Battle of Britain led to victory, but only by the skin of our teeth. We said that we would never again listen to the siren voices of unilateral disarmers like the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but is not that exactly what unfortunately the country is doing today?
    What would have happened to our Battle of Britain planes if they had been under the tactical command of the Army for the land battle on the Continent? How many would have survived for the crucial Battle of Britain in September, 1940? I am sure that the vital contribution we can make to the continental defence of Europe is in aircraft. It is a far cheaper way of making a contribution than by massively adopting conscription or making a large land contribution, which is expensive in foreign exchange if we are to have our forces for long on the Continent. Cannot we use the spare capacity of Support Command which the Government seem to have overbought in the Hercules transports from America? In order not to waste spare capacity, can we not provide a mobile force in these islands which can be used to protect not only the Northern flank in N.A.T.O. but also the important Southern flank in Turkey?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Member assuming that the enemy in this case is the Soviet Union with its enormous number of planes and enormous power of nuclear destruction by rockets? What relevance has his argument to this debate?
    Mr. Ridsdale: I assure the hon. Member that I and many others in this House, in the country and in the free world, are working as hard as we can in the hope of reaching a political détente with Russia. I remind the hon. Member that the best way of getting a political détente with Russia is to get it through strength, not through weakness. I do not agree with his policy, which seems exactly the same as that of one of the leaders of the Labour Party in the 1930s who believed that the best way to peace is to throw down one's arms.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: We did not do that.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Have we estimated how many pilots and planes would be needed if a severe confrontation were to take place in Europe? Have we estimated what kind of wastage rate could happen quickly? The Secretary of State talked about a three-to four-day battle, but a three- to four-day confrontation of air power could be very expensive. Have we the reserves of pilots and planes for such a confrontation? This is the big doubt one has.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Member give me an estimate of how many pilots he thinks would be needed to fight the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Ridsdale: I am not being led into answering that hypothetical question, but one has to make an estimate from time to time. If a severe confrontation were to take place, I believe that our present forces are gravely undermanned to meet it.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The sky is the limit?
    Mr. Ridsdale: No. We know perfectly well what we can afford. This leads me to digress to a degree to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who accused the Conservative Party of wishing to spend money on defence almost as freely as it could. Of course, this is not our policy. There must be a discipline in spending money on defence, but we laid down a very reasonable pattern when we were in power, which we could fulfil if we came back to power.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I understand it, the system of reserves as far as men were
    758
    concerned, with the ending of the old Royal Air Force Voluntary Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, took place in the mid-1950s. If the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) is worried about the situation now for Reserves, surely he should have been equally worried when he was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Ridsdale: I was not in the Ministry of Defence in the 1950s but if the Under-Secretary would like to read some of the speeches which I made in defence debates since 1954 when I came to the House, he would see I was just as critical of my own Government as I am, at the present moment, of his.
    It is the Reserve factor which we have to pay attention to, and defence policy changes, of course. Faced with the dangers which confront us, to consider that we can look at them and ask what we did in the 1950s is complete nonsense. I am sure the Under-Secretary, when he reflects on it, will realise that. We are dealing with a situation which changes; we are dealing with it now, and because of this we have to have more Reserves.
    The wastage rate might lead us, in view of the scarcity of planes and power which exists at the present time, to move to a strategic and tactical escalation on the nuclear side far quicker than the outcome of the land battle. I do not believe we have enough planes for this purpose, without eating into those for our tactical nuclear strike. Because of this scarcity we might be brought, sooner than we might have wished, to a tactical and strategic nuclear escalation. I am sure we must have a far better strategic Reserve for such a battle. This is why I am so concerned when I hear the Secretary of State talking about the use of air power entirely as a tactical means. I am sure it is dangerous, not only from the point of view of the defence of these islands, but more dangerous because it may lead to a tactical and strategic nuclear escalation which none of us who knows the power, and what this means, would want.
    This is why I want to see the country realising the seriousness of the situation that confronts us by the cancellation of the F111. This is why I am concerned that neither the Secretary of State for

    759
    Defence nor one Minister from the Ministry of Defence, learning the seriousness of the position with which we are confronted, saw fit to resign to bring it home to the country. This is what one would have hoped.
    The Secretary of State for Defence speaks of the R.A.F. having 1,000 planes. Does he include in those the obsolete Canberras, Javelins, Hunters and others? Let us face facts. Under the Labour Government the Royal Air Force has been contracting, not expanding. Grave risks are being taken with defence—risks which, in my view are not justified.
    The Secretary of State for Defence was right when he said that the Royal Air Force in the 1970s will be manned by men of quality and education. Of course, it will; it always has been. The question will be: are there going to be enough of them, and will there be enough pilots and planes to face a battle of confrontation—short, wasteful and bloody? The strength of the Royal Air Force at the end of the war was 9,000 planes; that strength cannot be reached now. We are working with our allies. The figure we have at the present moment is one in which the Government are taking grave risks with this country, especially in the European theatre. I do not believe the nation realises the risks that are being taken. It was for this reason that I felt, after the passage of four years, that it was my duty to make this speech in this Air Estimates debate.
    The Secretary of State for Defence came into office as a young eagle he is going out of office like an ostrich with his head firmly dug in the sand, and with his wings clipped.
    8.34 p.m.
    Sir John Eden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on his powerful contribution. Any hon. Member who has had any association, particularly in a Ministerial capacity, with the Royal Air Force will for all time thereafter feel particularly loyal connections with it and will not miss any opportunity to stand up and to speak up in its defence, particularly at a time like this when one has been made so aware of the weaken
    760
    ing of this fine fighting force as a result of recent Government decisions.
    This is a very important debate. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for that the fact that I was not here at the beginning of it, although I recognise the significance of what we are discussing. However, I have been able to attend during the last few hours. Hon. Members, not confined to this side of the House, have deployed a formidable case against the Government.
    If I were to give a text for my remarks in this debate, I think that it would be to refer back to the speech made by the Secretary of State in May of last year and to extract from that speech this sentence, which I have no doubt has already been quoted and which certainly bears requoting:
    "Tactical strike and reconnaissance is the military umbrella which we must have to protect our forces—land, sea or air—from attack."
    The right hon. Gentleman illustrated how important this had been in fairly recent experience. He said later in the same speech:
    "In 1964, reconnaissance aircraft provided us with the first information of a developing crisis over Cyprus, without which we might have been unable to prevent general war in the Eastern Mediterranean and perhaps in Europe as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 112–13.]
    In those two quotations stands the whole justification for British military expenditure and for British military commitment. It is the justification for which even the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has been looking. I know that he will agree with what I have just said. If he has been wondering why it is necessary for us to authorise continuing expenditure on armed forces, the answer has been given clearly by the Secretary of State, in that it enables us to play our part in limiting the area of conflict and in helping to prevent the outbreak of a further major world conflagration.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: That does not impress me.
    Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman may not be here at the time, but it interests me. It is certainly of great interest to those younger than me.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Where are they?
    Sir J. Eden: And it is certainly of great interest to all those who have the ambition to see that they and their children shall live in peace. The hon. Gentleman must now recognise, as does every serving officer and man in the Royal Air Force, that the purpose of his service is to further the cause of peace. The hon. Gentleman, being a peace-loving man, will therefore be right later tonight in not persisting in his Amendment, which I suspect he tabled as a gesture.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: With his knowledge of the R.A.F., what does the hon. Gentleman think the R.A.F. would feel if it knew that we are discussing the expenditure of £537 million and do not have 15 hon. Members in the Chamber?
    Sir J. Eden: That is not a significant barometer of the degree of concern which the country as a whole has in the subject.
    I began by extracting from the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence what I regarded as a very significant reference to the important rôle of tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft. I want to find out just what has been happening in this sphere. At one time it was a rôle completely—and still almost entirely—discharged by the Canberra and V-bombers. When the Conservatives were in office, they developed the TSR2, the initial letters of which stand for "tactical strike and reconnaissance". It was designed for deployment elsewhere than just Europe. After it was cancelled, the Government planned to replace it with the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft and the F111K. Both have been cancelled by the Government, but what has not been changed as a result of the cancellation is the dependence of our fighting forces in all three Services on intelligence. The earliest possible warning of impending hostile action against our national interest is so vital that I want to be quite satisfied that the Government have planned to replace that capability which they have now destroyed.
    We must have the capacity to penetrate very sophisticated enemy defences. I am not thinking only of strategic operations, even though in that context I was impressed by the Secretary of State's remarks in winding up the defence debate on Tuesday, when he said:
    "Another interesting thing at present, although it is not likely to be true for more than
    762
    another 10 years, is that there is no effective defence at strategic level against an aircraft in very low flight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 352.]
    The only aircraft which were to have come into service with that capability have been cancelled.
    That capability is also of great significance even in the tactical rôle. Part of the reason for the development of the vertical take-off aircraft is that it is very manoeuvrable and capable of penetration at low level. What other aircraft are now being planned to come into service in the future which will have a range, payload, or all-weather reconnaissance capability similar to that which the TSR2 would have had and the F111 will have? I repeat that question in another way: have the Government any plans for replacing those very significant capabilities, the importance of which they fully recognise, with new aircraft coming forward, either to be developed by this country alone or in conjunction with others?
    The whole history of the Canberra replacement is a sorry one. For the collosal cost of £240 million on this great venture, we have got nothing, and how rapidly at the Government's insistence were the plans and drawings of the TSR2 torn up! They were guilty men then and they are guilty men to day. I will illustrate this by one further example.
    In the Defence White Paper, it is clear that the Government attach, quite properly, a great deal of importance to what they call the "new military concepts" of N.A.T.O. I agree with this. The Government owe it to the House to tell us a little more about the military plans and the future force planning of what they call the "new basis" of military concepts. Let them look at the N.A.T.O. flank now and tell us what British military equipment is available for the protection of British interests which are likely to be threatened by the deployment of hostile forces in the Mediterranean or North Africa.
    I see that No. 100 and No. 139 Squadrons of Victor Mark II bombers are to be scrapped before the end of this year. No. 543 Squadron is comprised of Victor Mark Hs with strategic reconnaissance capability. It is this squadron which is now capable of photographing the whole of the Mediterranean in an afternoon. Is this, too, destined to be scrapped?

    763
    We all know that V-bombers have a limited life. They are most magnificent aircraft and have served the country very well and will continue to do so for some time. What are the Government's plans for replacing the reconnaissance capability, for example, of the Victor Mark Its of 543 Squadron? Can I have a specific answer to that question? Again, unless one can be assured of that, one cannot be assured that, even in the limited period of responsibility of this wretched Government, there is any prospect of securing this country in future against the possibility of hostile attack.
    The Government know that Russians are now wholly in the Mediterranean, in Alexandria, Mers-el-Kebir and elsewhere. They know the vulnerability of N.A.T.O.'s southern flank. Yet they are busy destroying the major element in Western Europe's fighting air forces which now has the capacity to resist the possibility of attack and protect us against these threats.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? I am sorry to interrupt. I am interested in his speech.
    Sir J. Eden: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Did I give the impression that I was doing so?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Yes.
    Sir J. Eden: Then I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am not giving way to him. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I have put a specific question to the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that I shall have an answer.
    8.50 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) who have both underlined the grave risks which the Government are taking in defence. It is astonishing that the debate should be so poorly attended when £600 million is being spent on the R.A.F. The Government have created a complete mess with their pattern of order and cancellation, not only for the R.A.F. but for the entire British aircraft industry.
    When they came into office they were quick to cancel TSR2, replacing it with
    764
    the F111. What has happened? The Fill has been cancelled. They cancelled the HS 625. That was to be a jet transport aircraft manufactured by Hawker Siddeley with subcontracting to other British aircraft firms. That has been replaced by the American Hercules with a much poorer specification than the HS625.
    What is much more serious for our industry is that because of replacement with American aircraft, money is being spent in America to improve the technology and aircraft design capacity of that country. The AFVG has fallen by the wayside too. British scientists developed this idea but now it has been abandoned to the United States.
    The Government were so proud of their vertical take-off aircraft. But they cancel the P 1154 and replace it with the Harrier—the older, slower aircraft. If we are to retain a technological lead in any branch of the aircraft industry, we must have the superior supersonic version of the vertical take-off aircraft, not the slower one. It is this aircraft that promises best for Britain in future.
    In the recent crisis in the Middle East we saw how easy it was for a determined enemy to destroy aircraft on the ground. Vertical take-off aircraft such as the Hawker Siddeley can avoid this to a great extent. One can protect oneself from the complete destruction of one's fighter force on the ground. It is very important to retain the more developed and advanced version of this aircraft rather than to keep the slower version.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting, as a result of the experience of the six-day war in the Middle East, when the Israelis got beneath the Egyptian curtain, that if there was a vertical take-off force, the enemy would be seen in time and the force would get away before it was hit? Is the hon. Member honestly and seriously suggesting that? I have never heard anything so ridiculous. It is no argument at all.
    Mr. McMaster: That intervention is irrelevant. One has to look at defence, particularly with the R.A.F., on a broad canvas. It is an important part of defence strategy that one should diversify and spread out one's air shield in every

    765
    way possible. There are many situations, not only in the Middle East, when a vertical take-off aircraft would be of great use. I have already stressed the damage done to the British aircraft industry. There are important by-products of our aircraft industry in defence technology, in the miniaturisation of equipment, in advances in metallurgy and in other fall-outs where Britain is losing the lead which she once had. This is a lead which is absolutely vital if Britain is to remain in the forefront as a scientific and technologically-based country with a large industrial manufacturing capacity.
    As a result of the way in which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have treated the British aircraft industry it is almost impossible to finance any new project in either the civil or the military field. I say advisedly the civil as well as the military field, for it is a well-known fact in the United States and every other country that civil aircraft production is subsidised directly or indirectly by money spend on defence. If Britain is to spend all the money she requires for equipment for the R.A.F. in the United States it is the United States technology and aircraft industry which will benefit from new techniques and the discovery of new methods. This will enable the United States to produce a better civil aircraft and Britain will be the loser thereby.
    Unless our aircraft industry can be assured of a reasonable scale of profits on the contracts they take for defence purposes it will be impossible for them to continue to compete in this field. One must take the rough with the smooth, balance the successful contracts against the unsuccessful contracts, and make sure that there is the promise of a reasonable reward. When I say "reasonable reward" I mean a sufficient reward for the aircraft industry to enable it to raise on the market the finance it needs.
    The Government have a 70 per cent. interest in the firm of Short Bros. and Harland. I hope that the Minister in summing up will say a little about the steps to be taken towards the financial reconstruction of that company. The past chairman has complained, often publicly, of he strange financial set-up and the need for the financial reconstruction of his company. What do the Government intend to do?
    766
    Let us make no mistake; this is a vital industry in Northern Ireland. We benefit directly from the employment it gives and, as every hon. Member knows, we have an unemployment rate of 7½ per cent., many times above the national average. If the Government are going to use the defence programme, as the Prime Minister and others have said they would, to assist areas of high unemployment, surely they can make certain that an adequate amount of this work is sent to Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to give an assurance on this line. Not only does this provide employment but it also ensures the training of skilled craftsmen.
    One finds from the Defence Estimates and pages 87 and 89 of the White Paper that about 50,000 people are employed in Whitehall, in local administration and other support services. The total Whitehall organisation comes to 63,500. The general purposes combat forces consist of the Navy 18,800, the Army 24,400 and the Air Force 20,300, a total 63,500, the same number as those employed in Whitehall. Is this the way in which the Labour Party should treat our Armed Forces? For every combat man, there is a man in Whitehall. When I say that, I am not referring to those employed in research and development, training, production, repair, and so on.
    It is perhaps a strange comment on this debate that the last three speeches have been made from this side of the House. The interest which the party opposite shows in the defence of this country and in the expenditure of over £600 million worth of the taxpayers' money illustrates the terrible effect on morale in the Royal Air Force and the aircraft industry which has been caused by this Government's bungling.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. F. V. Corfield: I am glad that the Minister of Defence for Equipment has returned to the Chamber. I think that he opened the case for the Government with a degree of complacency from which the debate has never recovered, despite the usual knowledgeable interventions by my hon. Friends, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey).
    The Minister's speech seemed to me to be based on a series of false premises.

    767
    He wholly ignored the fundamental problem of the long gestation period in the aviation industry, and in relying on the large numbers of people still employed in that industry he completely failed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield pointed out, to appreciate that this was a reflection of the past and had nothing to do with the future, which affects the confidence of the industry. He failed to reflect, too, the serious problem of holding together design and research staffs unless there is something else coming along in the pipeline. He failed to recognise that it is the future which matters and that when considering the future we must plan a very long way ahead.
    As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, morale in the Royal Air Force today is undoubtedly seriously affected. If the Minister of Defence for Equipment got round the aircraft industry as much as I do, he would find that loss of morale reflected there also. I was glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) pointed out that in relying so greatly on the export figures to indicate the health of the aircraft industry he completely failed to point out the very serious switchround which has taken place this year when, for the first time in history, imports from the United States substantially outweigh the exports which we have sent them.
    I would say only this to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I see that he is not present, so perhaps I should skip it. However, I would remind him of the words of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) when he was in opposition:
    "It is not our function in a debate of this sort to explain the Opposition's defence policy. This is, essentially, a time when we want to have from the Government a statement of their defence policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 146.]
    I adhere to that. While I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his apparent discernment as to the Conservative defence policy from the words of the Motion, I fear that he has almost certainly got it wrong.
    It is a long time since I took part in either a defence debate or any of the Service Estimates debates. I admit that I have done no checking in this regard,
    768
    but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will be the purest coincidence if I repeat myself, although I am not suggesting that matters of accuracy of that sort will deter him from including me in the very silly gibe which he made about my right hon. and hon. Friends the other night. His attempt to hold up the consistency of my right hon. and hon. Friends to mockery when he and his colleagues have done such untold damage by constancy only in their inconstancy, represents a degree of cynicism and irresponsibility for which it would be hard to find a parallel.
    By what, in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on Tuesday, I suppose he would call the virtue of saying something new, he has by making short-term reversals both of policy and of solemn commitments wholly undermined the credibility abroad of our determination and ability to carry out our obligations. And to adopt as a defence the proposition that, having discarded weapons and bases which he himself has always regarded as a prerequisite to the fulfilment of obligations, we can nevertheless continue to accept those obligations without explaining how, is to insult the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has a higher regard for the House, will be more forthcoming tonight.
    I want to take as an example of these tactics—and I make no apology for repetition and if the right hon. Gentleman gives no answer to these questions they will be repeated again and again—one that particularly affects both the R.A.F. and the aviation industry. It is not by any means the only example. I refer to our commitments to Australia and New Zealand which were the subject of a good deal of concern on both sides of the House in the debates on Monday and Tuesday of this week and which was expressed very forcibly, I thought, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) in winding up. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister ignores these questions he has no one but himself to blame if they are repeated and I will repeat this one again for the benefit of the Under-Secretary of State.
    If in May of last year the type of capability, the tactical strike reconnaissance capability, represented by TSR2 and F111 was vital to any contribution we could make to the defence of Australia

    769
    and New Zealand, how do we fulfil our commitment and how can acceptance of that commitment be in any way credible when we have deprived ourselves of that vital capability? That is a question that worries hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House and it is really no good scrapping a vital piece of equipment, reaffirming the obligation to which it was vital and then wondering what to do about it. Surely, that is putting the cart before the horse with a vengeance that has seldom been seen before in politics.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) instanced a very similar story over Malaysia and referred to paragraph 8 of the White Paper. If that paragraph with its emphasis on new strategic concepts, particularly in relation to the rôle of air forces in extending the conventional phase of hostilities, is to make any sense at all it must, on the face of it, mean a greater rather than less dependence on a strike reconnaissance rôle, and must make it as vital in Europe as it is in relation to Australia and New Zealand. For the right hon. Gentleman to make out that this passage was intended to imply an extension from perhaps a one-to-two days' conventional war to a three-to-four days' conventional war, then I can only say he has expressed himself quite astonishingly badly. It does not conform with the information some of us are able to obtain from N.A.T.O. But once the Vulcans are phased out, as things stand at present among Western European nations only the French with their Mirage IV will have an aircraft capable of this long-range strike reconnaissance.
    I ask the Under-Secretary whether he can tell us any more about the future of the Vulcan, because on April 14th there seemed to be two Answers to Questions which seemed to be slightly contradictory. One, from the right hon. Gentleman, was to the effect that he cannot conceive the life of the Vulcan being extended. The other was from the hon. Gentleman in respect of the fitting of ejector seats in which he said that that was under consideration in relation to modifications—which I took to be to extend the life of these aircraft.
    Without the Vulcan, in Europe only the Mirage IV will have that capability.
    770
    The French, however, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly reminded us, are not members of N.A.T.O. and we do not know—we cannot know—how long it will be before once again France becomes a reliable ally. As something of a Francophile, I say that with sadness rather than bitterness.
    The only conclusion to which one can come is that if this rôle is still vital—and we have not been told why it has suddenly ceased to be vital—we must rely on the United States in circumstances in which, because of the Government's vacillations, the Americans are less certain than they have ever been in recent history that they can rely on us.
    In considering the British forces in the Far East, I am surprised that the Government never seem to take cognisance of the fact that the Americans believe that it is in their interests that we should be there. The fact that we rely so heavily on America in Europe at least deserves to be taken into account in considering whether they are not entitled to a quid pro quo from us.
    In relation to the long-range strike reconnaissance rôle, I must refer to the cancellation of both the TSR2 and, now, the F111. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield emphasised the question of cancellation, because it does not contribute anything at all to debates in this House to throw across the Floor charge and counter-charge of cancellations and to add up a bogus balance sheet.
    In aviation, electronics, atomic energy and all advanced technologies there is always likely to be a need, if we are to remain in advance in those industries, to embark upon projects which take us beyond the bounds of existing knowledge. It stands to reason that in operations like this the period of development will be long and that between the initial conception and production there may be all sorts of developments which make it wise to call a halt.
    For a start, by the nature of an effort to go through the bounds of knowledge, one cannot begin to forecast what it will cost to solve a problem which has never been solved before. Nor can it be guaranteed that either alternatively or in addition, during that long period, the problem may not be solved or, indeed, be

    771
    rendered obsolete by developments elsewhere.
    I very much fear that by creating in the House of Commons the idea that cancellation as such is evidence of failure and error, we create an atmosphere which will hopelessly inhibit the financial risk-taking which in these spheres is so vital, because so often financial risk and progress go hand in hand and without the former we cannot achieve the latter. I conclude from that, not that there is anything wrong with the Motion, as hon. Members opposite are suggesting, but that each project must be considered on its merits as an individual project. It would be rare indeed to find that the cancellation of one project was of very much relevance in considering another.
    As to the TSR2 and the F111, which we have debated more than once, let me remind the House that the TSR2 was virtually a finished aircraft. It was flying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield reminded the House, at the stage at which it was flying it was behaving remarkably well in comparison with many other types at a comparable stage of development.
    By the absence of any explanation from the Government of why this strike/reconnaissance rôle is no longer required or, alternatively, how it is now to be provided, and in the light of our balance of payments problem and the complete failure at the time of this Government to make a really sensible balance sheet of the difference in cost between producing this aircraft at home—bearing in mind that a large part of the costs would be spent in a way in which a considerable proportion would return to the Exchequer in taxation—and importing the F111, it is apparent to us that the decision to abandon TSR2 was even more wrong in retrospect than appeared at the time.
    However that may be, let us turn to the replacement of the F111. I would just refer in passing to the interesting passage about the anti-ballistic missile system in the speech of the Secretary of State when he wound up on Tuesday. He referred to the fact that systems of this type, at any rate in relation to present day knowledge, remain vulnerable to fast low-flying aircraft. My hon. Friend the
    772
    Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) intervened to ask why that did not indicate a use for the type of weapon that the TSR2 would have been—and perhaps the Fill as well. The right hon. Gentleman merely said that he did not envisage that this would be a necessary addition. I hope again that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force may be able to elaborate a little on that.
    Coming back to the F111, many of my hon. Friends have pointed out that there was an expenditure on this type of capability of some £300 million, not only with no aircraft, but once again with a threat created to the viability of the British aerospace industries, which are still suffering a lack of confidence, and certainly a lack of the confidence which would encourage the investment of private capital, from the cancellation of TSR2, the HS681 and the P1154. As a result of those cancellations, there now rests a question mark over the whole future of the offset agreement, which is referred to ominously throughout the White Paper always by reference to the F111.
    To give the Government their due, there is no doubt that that offset agreement has proved a very valuable means of opening up a vast export market in the United States. This has been particularly so in the case of the British avionics industry. I know of one firm which has made a total of seven bids, five of which it has won. It has secured orders to the extent of some 50 million dollars. That is something about which we should all be pleased and proud; and that, incidentally, excludes equipment for the United Kingdom Phantom programme.
    One has to face the fact, however, that until the Kennedy Round tariff reductions are fully effective in 1972, in the absence of this agreement, there would be some pretty difficult if not insuperable barriers to the continuance of our exploitation of what is a very valuable market. At the moment, it is not even clear what is the fate of some of the contracts already won. Certainly it has never been clear to me and even less clear in retrospect why—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could continue his private conversation elsewhere—
    Mr. Mason: I was not trying to be rude to the hon. Gentleman. I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, who was present during the course of my speech, as I thought the hon. Gentleman was, that the contracts which we have secured under the F111 offset agreement are safe.
    Mr. Corfield: I am glad to note that, but the hon. Gentleman will remember that he was going at a fair pace and this may have slipped my mind.
    The point that I want to make is to ask why, at the time, we tied, or appeared to tie, this agreement so specifically with the F111. We were also ordering the Hercules, and my information is that during the five years running from the initiation of the offset agreement British purchases of military equipment from the United States seem likely to amount to about £2,000 million, of which the F111, at about £400 million, represents only 20 per cent.—a substantial part, but by no means the major part. There is very little doubt that in the future we shall purchase further military equipment from the United States, and it does not seem unreasonable, on the face of it, that there should be a continuous arrangement between our two countries, as is the case between Canada and America.
    There are certain other factors which strengthen the Government's bargaining position somewhat more than is generally realised. Not only is the appalling drain of the war in Vietnam making an enormous demand on the United States supply capacity, but there exists in the United States an absolutely fundamental rule in relation to the United States Government contracts that if the supplier loses profit as a result of cancellations, he is under a pretty strict obligation to take every conceivable reasonable step to reduce that loss, particularly where he can switch his labour, his materials, or indeed the finished product, to another customer. It is very much to be hoped that we shall be able to secure the application of that principle in the case of our own cancellations.
    I appreciate that these negotiations are delicate, and cannot be the subject, at any rate in detail, of public debate, but it is only right to tell the Government that my impression from going around
    774
    industry is that there is a feeling of anxiety and frustration, in part because of the Government's delay in giving guidance about the existing contracts, but also because of real apprehension that the Government negotiators are being too dilatory, too much on the defensive, and lacking in determination. I hope that that is not true, but I hope, at the same time, that the Minister will assure us not only that it is not true but that he will never allow it to become true.
    There is a further aspect which we have to face, and that is that the Government's constant changes of mind in the past, the cancellations, the failure fully to back, and the delay in backing such successful projects as the Harrier, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the uncertainty about the variable geometry advanced combat aircraft, are all increasing the danger that in the United States there will grow up a feeling that British contractors, however reliable in the past, may be subject to such action by the United Kingdom Government as to make it impossible for them to remain so reliable in the future. It is therefore extremely important in our export as well as in our home production to induce in the industry a return of confidence.
    I turn for a moment to consider the advanced combat aircraft now under study at B.A.C. Warton. Even in the short history of this project, the story of the core of the R.A.F.'s equipment—those were the Minister's words—seems to be one of order, counter-order, and approaching disorder. The Government cannot justly be blamed for the withdrawal of the French, or the resultant necessity to reframe the design with less emphasis on the air defence rôle, which was demanded by France. But now that the position in regard to our military commitments overseas, and the F111, have been so dramatically and suddenly changed, the operational requirement appears to have been thrown so much into the melting pot that there is a danger that we may be attempting to cover such a wide range of possible operational requirements that we shall once again miss the boat, either by too much delay, or by the Government getting cold feet, at ever mounting cost.
    There is surely a lesson to be learned here from the TSR2. In retrospect, many

    775
    people would agree that one of the problems of the TSR2 was that it was an attempt to incorporate too many highly sophisticated operational requirements, involving technical break-throughs on far too many fronts, and, therefore, far too many unforecastable costs; and that, secondly, during the development, there were far too many modfications, particularly in the avionics, as opposed to the air frame or the engine, some of which were being made at a very late stage indeed.
    Therefore, in regard to the advanced combat aircraft, I would urge that the operational requirements are kept within or very near the limits of what the industry knows how to do and that we do not allow it to bulge up into some vast flying research operation into the unknown. Second, I urge the Government to exploit to the full the great—perhaps the only—advantage of their change of strategy, namely, the emphasis on Europe, which will presumably enable us to design an aircraft which should be suitable to the air forces of our N.A.T.O. allies.
    Nevertheless, even if we are to include none of the special requirements and equipment which we should have needed in the past because of our Middle Eastern and Far Eastern commitments, I hope that the Under-Secretary will say something about how we are to carry out "the general capability based on Europe, including the United Kingdom, which can be deployed overseas", and which appears at the top of page 3 of the White Paper. On the assumption that we can design for very similar rôles in European air forces, I hope that we shall have an eye on the substantial European and Canadian F104 replacement programme.
    Desirable though it no doubt is that we should secure a European partner in this project if possible, I hope that the Government will not make this arrangement an absolute prerequisite for continuing the project nor once again sell out Britain's rightful position, because in terms of their size and comprehensiveness of our industry, as design leader. If we were to do this over and over again, we would embark on a self-destructive policy, because, if we surrender our basic aircraft position as the only European industry with a completely comprehensive range, we lay ourselves open—at any rate until
    776
    we can become an economic part of Europe—to being played off against America by a European industry which has taken over the lead.
    I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) make the same plea, when he said that we should maintain the broad base of our industry. We shall not do this if we cast away over and over again our design leadership.
    I turn now to general conditions in the industry. Of course we were pleased with the Chief Secretary's long-delayed statement on some more sensible profit formula, but we should realise that what is worrying the industry is the future and that there is a lack of confidence, to which the Government's inability to make up their minds and determine future projects is adding. There still remain many questions to ask on the Chief Secretary's statement and I will not ask them again tonight.
    I will finish with a quotation from an article in that influential American magazine, Aviation Week, on 22nd January:
    "If there is any hope at all for Britain to climb out of its present economic morass, it lies in a massive development of modern technology to increase the productivity of its labour force and make its goods competitive once more in international markets. This goal cannot be achieved without a thorough revitalisation of the British aerospace industry to function as the spearhead for the breakthrough technology required."
    The Government have not given us confidence that they are either doing that or are capable of doing it.
    We are all, I suppose, conditioned by our background. Some of my hon. Friends started life as Regular officers in the R.A.F. I started in the Army, and I have never regretted that. But it taught me one thing: a great obligation to one's subordinates. I ask the Minister to consider whether he has fulfilled that obligation and earned their respect.
    9.30 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Tonight has been the second of the debates under the new procedures whereby we debate a Motion before dealing with the Estimates for a short period at the end of the evening. This debate has been of great interest

    777
    to the few of us who have been present but, while it has been successful in this respect. I do not think that this procedure has achieved one of its main aims, which is to interest more hon. Members in our proceedings on defence. While the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) referred to the position now, I suggest that the debate has not been over-attended all day.
    In this debate hon. Gentlemen opposite have gone out of their way to build up an exceedingly gloomy and despondent picture of the R.A.F. equipment programme. They have, in general, glossed over all those aspects which give cause for satisfaction. I would except from that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and, to a large degree, the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, who I think for the first time in three years put some of the questions concerning research and development, and the problems that are faced by all Governments, in their right perspective.
    It is no use denying that the R.A.F.—and this is the starting point; I freely admit it—has suffered a setback in its equipment programme with the loss of the F111. I am sure, however, that this is of a temporary nature, and I shall return to this matter shortly. Important though this loss is, it relates to only one part of the operational capability of the R.A.F.
    The Service itself, I can inform the House, is settling down with its customary efficiency and resource to consider what is the most sensible way to deal with the resulting situation. I shall deal with this more fully later, as I appreciate that this matter has been raised by many hon. Members.
    To listen to the speeches which have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite—bearing in mind their Motion—one would have thought that, when they formed the Government, they always had the right long-term answer to our aircraft equipment problems, that all the measures they took in this field were morale boosters, and that every project they conceived was seen through to a satisfactory conclusion. Of course, this is not the case. Their record is a dismal catalogue, as my right hon. Friend pointed out earlier.
    They may claim that they bequeathed a comprehensive long-term aircraft pro
    778
    gramme in 1964, but they were spared the salutary lesson of having to see it through and to face the operational and financial consequences. They did not have to face the immediate prospect of being responsible for a force that would have been, in a few years' time, grossly under-equipped. We have gone over all this ground many times before but we have had Motions couched in similar terms to that offered today many times before, and the facts—not just because of the debate or because of the Motion—are worth repeating because the loss of the F111 has rightly been in the minds of hon. Members and has received a great deal of publicity. For the sake of those in the R.A.F. and their career prospects, it is worth again repeating the facts of the situation about the re-equipment programme of the R.A.F. and its operational needs. My right hon. Friend said earlier that I would concentrate on the operational side.
    When the Labour Government took office, the R.A.F. was operating Canberras, Hunters, Beverleys, Hastings and Shackletons—which were then 13, 10, 8, 16 and 12 years old respectively—and there was no prospect of a replacement within a satisfactory time scale and within a defence budget that the country could have reasonably been able to afford. Even the party opposite, in the event, might have found it impossible to stomach the large sums which their future programmes would have entailed.
    When the Secretary of State has claimed the savings made on the long-term aircraft programme which he inherited, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has replied that the long-term costings were "imaginary". This perhaps betrays a lack of understanding of the functions of long-term costings in the Ministry of Defence—and aircraft workers did not march for imaginary reasons—but in so far as he believes what he says, it must mean that, had the party opposite won the 1964 and 1966 elections, further cuts would have been made. It certainly follows that during their 13 years it would not have been a new idea that cuts should be made. It could have been that the TSR2—which priced itself out of the field and because of a lack of overseas sales was in no sense in the long-term interests of the

    779
    British aircraft industry—might have been a victim.
    In reaching decisions about aircraft, there are three central considerations which my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor outlined to the House in a debate on the F111 on 13th December, 1965, namely: one, to give the Service the best aircraft for the rôles which it has to fulfil at the time it is needed; two, to do so at the least possible cost to the nation taking into account both budgetary and balance of payments considerations; and, three, to do so in the way that offers the British aircraft industry the best prospect for the future.
    In the decisions which they have made on the R.A.F. programme, the Government have taken all these considerations into account.
    My right hon. Friend in opening this debate today has referred to the industrial aspects. I am more immediately concerned, in my job in the Government, with the operational aspects; I say quite firmly that the Government have throughout been anxious to ensure that the Royal Air Force would have the equipment appropriate to its tasks at the time when it was needed. We cancelled the P1154, the supersonic VTOL aircraft—this has been mentioned today and many times before—because, despite the urgent need of the Royal Air Force for a Hunter replacement, it could not have been available before 1971 at the earliest. I say "at the earliest", because slippage in development projects was not an entirely unknown factor under the previous Government.
    We decided to replace the P1154 by a combination of the Phantom and the Harrier, the former having a multi-rôle strike/ground attack/interceptor capability with supersonic performance, and the latter the V/STOL capability to provide the intimate close support of ground forces which is possible only with vertical/short take-off and landing techniques.
    In the next financial year we shall begin to receive Phantoms in considerable numbers and conversion training will begin. The first R.A.F. Phantoms will enter R.A.F. service early in 1969. The House has been reminded that this air
    780
    craft has over 40 per cent. British equipment. My hon. Friend asked whether it was worthwhile. I will put to him a dilemma. I think it would be right to say that the American Phantom would have suited the job, but the Government took into account in this instance the effect that buying British would have on the British aircraft industry. This is an instance where two things came together and it costs more to do it in this way.
    There have, as the House knows, been development difficulties associated with the Spey engine and the Ferranti nay/attack system, but I am glad to say that we are now well on the way to solving these and there should be only a few months' delay in our plans for getting the aircraft into squadron service. The final decision on price has to be agreed with our agents.
    As regards the V/STOL Harrier, here too the report is of solid progress. With this advanced aircraft the United Kingdom leads the world and production is in full swing for the Royal Air Force. I have said this is a close support aircraft: with its unique take-off and landing capability it is able to maintain very close touch with the Army formations which it is its purpose to support in the battlefield. This capability is of special and growing significance in the European theatre It has export prospects, not the least of the reasons being that the lessons from the Arab-Israeli war have not been lost on people in services in all parts of the world. We had to cancel the HS681, the V/STOL tactical transport aircraft, because of excessive cost and because it would not have been in service until 1971–72 at the earliest. There was a crying need to replace urgently the Hastings and the Beverleys which simply would not have lasted until that time at the sort of rates we needed to operate them.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is very concerned with production but, as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, we have a responsibility to people who are flying and those who are travelling in old aeroplanes. The decision we made was to buy this rather than wait.
    Mr. McMaster: That is all very well, but when cancelling the Hawker-Siddeley

    781
    615 did the Under-Secretary not consider ordering the tactical version of the Belfast instead of ordering the Hercules so that the order could be kept in this country?
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: All I can say is that we considered it.
    We decided that the urgent operational need would be met by ordering the Hercules. This is a tactical aircraft which also has a strategic capability and it has made a most impressive contribution to recent transport operations. If there is time, I will mention it to the House.
    A question was asked this afternoon about the maritime field by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who always shows such interest in Royal Air Force matters. We found that the previous Government had not made a decision on the urgently-needed maritime reconnaissance aircraft to replace the Shackletons. We reached an early decision, in the first few months of the Government, for a development of the Comet—the Nimrod as it has been subsequently named. This programme is going well. Both prototype aircraft have now flown and we can confidently expect deliveries of aircraft to the Royal Air Force to replace the Shackleton Mark Hs before the end of 1969.
    This new aircraft is powered by four Rolls-Royce Spey engines. It has a modern computerised attack system for use against submarines and surface shipping, and its deep-section fuselage accommodates a large-capacity weapons bay. Here again, the United Kingdom leads the world and this will be the most advanced maritime reconnaissance aircraft, the first to be powered by turbo-fan engines.
    The hon. Member for Dumfries spoke with the knowledge of a Coastal man; I assure him that when he spoke of the tight flying at low levels the advice I have is that these aircraft are first rate and the problem in this respect is minimal. Many matters were raised by him, but taking it out of the context of remarks I want to make, he referred to the problems of the Reserves, and the need of contact for the Royal Air Force with civil life. The comment I would make here—and it is a question I have often posed myself—is that, when the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air
    782
    Force Volunteer Reserve were ended, I was surprised there was not the same noise and outcry as there was when the Territorial Army was disbanded. The decision was absolutely right and logical; the situation of men arriving at an airfield with no aeroplanes to fly made it quite obvious that to carry on with that sort of system was the wrong thing to do. My own view is that the logic is there too in the present situation.
    The question of flying for officers was referred to. I have looked at the matter further, and I am advised it is far more economical for officers to do it by refresher training. It is not only economical but, apparently, to do it any other way would be, from an operational point of view, extremely dangerous. The light type of aeroplane has very little relevance with regard to a Phantom.
    I have an example of an officer in the Royal Air Force who was, admittedly, going to fly two types of aircraft. I was much surprised to find that, leaving in January, he would not arrive with his squadron until August, because during that time he would be flying refresher aircraft. There are good reasons for this.
    In the longer term, to return to the main theme, we shall also have the Anglo-French Jaguar, which is a supersonic light close support/trainer aircraft. In its trainer version it will replace the Gnat/Hunter aircraft as the follow-on aircraft from the Jet Provost in the flying training sequence. In its close support version it will take over the ground/attack rôle from the Phantom when the Phantom takes over from the Lightning in the mid 1970s.
    As regards helicopters, the R.A.F. will start to take delivery of the SA330 air-portable support helicopter in 1970–71. The other two helicopters have an interest for the R.A.F., but their greater interest is for the other two Services.
    In the missile field, there will be Rapier, a surface-to-air missile system which is fully airtransportable and highly mobile in the field. Deliveries to the R.A.F. of Martel will begin in 1971. The development of both versions of Martel—the anti-radar and the television—is progressing satisfactorily.
    I submit that all this adds up to a very creditable situation in which there will

    783
    be a substantial improvement in the operational quality of our front line. I emphasise that already the improved operational capability which the present Government's policies have created is beginning to be available to help the Service carry out its many worldwide responsibilities. The year 1969 will be a vintage one for the introduction of new aircraft.
    Mr. Patrick Wall: Does not this depend on the number of aircraft ordered? How many Harriers and Nimrods are to be ordered? Is it not very uneconomical to order in small packets?
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I will come to that in a moment. I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this. A number of hon. Members have said that the number of front-line aircraft is only 400. There is not time to go into this in comparison with other countries, but it is not a straight comparison with numbers in other countries. There is the sophistication of the aircraft concerned. Sweden was mentioned. The then Chief of the Air Staff visited Sweden last year and commented extremely favourably on its very fine Air Force; but the Swedish Air Force concentrates its mind on one rôle. The R.A.F. has a variety of rôles in different parts of the world.
    The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) raised the question of a brochure which he had obtained from the recruiting centre. I have checked on that this evening. I regret that a slip of paper which, I am informed, has been put in all the others, was not put in the hon. Member's. There it is. A slip of paper correcting the Fill reference has been issued and has been sent out with these brochures. I apologise that it was not in the hon. Gentleman's copy.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The silliest statement is that new aircraft coming into R.A.F. service up to 1970 will number over 1,000, in view of the statements about helicopters not coming into service until later.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I was about to refer to that. I have not had the time to check on this thoroughly, but I undertake to do so. What is the issue? In fact there will be more than 1,000 air
    784
    craft in the R.A.F. It is not the practice to give the precise figure. From what the hon. Gentleman has told me, the wording in that statement about "coming into service" would give the impression that they were all brand new. I apologise for that, and I will check it. It is 400-ish front line and 1,000-ish aircraft in total. I regret that from what the hon. Gentleman tells me the brochure certainly gives the wrong impression.
    Mr. James Johnson: My hon. Friend has not said anything about the future of the Buccaneer. Will he do so?
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I will not forget the Buccaneer. I was saying that 1969 will be a vintage year. While we continue to have bases in the Persian Gulf and the Far East and the responsibilities related to them and afterwards, the Royal Air Force will be fully capable of meeting the operational responsibilities which fall to it. So much for the present. The policy of this Government gives the R.A.F. a far stronger immediate operational capability.
    I turn now to the question of tactical strike reconnaissance aircraft and their capability, an issue raised by many hon. Members. However, before I touch on that, I want to take a look at the future and the new operational situation which will face the Royal Air Force in its European rôle, because the tactical strike must be considered in the European context.
    Over the years the Royal Air Force has become a Service of great versatility operating in many different parts of the world. Because of this, squadrons learnt to be equally at home in greatly differing geographic and climatic environments. Concentration mainly in support of Europe and the North Atlantic presents a new and equally worthwhile challenge. The operational environment in Europe is tougher and will be even more so in the future. I am advised that this will demand a very high degree of professionalism, and in this aim new aircraft and equipment have an important part to play.
    I should like to give some examples. In current N.A.T.O. thinking there is the need to operate aircraft away from main bases where they would be vulnerable to attack, and the need to improve

    785
    mobility. Therefore, not only the Harrier but the Phantom-Harrier partnership will be of special importance in Europe. On the question of mobility, obviously in the context of cutting down on a worldwide rôle the transport fleet will not need to be as great, but the actual size will have to be related to the commitment as it is worked out.
    A unique contribution to N.A.T.O. is at present made in strike and reconnaissance. Before dealing with that may I say briefly—there is no time to deal with it Fully, but the House should be aware of this—that not only on the operational but on the administrative side very much of the R.A.F. has been geared to the worldwide rôle. With an Air Force which has its major responsibilities in Europe thought must obviously be given to this aspect.
    I now turn to the subject of general capability. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 16th January that this will be
    "based in Europe … which can be deployed overseas as, in our judgment, circumstances demand, including support for United Nations operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1581.]
    The situation now is that we have bases overseas with their own resident forces. These bases are backed by considerable resources in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration dealt with the cost factor in the debates this week.
    In the future the general capability we use outside the N.A.T.O. area will have to be drawn from the forces we keep for the defence of Europe. Naturally, there will be need for greater notice, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, but because of the great flexibility of air power the Royal Air Force will have a significant contribution to make in the general capability rôle, either acting alone or through its capability for rapid development of operational squadrons, or in conjunction with the other Services. It could provide air transport to enable troops and equipment to be rapidly deployed where needed and then return to the European rôle. But, as I have said, this question must be looked at very carefully.
    The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised the question of tankers and so on. In this reassessment of the
    786
    situation the skill of the R.A.F. in its tanker rôle is also being carefully examined.
    There is an immediate and a long-term aspect of the F111 question. The Canberra was originally to have been replaced by the TSR2. We found that we could not afford this and opted for the F111K in association with the V-bombers. The purchase was limited, because the problem was to fill the gap between the demise of the Canberras in two years' time and the introduction of a new strike-reconnaisance aircraft in the mid-1970s. The V-force, due to operate in the tactical rôle, could not fill the gap unless it was bracketed with a spearhead type of aircraft—the F111—the Vulcan remaining, to the mid-1970s.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the Victor PR. It is not affected. Page 26 of the White Paper refers to the Blue Steel Mark II Victors.
    The point about the F111 is that it would have had long-range tactical reconnaisance capability. It would have a dual capacity to deter attack by reconnaisance together with its capacity for strike, largely in the conventional rôle, and it also has a maritime rôle.
    The point now is that this creates a serious gap. This matter is receiving urgent examination. The whole question is very difficult. What is clear is that there is no new type of aircraft which can be developed for the R.A.F. to offset the withdrawal of the Canberra in the strike rôle, which must take place in 1969 and 1970, for the Canberras are old aircraft. The PR9, a later version will carry on beyond that date for photographic reconnaissance.
    The problem is, therefore, to consider aircraft now in service or under development and to see what can be done in the immediate future to give us the most satisfactory combination of combat aircraft for our military rôle in the mid-1970s, until about 1975.
    We need to remember that we are part of an alliance and that our American allies have a capacity for long-range strike reconnaisance. We shall, of course, have at our disposal Buccaneers to support the Navy for maritime strike in the post-carrier situation and to support our V-force in a tactical strike and reconnaissance rôle in the European situation.

    787
    There are also the Phantoms, and, later the Jaguar, which also have to be considered. The capability of these aircraft is impressive. The question is to decide which has the right element or elements to be strengthened to alleviate as satisfactorily as possible in the short-term the consequences of losing the F111 capacity, and this is being done.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) asked about the Buccaneer Mark II. I am advised that this aircraft is not in the same class as the F111 but it is a very useful aircraft. We are also looking carefully at the prospects here. All the options need to be carefully considered. That is what we are doing, and by July we aim to be clear on the answer.
    Mr. Onslow rose—
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: No. I would rather get on.
    As the hon. Gentleman conceded, it was not the Government's fault that the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft did not go on. But studies are proceeding related to the need for an advanced military combat aircraft in the mid-1970s. Various possible solutions are being examined by the B.A.C. project team at Warton. While I take the point that one does not want to feed too much into it, one has to avoid getting aircraft in the mid-1970s which are not capable of the task required. The emphasis on
    the European rôle is being fully taken into account in these studies, which are wide-ranging and are taking in all the fundamental issues involved.
    Collaboration would be our preferred policy, and for good reasons. I find it odd that the Opposition should write into their Motion a view which deprecates dependence on others. Where do they draw the line? When is dependence deep? In N.A.T.O. we are dependent upon others not only industrially but operationally. Fighter Command is and has been for many years small, but it has to be looked at in the context of the defence of Europe, both with aircraft and with radar. This is true of Coastal Command as well. We are interdependent with our allies in the maritime rôle and in the strike rôle.
    By the very nature of the requirements of industry and operations, Europe is interdependent. The Motion does not seem to realise or accept this fact of life. That is true of the whole Motion. It is almost the same Motion that we have debated many times since 1964. Now, as then, it ill becomes the party of the cancellations to tell us our business. The Motion is a charade. It is the same old Motion with the same old arguments, and it deserves the same result.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 181.

    Division No. 86.]

    AYES

    [9.58 p.m.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

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

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Holland, Philip

    Awdry, Daniel

    Dance, James

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Batsford, Brian

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Bell, Ronald

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Jopling, Michael

    Biffen, John

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Eden, Sir John

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Black, Sir Cyril

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

    Kirk, Peter

    Blaker, Peter

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kitson, Timothy

    Body, Richard

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lambton, Viscount

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Brewis, John

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir walter

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Bryan, Paul

    Goodhaw, Victor

    MacArthur, Ian

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

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    McMaster, Stanley

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Gurden, Harold

    Marten, Neil

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mawby, Ray

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Monro, Hector

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Murton, Oscar

    Clegg, Walter

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Nott, John

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Hastings, Stephen

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hawkins, Paul

    Neave, Airey

    Costain, A. P.

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Onslow, Cranley

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Wall, Patrick

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Webster, David

    Pym, Francis

    Smith, John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Stodart, Anthony

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Tapsell, Peter

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Teeling, Sir William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Mr. Jasper More and

    Royle, Anthony

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Mr. Anthony Grant.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

    Anderson, Donald

    Haseldine, Norman

    Norwood, Christopher

    Archer, Peter

    Hazell, Bert

    O'Malley, Brian

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Orbach, Maurice

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Hilton, W. S.

    Padley, Walter

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hooley, Frank

    Palmer, Arthur

    Bishop, E. S

    Horner, John

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Blackburn, F.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Booth, Albert

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Boston, Terence

    Howie, W.

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Hoy, James

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Bradley, Tom

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rankin, John

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Hunter, Adam

    Rees, Merlyn

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

    Hynd, John

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Buchan, Norman

    Irvine, Sir Arthur

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

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Chapman, Donald

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Roebuck, Roy

    Coleman, Donald

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

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Conlan, Bernard

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Dalyell, Tam

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

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

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

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

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Judd, Frank

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Kelley, Richard

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Slater, Joseph

    Dell, Edmund

    Lawson, George

    Small, William

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Snow, Julian

    Dickens, James

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Stonehouse, John

    Dobson, Ray

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lipton, Marcus

    Taverne, Dick

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Luard, Evan

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Eadie, Alex

    Lubbock, Eric

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    MacColl, James

    Tinn, James

    Ellis, John

    MacDermot, Niall

    Urwin, T. W.

    Ennals, David

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Varley, Eric G.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

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

    Maclennan, Robert

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Faulds, Andrew

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Finch, Harold

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Wallace, George

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Weitzman, David

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Wellbeloved, James

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Foley, Maurice

    Mason, Roy

    Whitlock, William

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Maxwell, Robert

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Forrester, John

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Fowler, Gerry

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Molloy, William

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Moonman, Eric

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Winnick, David

    Gregory, Arnold

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Yates, Victor

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Moyle, Roland

    Mr John McCann and

    Hamling, William

    Murray, Albert

    Mr. Neil McBride.

    Harper, Joseph

    Neal, Harold

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
    Ordered.
    That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and that the proceedings on Vote A of the Defence (Air) Estimates, 1968–69, may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. O'Mlley.]
    Supply again considered.

  DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES 1968–69
    Vote A

      Number of Air Force Service
      10.10 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
      That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 125,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969.
      On Monday and Tuesday this week the House concentrated on the broad issues of policy in the defence field. Today we have had a close look at the Royal Air Force equipment and operational programme. This has left only a short period to consider the many other important aspects of the Service.
      It gives me particular pleasure to be reporting on the state of the Royal Air Force in this year, when the Service celebrates the 50th anniversary of its foundation. I am proud to be reporting on a Service which, as ever, is carrying out its tasks with efficiency and confidence, and preparing for the future in the same manner.
      When I introduced the Air Estimates in 1967, I laid particular stress on my "management" responsibilities. I want to stress these again and, in the short time at my disposal, to consider mainly personnel and some organisation matters.
      It is my privilege normally to take the Chair on behalf of the Secretary of State at meetings of the Air Force Board. I should like to remind the House of the important rôle of the Boards in dealing with the many purely single-service, day
      792
      to-day management problems, which arise in the implementation of defence policy.
      I do not propose to go into detail on the provision in Air Estimates. A comparison between 1968–69 Estimates and those for the current year is shown at Annex C of the White Paper, but the House may ask why, at a time of retrenchment in the defence field, the Air Estimates should be £13½ million higher than last year. In real terms there is a decrease of some £12 million on 1967–68. The increase is due to devaluation and pay and price increases.
      The Estimates take account of the cuts in defence expenditure announced in November following devaluation. The major single item for the Royal Air Force was the cancellation of the Chinook, for which there was a forward provision in Air Votes of over £6 million in 1968–69.
      As indicated in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th January the changes in defence policy which he then announced will not have much effect on spending in 1968–69, but they will yield of course substantial economies later on. One significant reduction in the Estimates is in the Movements Vote, which covers the main movements of all three Services by air. We expect to spend nearly £3 million less on movements next year than was provided for 1967–68.
      This is primarily due to the increased operational capacity of Air Support Command with its new aircraft such as the VC10, the Hercules and the Belfast. In keeping themselves at the proper state of operational readiness, these aircraft are continuing the reduction in the need for charter.
      I should now like to turn to the personnel field. The whole future of the Royal Air Force depends on the skill and dedication of those who serve in it. The changes in defence policy—which we have been bound to make in the interests of building a sound economy—have naturally been disappointing for the Services. This is particularly true of the loss of the F111 capability. But the changes we are making, and particularly the concentration on the European rôle, are ones to which the Royal Air Force will readily and quickly adapt itself.

      793
      When redeployment is complete, as I have argued earlier, the R.A.F. will remain a powerful and effective force. It will also have a clearly defined rôle, primarily in Europe. To man this force we shall need a continuing flow of high-calibre recruits capable of handling most sophisticated equipments, and I cannot emphasise too strongly that the Royal Air Force will continue to offer a career fully commensurate with their skills.
      Throughout the period of redeployment and the slimming which this entails, it will be our aim to maintain a careful balance between those entering and those leaving the Service so that, at the end of the day, we emerge with a smaller but no less effective force with an age, rank and trade structure designed to meet both the need of the Royal Air Force for efficiency and the desire of the individual for an interesting and rewarding career.
      Recruitment in 1967 continued at much the same level as in 1966 although, with one or two exceptions, it fell rather below the target. So far this year, however, there has been more than the seasonal Falling off. This may be due in part to the anxieties felt by parents or career advisers as a result of plans to redeploy the Services and reduce their size. I hope that in a small way the outline I have given of our future aircraft plans will help to reassure the Service and that the outline which I have given of our manpower plans will help to reassure parents aid others concerned with career guidance that they need have no fears on his score.
      It is my impression that the problem of redundancy in connection with the rundown of the Services gets far too much emphasis. As the House knows, amongst the measures announced in January was provision for an eventual reduction in Service manpower beyond the 75,000 forecast in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy in 1967 (Command 3357) and for the reduction to be spread over a shorter time.
      Although the manpower reduction forecast is substantial, it is important to get the matter in proper perspective. One must remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that over 10,000 men leave the Royal Air Force on normal exit each year and that by 1973 some 50 per cent. of the
      794
      men at present serving in the Royal Air Force will have left through normal wastage. It will be possible to take advantage of this turnover in keeping redundancy to the minimum required to preserve a proper age/rank and trade balance.
      I cannot at this point give specific figures for the Royal Air Force because we are still working out detailed plans, and to do this properly will take several months. As soon as firm information is available, I will arrange for it to be published to the Service. I can say, however, now that so far as possible any redundancies will continue to be made by voluntary applications from officers and men in the prescribed age and rank zones, and compulsory selections will be made only when there are insufficient volunteers.
      While on the subject of exit from the Royal Air Force, I should like to refer to a question which very frequently arises in correspondence on individual cases—namely, premature release at an individual's own request. I do not propose to refer here to youth entrants. That is a problem which is being examined specially by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration, as he has told the House. From time to time, however, I am told that the Royal Air Force is acting unreasonably in refusing to let an airman go when he wishes to. In a disciplined fighting force, we cannot release men indiscriminately, regardless of our need for them, and there are clearly defined rules for premature discharge.
      I would emphasise to the House that in the Royal Air Force, with its complicated trade structure—complicated only to the layman like myself—for a man suddenly to leave might well mean that aircraft repairs on a bomber station, for example, would have to stop. It is not simply a question of other individuals doing the same task.
      There are clearly defined rules for premature discharge. They enable a man to be released provided that, first, he has completed a minimum period of service to offset the cost of his training; secondly, he pays the prescribed purchase price; and thirdly, his trade is adequately manned. In compassionate cases some or all of these provisos may

      795
      be waived according to the circumstances. In 1967, over 1,300 airmen successfull applied for discharge by purchase. Of these, some 180 went out on compassionate grounds.
      When I look at these cases I find that more often than not they have been treated very fairly by the officers who are responsible for dealing with compassionate cases and the other types as well. Very rarely do I have to overrule what has been decided. The Royal Air Force knows of its problems in a Service where wives are separated from husbands, and these matters are dealt with extremely well.
      Before leaving the subject of personnel, I wish to devote a few moments to the Air Training Corps, in which I have a particular interest. Hon. Members will recall that in last year's debate I announced that we were setting up a committee to review the whole organisation administration and training of the A.T.C. We were fortunate enough to obtain the services as chairman of Air Marshal Sir Douglas Morris, who had recently retired from the post of Commander-in-Chief, Fighter Command. The committee has produced a most valuable report which we are now studying.
      I think it is sometimes overlooked that the Air Training Corps is not simply a pre-entry organisation for the Royal Air Force: its services in youth training are of value to the nation as a whole. There is, obviously, a very close connection with the Royal Air Force. This is the basis on which the Corps exists and, as a result of this connection, many hundreds of ex-A.T.C. boys join the Royal Air Force every year. They provide an extremely valuable and high quality entry of the type which we shall continue to need in the future. The A.T.C. is essentially a voluntary body and I want to praise the work done by these volunteers all over the country.
      As the Royal Air Force looks to the future with its new aircraft and runs down to a size commensurate with its new tasks, it is essential that its organisation should be right. A great deal of thought has been given to the question of command structure and the changes I announced last year will mainly take effect during the coming financial year. The changes are set out in the White
      796
      Paper. Time is short, so I will simply draw the House's attention to the fact that, when the re-organisation is completed, the total of United Kingdom commands will have been reduced from eight to four.
      The reasons for this re-organisation are many. The Royal Air Force of the 1970s, as we discussed earlier, will have a smaller number of aircraft than the force for which the existing United Kingdom operational command structure was designed. These aircraft will, however, be capable of operating in a number of different rôles. Both these factors have led to the need for a stream-lined system of operational control, but the last one is often ignored. The fact that an aeroplane can be used in a multiplicity of rôles makes it good sense to have a command structure which can deal with this factor.
      Furthermore, when the aircraft carriers phase out, the participation of the Royal Air Force in maritime operations will increase, both in national and N.A.T.O. defence tasks. The new command structure will help in establishing a much closer working relationship with the Royal Navy and also the Army. There are, of course, also economic benefits from the changes. The reduction in the number of command headquarters will lead to valuable savings amounting eventually to over 1,000 posts which, together with other administrative savings, should amount to some £1½ million a year.
      We shall continue with our policy of concentrating the Royal Air Force on the smallest number of stations consistent with our needs and of disposing of those for which we have no further use. When we have determined the size and shape of the Royal Air Force as a result of the most recent defence cuts we shall undertake a full scale review of our deployment requirements. This will be a complex task, and it is not possible at this stage to forecast which stations may be no longer needed, but we shall follow our usual practice of making announcements as soon as decisions are reached. May I say here, Mr. Speaker, that the other evening, when the subject of Honington came up, I thought that one hon. Gentleman opposite was unfair to the officers who deal with the use of airfields. It is often good sense to put an airfield on to a care-and-maintenance

      797
      basis and to move squadrons to nearby stations to achieve economies, while a decision is made about what is to go into a new airfield. It might seem ludicrous to people who are not in the full picture, but it is not a sign of inefficiency on the part of the people dealing with deployment in this sense.
      As the Royal Air Force reshapes both in size and command structure to meet the tasks of the future, it is able to take advantage of the improvements in methods which have been introduced over the years, including the computer control of stores and the computer for airmen's pay and records. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) will be aware of that in terms of his constituency.
      Before concluding, I should like briefly to draw attention to the service which the Royal Air Force renders to others. The White Paper refers to the valuable service which the Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Service continues to give. It also draws attention to the assistance given in the "Torrey Canyon" incident and the foot-and-mouth epidemic. I should add that when I discovered what the airmen for whom I am responsible had to do, I felt that they did it with an extremely good heart, We were very pleased when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote a word of thanks on behalf of farmers. Incidentally, I am aware that it was not only Air Force personnel who were involved.
      I should like also to draw attention to the assistance given by the R.A.F. Technical Training School at St. Athan, in South Wales, in retraining redundant workers. Although of modest size and of a trial nature, the scheme has been highly successful.
      Of very topical interest in the humanitarian assistance given by the Royal Air Force in Vietnam, in helping the Ministry of Overseas Development and certain charitable organisations to distribute emergency relief supplies. Several flights by Roy al Air Force Hercules and a Belfast of Air Support Command have been carried out, taking to Saigon vehicles, ambulances and medical supplies. This is a considerable operation which is being carried out by the Royal Air Force with characteristic efficiency.
      798
      Finally, the Meteorological Office—one of the my hon. Friends has a great interest in the Meteorological Office and I was looking to see whether he was here—which I have had little time to refer to, and which is playing a significant part in the World Weather Watch programme, has recently made a weather ship temporarily available to meet Board of Trade requirements for a vessel with a control officer to be available near the Icelandic fishing grounds.
      This is a time when the Royal Air Force, in common with the other Services, is having to face significant changes in all fields, arising from the major policy considerations which the House has been debating over the last few days. The withdrawal from bases east of Suez and the concentration on a European rôle will mark the end to a chapter in Royal Air Force history.
      But the Royal Air Force has always responded to change and adapted itself with vigour and dedication to new tasks, and I am convinced that, as the Royal Air Force looks back over 50 years with justifiable pride in its tremendous achievements, it can look forward with confidence to meeting the challenge it will face in the future in its primarily European rôle.
      10.26 p.m.
      Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: When I could catch up with the hon. Gentleman, who almost rivalled the speed of his immediate superior at the Ministry of Defence, I thought that I heard him say that the problems of redundancy received too much emphasis. I am afraid that they are going to get a little more, though perhaps in a different way.
      I want to tell the House about the problems created for a community in my constituency due to the announcement that the Royal Air Force base there is to be closed by 1970. The problem arises in a village with the perhaps deceptively Irish name of Ballykelly. Although this decision concerns my constituency, it has a wider interest because it is a microcosm of the effect of broken assurances all over the world.
      The Government have announced that they intend to close this Coastal Command station in 1970. The station employs about 470 civilians, and there are

      799
      1,330 Service personnel. The presence of the Royal Air Force in the area accounts for 3,290 people, in a village with a population of about 200. It can be seen, therefore, that the Royal Air Force is the heart and soul of the community, and indeed the community has grown up because of the presence of the Royal Air Force. It has been a happy community in which R.A.F. personnel have been held in great affection.
      Unemployment has been a problem in the area for a long time. I do not deny that. In January, male unemployment was 16½ per cent. When I recently expressed anxiety in the House about the effect on unemployment of the closure of the base, the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that because the unemployment figures for Northern Ireland as a whole had shown a welcome improvement in February, we all ought, for some reason or another, to take our hats off to him, though what credit he can claim for this I do not know, as it has been the habit of the Government in the past to suggest that the unemployment problem was one largely for the Northern Ireland Government. That, of course, is when the figures are bad.
      Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it not a fact that the Government's action here will result in putting unemployment in this area up to more than 30 per cent.? Is not this disgraceful?
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: My hon. and learned Friend has anticipated what I was about to say. That is the case. The Prime Minister should have known at the time that the unemployment figure in this area, however much it may have improved elsewhere, had already worsened to the extent of 17·3 per cent. in the last month and the substantial loss of trade to the village and the neighbouring town of Limavady as a result of the departure of the Royal Air Force must inevitably lead to further unemployment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
      I wonder whether the Government have considered the other effects of closure and the official abandonment of the whole site. They have spent about £3 million on the base over 10 years. They are proposing to leave behind them
      800
      52 modern houses, which cannot be entirsly absorbed by local demand because the housing authorities there already have 360 houses planned or in the course of erection, houses which in all probability they would not be building if they thought that the Royal Air Force was going to leave.
      For instance, do the Government realise that a large new primary school now nearing completion at a cost of £250,000 was built largely because of the presence of the R.A.F. and that two-thirds of the pupils intended for it were the children of Service personnel? Other schools in the area have been enlarged for the same reason, practically at the behest of the Ministry of Defence. That is one result. I will not deal with the other hardships such as the rate increases which must fall on the local people with the disappearance of the Services.
      Perhaps we will be told that the local authorities should have known better and that they should not count on the presence of defence establishments in this day and age. In this respect, it is easy to be sophisticated after three years of this Government, but hear what the Government themselves said about the station and then ask whether they can blame the local authorities for putting their faith in the future of the base. Early in 1966 I raised its future in another context with the then Under-Secretary for the Navy. All was well and, on 23rd June, 1966, the present Under-Secretary of State for the R.A.F. wrote me the following letter:
      "I have been asked to reply…I can confirm…that the transfer of J.A.S.S. from Londonderry will have little effect on the numbers of Air Force Department civilians employed at Ballykelly.
      Our present plans are to continue using Shackletons there for some years to come. When these aircraft are replaced by HS 801s (Maritime Comets) the station will be suitable for their use."
      Then, from no less a personage than the present Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister, when at the D.E.A., who was trying to be helpful on another point, I received a letter, dated 15th July, 1966, saying:
      "In your letter you also express fears that some other possible developments will lead eventually to Ballykelly being closed down with serious consequences for Northern Ireland. I need hardly say that the Government

      801
      would certainly look very carefully at any proposal which could have the consequences you fear but I can put your mind at rest…I am in fact assured by my Defence colleagues that the Ballykelly Station has, and will continue to have, an important rôle as a Coastal Command airfield. Shackletons will continue to be used there for some time to come and when they are replaced by Comets the Station will still be suitable for their use."
      There can be little doubt about that assurance.
      Then, on 14th September, 1966, the present Leader of the House of Lords visited Londonderry and told a Press conference that he had been very impressed by the obvious efficiency and morale at the station, and went on:
      "It is true that Ballykelly is a very important R.A.F. station and, so far as I can see it, whatever may happen to J.A.S.S. in Londonderry, this Ballykelly station will continue because Coastal Command has a wide wide range of responsibilities. It is highly desirable that the Royal Air Force should continue to have a strong presence in Northern Ireland where they have many friends…The R.A.F., for as far ahead as we can see, will remain here in Londonderry."
      Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman could not see very far ahead.
      These are some of the assurances, but despite them, and because of the overriding importance of the base to the local economy, I wrote again in April, 1967, and received a letter from the Under-Secretary marked, curiously, "Confidential". I have not yet discovered why, but, because it was so marked, I will not reveal its contents except to say that it dealt with the situation—
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I cannot recall the occasion, but I think that the reason was the time factor connected with an announcement. I have no objection to the hon. Member quoting it now.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have it here, but it makes no difference, since I can tell the House that it dealt with the situation in the 1970s and left me with no real cause for alarm. This was in April, 1967. However, in December, rumours of a run-down reached me, and this resulted in a verbal assurance from one in high authority in the Ministry of Defence on 13th December last year that there was no reason for concern. To get that on paper, I wrote to the Under-Secretary for confirmation on 21st December. On 5th January, 1968, 15 days later, closure
      802
      in 1970 was announced. In such a way do purposeful planners work. Other than sheer panic to make cuts somewhere, somehow, what can be guiding the Government in this matter?
      I have related some of the assurances that the Government have scattered like confetti. Can one wonder why the local authorities acted as they did? They were too trusting. Can one wonder that a restaurant owner in the village of Ballykelly spent £1,300 on his premises? Can one imagine the resources of a restaurant in a village of 200 inhabitants? Can one wonder that the proprietor of a hairdressing salon invested £1,000 in his premises and a draper £2,000 in his? Two of these will now lose 60 per cent. of their sales and the other 90 per cent. Is the storekeeper who spent £6,000 on his premises, and will now lose 75 per cent. of his sales, to blame himself simply because he trusted the Government?
      These are doubtless trifling sums to the Government, but they are people's savings. They were spent because the Government said something which they now say is untrue. If there is no comeback for those who spent their savings, there must be enough shame left in even this Government for them to say tonight what were the overwhelming and wholly unforeseen strategic reasons which decided them to close this station. How do they propose to compensate this area which had faith in them?
      Above all, what alternatives are they proposing for the civilians who worked there? At present, despite the welcome news of a new industry which the Northern Ireland Government have succeeded in inducing to go to the area, the prospect which many of the unskilled and middle-aged face in 1970 is that of gazing out over the deserted airfield. The Government have a clear, unmistakeable responsibility for the misfortune which has overtaken the area. It cannot be shed or shrugged off.
      Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it not a fact that these assurances were given right up to January of this year and that each one has been broken? Is it not also true that the Government will now take away from this area more than 3,000 people, Service personnel and families, and about £1¼ million a year?

      803
      How will that affect the community around Ballykelly?
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: Assurances were given right up to December of last year. The closure was announced on 5th January. I agree that vital spending power is being taken out of the community.
      10.39 p.m.
      Mr. Roy Roebuck: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) will not expect me to follow him in a purely constituency matter. I, too, have a constituency issue to raise and I will come to that later. First, I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary will let the House know the policy of the R.A.F. towards pensions, and to what extent that policy marches in tune with that pursued by the Army.
      My curiosity about this matter has been whetted by an article in the Sun on 1st March, which reported that General Sir James Castle was appointed a field marshal one day before he retired and that, as a result, his pension would be £4,050 a year as against £3,430 had he remained a general. Is this policy pursued in the R.A.F. and is it possible that we shall see an air chief marshal made a marshal one day before his retirement?
      This raises interesting possibilities. Perhaps a corporal will become a sergeant or a flight lieutenant a squadron leader—and in a year in which we have embarked on a policy which is likely to involve many calls for restraint on people, this leaves the Service open to criticism from the rest of the working population.
      I was most interested in what the Under-Secretary said about the civilian aid which the R.A.F. had given during the year. I understand that it helped in Aberfan, helped in the foot-and-mouth epidemic, helped to rescue by helicopters people in difficulties at sea; and the Under-Secretary told us tonight how it had helped to take supplies to civilian victims of the Vietnamese war. One would certainly not want to put any sort of financial evaluation on work of mercy such as this, but it might be interesting to have in future years some sort of estimate of the value of such services to the community. That would help many people who perhaps have difficulty in seeing how
      804
      the money spent on defence helps the civilian population.
      The Under-Secretary pointed out that in the coming year we are to have a large number of organisational changes in the Royal Air Force. This is of interest to my constituency because we have had Fighter Command there since 1936, and it is now to be merged into the new Strike Command. Fighter Command has been housed at Bentley Priory, which stands on a hill above the village of Stanmore. It was from that spot, which incidentally is near the place where it is believed that Queen Boadicea was buried, that the planning for the Battle of Britain was done. From there Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, as he then was, wrote the famous letter during the Battle of France which warned the Government not to send more aircraft there because we might need them to defend our islands.
      The House will be glad to know that the relationship between my R.A.F. constituents and my civilian constituents has for long been excellent. Within the last year or so it has been made event better, if that were possible, by the actions of the Under-Secretary who, when it was proposed to build a number of R.A.F. houses, readily and courteously accepted my suggestion that we should have a meeting of residents so that the matter could be discussed. This sort of friendly contact between the Services and the civilian population is valuable. Having read various reports of difficulties and trouble in other parts of the country, I hope that this contact may continue.
      Is my hon. Friend yet in a position to say whether the R.A.F. will relinquish Bentley Priory altogether in the near future, and to say what thought has been given to its further use? He will know, because he lives in the next constituency to the one I have the privilege to represent, that there are numbers of Government buildings in Harrow, East which are of a rather unsightly appearance. Some are owned by the Ministry of Defence. I wonder if he has thought that when the R.A.F. moves from Bentley Priory it would be a good idea if other Departments move in; that these unsightly buildings should be demolished and houses built on their sites. Bentley

      805
      Priory is a very beautiful residence which was designed by Sir John Soane.
      What is likely to be the position in regard to the headquarters unit in Stan-more Park, which covers a rather big acreage? Will the R.A.F. still need it in view of the command changes? What is the position in regard to married quarters in the area? There are large numbers. I suspect that as there is a great demand for accommodation for the R.A.F. in the Greater London area and that the R.A.F. might need them for some time to come. It would be extremely helpful if we could have an idea of how long they are likely to be needed. Can my hon. Friend say what is the position in regard to the educational needs of airmen's children in my constituency? We have been in correspondence about this, and he knows that there is a shortage of school places. What attention has been given to this matter?
      I am also concerned about the question of the unemployment which will result from these changes. My hon. Friend, in his characteristically courteous manner, has kept me well-informed on the subject, but may I ask him to tell us what the present position is? Is it felt that all those who will become unemployed as a result of the move will be settled either in new jobs with the Ministry of Defence or elsewhere?
      Finally, what arrangements have been made to ensure that Fighter Command ends its existence with some suitable ceremony? I hope that a way will be found of commemorating in a permanent manner the long association of Fighter Command with my constituency, and with the nation's finest hour.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have sat through most of today's debate, although, unhappily, because of another meeting, I was not able to be present for the earlier speeches. It has been well worth my while to listen to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), because I have just learned something. I was in Bentley Priory half-way through the war. There was a mixed crowd of us there—R.A.F. and W.A.A.F. I suppose that I learned much whilst I was there, but I certainly did not know then that Boadicea had had
      806
      any connection with Bentley Priory. As my constituency includes Stamford, and as Stamford was the place from which Boadicea set out to conquer the South, I now recognise, having been at Bentley Priory, that I have almost as much connection with the hon. Gentleman's constituency as I have with my own.
      I suppose we are accustomed to hearing a good deal in defence debates from representatives of the Army and of the Navy. The R.A.F. is outnumbered in the House. However, as the Under-Secretary knows full well, we do not consider that we are of less importance because of that. I have wondered today, as I have wondered in previous years when listening to debates on the R.A.F., whether the R.A.F. is there to keep the aircraft industry going or whether the aircraft industry is there to keep the R.A.F. going. In the previous debate I fancy that we heard much less about the R.A.F. than we heard about the aircraft industry and the production of aircraft.
      I find it a little sad that in its fiftieth year the R.A.F. has taken the knock that it has taken. In the Defence Estimates it has taken a rather greater knock than the other Services. I do not think that the Under-Secretary has admitted that. I understand his difficulty, but in his heart of hearts he must think that this is true. The R.A.F. itself thinks that it is so. It is at present in a rather depressed condition. The officers and men are just not sure of what the future means for them.
      In winding up the previous debate and in opening this one the Under-Secretary said, perhaps nine or ten times, that the Government were having "studies" studies on the R.A.F's future rôle, studies on the type of aircraft. Finally, he said that he was having studies on redundancy and studies on the A.T.C. I do not know whether he meant that he was having studies with a view to abolishing the A.T.C. I think not, and I hope not. The R.A.F. is not involved with any Territorial Army-type organisation, and this is the only voluntary thing we have. I hope that we shall always keep it.
      I urge the Under-Secretary not to study for too long on the question of redundancy. This is a very important matter. In my constituency there are two R.A.F. stations—R.A.F. Luffenham and R.A.F. Cottesmore. Wittering is just

      807
      outside, and most of the people in Wittering come into Stamford. Therefore, when we were fighting for our independence in Rutland we always reckoned that if the Government took us over we had an air force that could fight our battles.
      We have very close relations with the R.A.F., and the R.A.F. and the local people know each other and enjoy each other's company. We meet in the pubs, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is the utmost depression in the Service. He has a very important job to do in the next few months in dispelling it. It is a public relations job, and it must be backed up with something. The people concerned must be convinced that there is a future for them. The Minister said tonight that redundancy within the R.A.F. would take place on the basis of the normal wastage, people buying themselves out and so on. It would be helpful if in the next few weeks he could put a figure to the amount of redundancy that would take place over and above the normal wastage. I know that this is difficult because he cannot very well calculate what the wastage will be.
      Nevertheless, he should be able to assure those in the R.A.F., particularly officers and senior N.C.Os. of about 40, that they will still have a future in the Service. This applies more to ground crews than pilots, because he must keep his technical people on the ground if the Service is to be operational in the air. The technical people have jobs in industry available to them if they leave before a certain age, and at present they are seriously contemplating getting out in order to pick up those jobs in industry while the going is good. If that happens to any great extent there will be a brain drain from the Service, a rush from it into industry, and then he will be struggling to get the people back again. Furthermore, he will not get the same kind of people, because a man who has worked technically in the R.A.F. for 10 to 15 years is a great advantage to the Service.
      If the Minister must recruit lower age groups from outside he will find gaps which will make it very difficult for the squadrons to stay operational. Therefore, the question of redundancy is of the utmost importance and should not be
      808
      studied for a period that will continue the kind of uncertainty that exists at present. The morale of the Service is not good at present. It is up to the Minister to improve it.
      A good deal was said in the earlier debate on the rôle of the R.A.F., overseas service and the like. I do not agree with the Government's leaving east of Suez, and I think that they have announced the decision in advance precipitately. But, if we are withdrawing from east of Suez to a certain extent, it could be made clear to the R.A.F. that certain bases will be maintained and that it will be engaged in supplying them and even having personnel stationed there. If the future rôle of the R.A.F. is to be within Europe, it could make a contribution, because of its experience round the world, if Europe—not Britain, but with Britain included—has an east of Suez rôle and has to do anything in Asia.
      If this is so, it must be said and it must be spelt out. If it is not, then the Royal Air Force will run down, because people will feel there is no future in it. I do not think that anyone who joins the R.A.F.—and I expect this applies to the other Services as well—and is told that the furthest he can go is the Orkneys or Margate will think his journey worth while or that giving up part of his life in this way is worth while. Such a person wants to go overseas and does not mind being based overseas.
      I am not convinced that the cost of the kind of thing that is going on at R.A.F. stations at the moment—for example, at Wittering, which is actually in the Peterborough constituency—where there is the building of large housing estates, will save any Government money in the long run. It costs less to keep the men overseas in terms of housing and probably also in terms of overall cost. The pressure upon the housing programme as a whole is made all the greater by this policy in a situation where, according to the right hon. Gentleman, we shall have to house 35,000 people here and eventually 50,000. The Government should give some assurance on this.
      Another matter, which also applies to the other Services, and which I have raised in defence debates before, is the fact that I do not think the country is

      809
      sufficiently generous in the amount of money it makes available for the education of Servicemen's children. Officers and airmen whose children have to be boarded in direct grant schools or other schools at home are in considerable difficulty if they have more than one child. Boarding education here gives the children a stability of education which they cannot otherwise get because of the nature of their father's job, which means being switched around every three years.
      In terms of what we do with public schools and direct grant schools, this is a rôle which the Services themselves would find useful to fulfil in the grants for education were more generous. Many more children could be given this kind of permanent education instead of floating about from school to school over a period of 10 or 12 years.
      I was anxious to take part in the debate because it is the 50th anniversary of the R.A.F. this year. I hope that this year, depressing as it is, will quickly pass and that next year and for the next 50 years the R.A.F. will continue to give the same kind of service to the country which we have come to expect and have always had from it.
      10.59 p.m.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move,
      That the said number be reduced by 1,000 men.
      This is the traditional manner of objecting to the Vote under consideration and the policy behind it. I listened with some interest to the complaints of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) about the station which was associated in some way with Boadicea.
      Mr. Roebuck: No complaints.
      Mr. Hughes: No complaints, but Boadicea came into it somewhere. But she is not included in Vote A and the Estimates, so I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend, interesting as he was. He looked rather far back and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) looked forward to the next 50 years for the R.A.F.
      There is a complete absence of realism in this debate, but I do not know whether it depresses me because I am not easily depressed even by a debate on the R.A.F.
      810
      There is a remarkable degree of unreality about this debate, which has been very badly attended. There is a smaller number of Members present than I can ever remember for a debate of this kind. The average attendance has been about 15, which is less than would normally attend the opening of a branch butcher's shop by the Leeds Co-operative Society, with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is associated. I want to challenge the whole concept of the policy behind these Estimates and this Vote. My hon. Friend gave a very interesting technical account of the R.A.F., looking forward to what he called the vintage years. somewhere in the 1970s.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: 1969.
      Mr. Hughes: There is talk in these careful and elaborate prospectuses of what a wonderful output of aeroplanes there is likely to be in the next few years. That is completely out of touch with reality and is certainly out of touch with the basic economic situation. We are approaching the time when we will face the fact that we are in a financial and economic crisis, but there has been no sign of it in this debate.
      There has been no sign that the Government realise that, far from these economies being great economies, we are now being asked to vote for a sum of £537 million. This is at a time when we are told that the country is so short of money that it has even cut the milk to secondary schools. We should bring a touch of reality into this. The Chancellor, and those responsible for the economic future, are telling us that we must reduce public spending, but I see no practical sign of this. We hear of all these aircraft coming into play in 1969–70–71 and the hon. Gentleman for Rutland and Stamford talks about celebrating the R.A.F.'s centenary in another 50 years' time.
      It is time for someone interested in the country's economic future and the possibilities of our development towards Europe to bring the House down to earth. Listening to the very able, very technical speech of my hon. Friend, which would have been applauded by the Institute of General Dynamics, I felt that it was certainly not a speech of a Socialist Minister looking forward to the future from a Socialist point of view, or a peace point of view. There has been no realisation

      811
      in the debate of the policy of the Government, which is calling for this big sum and this substantial number of men.
      The idea that we are hard up as a nation has gone, and we are talking about enormously expensive aircraft coming into operation in a few years' time. If this goes on, the economic crisis will continue for the next five years. I protest at the very idea behind this Vote. Why do we need these men and this gigantic sum? There is this lame apology put forward about the humanitarian work that can be done. I quite agree. Good things are being done. Earlier I expressed my thanks to the Minister for the help given by the R.A.F. in rescuing by helicopter some sheep in my constituency, caught in the snow- We recognise what the Royal Air Force has done in the floods and off the Cornish coast, but that is not what the Royal Air Force is for. The Royal Air Force is a continuation of war policies. This £537 million is for building up an enormously powerful destructive force with modern nuclear weapons, about which the Minister has been strangely reticent.
      What is the purpose? I am glad to know that we are reducing our expenditure in the Far East. The present Government have no intention of repeating a Suez-type colonial expedition. What is this powerful striking force needed for outside Europe? It certainly cannot be used in Rhodesia. The Government rightly have no intention of using it there. I am not one who believes that we can use the military power of the Royal Air Force in Rhodesia. If it is not to be used in Rhodesia or the Far East, and I do not know how it could possibly be used in the Middle East, we are forced to ask what is the rôle of this powerful bombing, reconnaissance and tactical force for which we are asked to raise this sum of money tonight.
      If those responsible are thinking in terms of military power and striking, they must be thinking of striking somewhere. The only enemy which I can see is that our strategical experts and our military leaders are thinking in terms of an air strike against the Soviet Union. That would be suicidal. Nobody can say that if the Phantom, the F111 or whatever the heavy bomber is called went into reconnaissance into the Soviet Union, it would
      812
      ever come back, because there would be immediate retaliation, and, I believe, with nuclear weapons.
      All this expensive paraphernalia and catalogue of bombers which are coming into existence, costing enormous sums of money, is completely outside the realms of reality of modern technological developments in war. The reality is that if we are to get war with the Soviet Union, it would be decided by intercontinental ballistic weapons and nuclear weapons, and about three or four of them would wipe out this country in a few hours.
      Those are the realities that Mr. McNamara and his fellow thinkers in the Pentagon are enunciating. Mr. McNamara has been telling us that America has four and a half times more nuclear power than the Soviet Union. As the years go on, as we go into the 1970s, it is not likely to be a development of the Royal Air Force. It is likely to be the development of nuclear weapons and the megaton bomb.
      Last summer, I had the opportunity of visiting Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Two flashes wiped out two great cities. If we get the megaton bomb again, however, it will wipe out countries and continents. Therefore, if we do not think in those terms, we are not facing the realities of modern scientific and technological development. We are thoughtlessly, wastefully and uselessly spending money which would be better spent in raising the standard of the technical education of our people. If one is to get the technical staff behind these powerful weapons, one will have to improve technical education. The secondary school in the town in which I live is short of five science teachers at present, but at the same time the R.A.F. is going to the school to recruit the younger and more intelligent people to what I call a blind alley occupation.
      It has been said several times that the pressure of the Left wing has several times made the Government decide on certain economies, but I do not flatter myself about that. I do not think that anybody ever listens to me in the homilies I address to the House, but there is a march of events, of economic and scientific development in the world.
      We are wasting our money, and the Government is not realising that, nor

      813
      the pressure of events. If this country is not to be bankrupt, if it is ever to emerge from the financial and economic crisis, it will have to revise its ideas, and will have to stop spending these enormous sums, and reduce the number of men in this force.
      Lonely voice that I am, I will continue with this warning. I believe that as the years go by, they will not see another 50 years of the R.A.F., but either world peace or this country and the world annihilated. It is my duty in the House to impress this on the House and I hope to do so at every opportunity and on every possible Vote.
      11.12 p.m.
      Lord Hamilton: I shall concentrate on the annihilation of the R.A.F. station at Ballykelly and I endorse and support all that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) so strongly and cogently emphasised about the proposed closure of R.A.F. Station, Ballykelly. I am convinced that this is a disastrous decision which will deal a sad and savage blow not only to the employment situation, but also to the prosperity and welfare of the entire area. The area is still recovering from the shock announcement by the Government that they were closing H.M.S. "Sea Eagle" nearby, and also from the callous closure of the B.S.R. factory.
      Representing a constituency in the west of Ulster, in many respects similar to that of my hon. Friend, I fully appreciate and comprehend how difficult, if not impossible, it will be to find alternative employment for those doomed to become redundant at Ballykelly. The young will, in all probability, be forced to migrate to find alternative employment, while the middle age-unskilled will be forced to swell the dole queue yet further.
      Unemployment is the common enemy in West Ulster, to such an extent that even a dozen redundancies will capture the headlines, so I trust that the Government comprehends and appreciates the utter devastation which its decision will cause, net only to the 470 civilians employed at the station, but also in the loss of at least £1¼ million of spending power provided by the R.A.F. personnel
      814
      and their families, who number well over 3,000 people in total.
      Again, a guess estimate is that nearby Limavady will lose about a third of its present trade. Furthermore, there will be a considerable loss in tourist revenue, for, naturally, friends and relations of R.A.F. personnel visit them during their tours of duty. All these factors will lead to further unemployment, which at present is at an intolerable level but could well become catastrophic and chronic. Tradesmen who, though faith in consistent Government pledges, have invested their savings will be clinically betrayed.
      Ballykelly is situated in an agricultural area, and since there is a continual decline in employment in the industry, thus the situation will be aggravated further. The Government must realise that, in Ulster, as new jobs are created, others cease to exist. To coin a well-known phrase, we are having to run mighty fast even to keep standing still.
      11.17 p.m.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having made four speeches in four days, perhaps, in a few sentences, I might express my concern about individual Servicemen and thank the Under-Secretary of State and his staff for the care that they take about individual cases. Here, I have no complaint, and those who are critical in other directions perhaps should say that they are entirely satisfied about the way in which individual cases are dealt with.
      I want, too, to thank my hon. Friend's Department for the visits to R.A.F. stations which it arranges. I have in mind particularly a recent one that I was able to make to the R.A.F. Supply Centre at Hendon to see its computer centre.
      Finally, however critical we may be across the board, we are all concerned about the career structure of the personnel concerned. We are anxious that, in future, the career structure of such Forces as we need should be matched not only with the civil airlines but with industry. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is thinking along these lines. We have to have a different kind of age/career structure, and I hope that the Department will give some thought to it.
      11.18 p.m.
      Mr. G. B. H. Currie: I must declare an interest at the beginning of my speech, having served with the R.A.F. at most of the places which have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) referred to Bentley Priory, Stanmore. I had the very good fortune to serve there with someone whom we referred to affectionately as "Stuffy" Dowding during the latter stages of the Battle of Britain.
      It is a tragedy that Fighter Command is to be abolished. It was the one command, above all, which saved the country in the dark days of the early stages of the war. It is an even greater tragedy that it is to be abolished in the year which is the 50th anniversary of the Royal Air Force. On 1st April of this year, it is to be celebrated all over Britain, and I am glad to say that I shall be attending one of the celebration ceremonies. I agree completely with what has been said about the abolition of Fighter Command and Bentley Priory.
      My real purpose in rising is to support my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). During the latter years of the war I had the good fortune to serve at the Royal Air Force Station at Ballykelly. I ask the Minister, before he comes to a final determination about Ballykelly, to refer to the records of submarine sinkings which were carried out by planes from that station, and to refer also to the protection which was given from Ballykelly and Castle Archdale, which has ceased to function, to our convoys crossing the Atlantic with the sinews of war which were so necessary in those days.
      I speak very sincerely on this matter. We know the records of sinkings in those days. We know how vital Ballykelly was to the western approaches. We know the intimate details of the control of the Atlantic which was carried out from there in conjunction with Liverpool, the latter being controlling the whole of the Atlantic approaches to Glasgow, Belfast, Liverpool, and the other great sea ports upon which we relied in those days. This reason alone, I believe, is sufficient to justify the retention of Ballykelly as an essential station from the point of view of protecting convoys in the event of any future war.
      816
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has left the Chamber. He told us what he visualised a future war would entail. In the early days of the last war we heard about the possibility of the use of gas. In not so recent days we have heard about the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a future war. I think that when we consider the lessons which have been learned in Korea, and other latter-day outbreaks of war, we discover that those who make war are rather frightened of introducing the use of nuclear weapons. As I visualise it, certainly the early stages of any future war will be a war in the traditional sense. I do not believe that nuclear weapons will be used in the early stages of a future war. If this premise be right, it is obvious that it will be essential to have the use of bases for aircraft to cover the Atlantic approaches. It will be essential to have the use of land-based aircraft, seaplanes being outdated, and of bases from which they can operate to the greatest advantage.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry about the hardship which will be caused to the local populace if Ballykelly is closed. The loss of trade will amount to about £1¼ million, and will be felt right across the community. Not only the civilians employed at the station will suffer. Bookshops, shoeshops, vegetable shops, and all the other shops in the area will suffer. The loss of purchasing power will be spread among the local populace, the shopkeepers, those who let lodgings, and all the ancillary services.
      I ask the Minister to re-examine these losses in the light of what his conscience tells him the hardship is going to be, and to re-examine the decision as to the closing of Ballykelly in view of the advantage which such a station gives in the defence of our Atlantic approaches. I ask him, having thought about these things, to come to the conclusion that this is not the time to take such a drastic decision as the one which he appears to be about to take.
      I do not want to detain the House longer, but having myself served, and having appreciated my period of service with the Royal Air Force during the war, I thought I should add my voice to the debate tonight.
      11.26 p.m.
      Mr. Paul HawkinsI am very glad to have a few minutes in which to discuss the question of the R.A.F. tonight.
      My constituency has three—or possibly I should say two and a half—R.A.F. stations in it. The largest is Marham, which has almost equalled the size of the smallest town in my constituency, and then there is Swanton Morley, and Feltwell, which is nearly run down. In Feltwell there is considerable hardship for a very large number of people now unemployed who were employed at the base.
      Nevertheless, we know these things have to happen, and I would not be one to want to keep stations going merely for the sake of keeping them going. We have to find further employment for those employed on these stations when they are shut down. But I should like to say how keenly I find the R.A.F. try to cooperate with civilians in the area; the way in which they do this is extraordinarily good.
      I should also like to praise the Ministers with whom I come into touch, Lord Shackleton, who is now in another place, and the present Minister who has always been most helpful over questions which I have raised with the Ministry. But there is a large amount of natural disquiet amongst the personnel of the R.A.F. over recent happenings. The chopping and changing, which I am sure the Minister himself deplores, has led to the men asking themselves whether they should carry on with the career of which they are intensely proud.
      Although I did not serve in the R.A.F. myself, I started my war career as a Territorial trying to defend Marham Aerodrome with a Lewis gun, which even in those days seemed rather inadequate, and I have a great respect for the R.A.F. and for their comradeship with everybody in the district and the keenness of their service.
      There is one other point I should like to mention. In my district a very large number of civilians go to an Air Force hospital nearby—though not in my constituency—at Ely. That hospital has tremendous credit in the area for being one of the best run hospitals in the district, and we have heard disquieting
      818
      rumours that it may be closing its doors to civilian cases. I hope the Minister, either in winding up the debate or later on, may be able to assure me that this is not the case.
      In conclusion, I believe there is a great future for the R.A.F., even if it is to be smaller than we have known it in the past. But in this great service there is at present a feeling of disquiet and this disquiet ought to be allayed as soon as possible, otherwise very valuable trained men will be lost to the Service. I sincerely hope the Minister will be able to apply himself to this over the next few months.
      11.30 p.m.
      Sir William Teeling: I want to know more about the intentions over Northern Ireland and not just the Ballykelly area. When I was at Bentley Priory, I remember that this was a lively area, with tremendous defence developments beneath. What will happen to it now? Can these be made tourist attractions, since they are of intense interest?
      I went from there to Northern Ireland, to Aldergrove, a fighter station, and we were told that it was impossible to go anywhere else because the land was unsuitable. But I went around Castle Archdale, Eglington, and Limavady, telling the wretched owners to get out as we were taking over their places. Some misery was caused in one place where all the houses were pulled down, but this was a wartime necessity.
      Much more money was spent and now there are 540 houses around Ballykelly. Many troops will be coming back from abroad; could they not be quartered here? Must this property remain with the Defence Ministry? Could not more ordinary people be attracted over there, thus avoiding a loss to the rates? These families would not have to live in the same area but could live in different parts of Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the Secretary of State and the R.A.F. are doing all they can to use these expensive houses fully for future possibilities, which need not be military.
      11.32 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: If I may speak again, by leave of the House. As I said last year, I will try to cover all the points, though some, particularly at this

      819
      hour, may be better dealt with in correspondence. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) pressed his point about Ballykelly, and has brought a delegation to see us. A number of assurances were given, not lightly but in the light of the prevailing operational situation.
      The change came with the White Paper of July last year and the proposed withdrawal from the Far East, which led to the present studies on which we shall base the White Paper in July this year. Arising out of last year's were several studies, one of which concerned the Shackleton aircraft, which was getting out of date, and the fact that the Nimrod, which is much more efficient, was coming in. The number of Nimrods which we have will do the job of a greater number of Shackletons.
      Ministers have to weigh different considerations. I have been pressed recently, since the accident to the Shackletons, by many people concerned about the age of these aircraft. This must be taken into account, but the accident reports have not yet reached me.
      I am merely pointing out that many people consider that the Shackleton is an old aircraft and will have to be withdrawn. It was in the light of those studies that we considered where the new aircraft should be deployed. It was decided—I fully support this decision, but hon. Members will appreciate that this was an operational decision—that instead of the three Coastal Command stations at Kin-loss, St. Mawgan and Ballykelly, there was a requirement for only two. That being so, the Government had to be advised on where the two stations should be. The decision was that they should be at Kinloss and St. Mawgan, and it is important to note that at St. Mawgan there is the Maritime Operations Training Unit.
      To show the sort of considerations that arose, it was at that time that I was being severely pressed by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who is not now in his place, to do something about the problem of aircraft noise in Newquay. The question which sprang to mind was, "We are getting lots of complaints about low flying aircraft at St. Mawgan. If we can shut down that station, I can write to the hon. Member
      820
      and say, 'Your troubles are over.' " However, I was advised that, for operational reasons, a station in the north of Scotland and one in the south-west, bearing in mind the anti-submarine rôle, should be kept open.
      There is no question of our going back on that decision. I am not prepared, nor are my right hon. Friends, on operational grounds, to decide the siting of an operational station on the sort of social grounds that have been put forward tonight. There are R.A.F. stations where such a step might have been taken, but here it is absolutely impossible to do so. I am not unaware of the problems of Northern Ireland and, with my roots, I am well aware of the problems caused by unemployment. Although in Leeds, which I represent, there are no problems of the kind we are discussing, I am aware of what happens in the nearby coalmining areas when pits are closed. I therefore do not lack appreciation in this matter.
      I asked the R.A.F. whether anything could be done at Ballykelly, bearing in mind the various forms of training, but the answer was plainly "No". It was at that point that the Minister who has responsibility across the board for the Services came into the picture. He looked at the matter from the point of view mainly of the Army rather than of the Navy, but I assure the House that it was looked at, and is being looked at, across the board. It does not look particularly hopeful—this is the fairest way of putting it—but we are considering whether there is an alternative use of Ballykelly by the other Services. I realise the difficulties, but I assure hon. Members who have pressed the case, that this problem was not taken lightly and that the decision was taken on operational grounds.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: my constituents complain because assurances were given long after June, 1966. They went on and on, and I wrote to the hon. Gentleman telling him that I was worried because he had said that after Ballykelly had been used for Shackletons, it could go on being used and be suitable for Maritime Comets. I pointed out that I was concerned about the number of Comets we would have and if that number would justify three stations being used.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: The decision stems from July, 1967. I assure the hon. Gentleman that while he refers to December and

      821
      January, the decision was actually taken on 22nd December, only a few months ago. I could have written to the hon. Gentleman and let the industrial staff on the station know three days before Christmas. I felt that it would be kinder to leave it a week or two before making the announcement generally, and while this might seem a little naive, I felt that to do otherwise would not be the kindest of Christmas presents.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) asked about pensions policy. He raised a question about the Chief of the General Staff who was promoted the day before he retired. This matter was taken up by a number of newspapers. The Army is not my responsibility, but I have checked this point and find that the position is the same for all the Services. I thought I should clear it up because it is capable of misrepresentation. The situation at the moment is, as it has been since 1964—certainly before my time in office—that there is a Chief of Defence Staff and individual Chiefs of the three Services, the C.A S., C.N.S. and C.G.S. In the old days these three heads of the Services were five-star officers. Then the question came of having a Chief of the Defence Staff.
      The decision taken had no political intent; it was before the time of this Government. I say this to get the date right. It was decided that there should be four-star officers for the three Services and only the C.D.S. should be a five-star officer to give him seniority. This meant that they lost rank. The decision taken was that they should be given their promotion a day or two before retirement. This, I gather, was done, not to save money, but simply so that there was a senior officer who was their boss, as it were. This was certainly not an attempt to give extra money to someone merely because he retired. We find odd things of this kind. In the Ministry of Defence there is a Permanent Under-Secretary for each of the Services, and a P.U.S. over them. Someone decided that the P.U.S. of each individual Service should have his salary cut by £10 so that it should be known that the P.U.S. of the whole Department was the boss.
      My hon. Friend also mentioned the value of civil aid. I do not think that it would be possible to put this in monetary
      822
      form. We do not charge for the service given. It would be possible to work out the cost of aviation fuel used, but that would have no bearing on the real cost. We think it better to forget it and to do the job rather than trying to work out the cost.
      I know of my hon. Friend's interest in Fighter Command. He lives near the station and many hon. Members have revealed that they served in the Command. It was my first posting. I shall be going to the various ceremonies marking the end of Fighter Command. It is not a tragedy that Fighter Command is finishing; it is a reorganisation. One of the great things about the R.A.F. is that it does not hang on to titles which no longer have meaning. Although I am sorry in the sense that my hon. Friend and others are sorry, this simply meets the facts of life. A fact of life is that there will be a Strike Command at High Wycombe, with No. 1 Group at Bawtry and No. 11 Group in place of Fighter Command, and the Maritime Group. Coastal Command is going. This makes sense because "Maritime" explains the job better than "Coastal". The last thing they ever were was coastal. I have always felt, as many who served in Coastal Command have felt, a high regard for the Command, but the name did not describe its function.
      No decision has been taken about the future of Bentley Priory. Fighter Command will become 11 Group R.A.F. and will perform the fighter defence aspect of the work. A decision will be taken in the early 1970s. The position is that such places are first offered to the other Services. It must be offered to the R.A.F., obviously, and then to the other Services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has across-the-board responsibilities. After that, it would be offered to other Departments and then to local authorities. There is a procedure. I will keep my hon. Friend informed.
      The married quarters are are not occupied now solely by people at Fighter Command. The occupants come from R.A.F. Headquarters in London, and this position will continue. I have written to my hon. Friend on the question of school places. We are in close touch with local authorities throughout the country. There are sometimes difficulties

      823
      in this respect, but perhaps we can leave this issue. I have not had time tonight to check the facts. I will consider the unemployment question, but there is no immediate problem. It is three or four years off. It is best not to worry anybody by causing them to think that they might be immediately affected.
      I take my hon. Friend's point about the desirability of commemorating Fighter Command's association with my hon. Friend's constituency. I feel confident that the R.A.F. will not forget this. A number of ceremonies are due to take place in a few weeks' time. I believe that my hon. Friend, as the constituency Member, is attending one of them.
      In reply to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), I agree that one problem about studies is that people are left in the air. However, I am always conscious of the fact that there are similar problems facing people in industry. It is no satisfaction to R.A.F. personnel, but I know that people become very worried in the coal industry when they hear rumours about a pit closing. These things happen, not only in the Services, but right across the board.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman, who is not with us now, that I set up an investigating committee into the Air Training Corps, not with the intention of abolishing the Corps, but because there had not been an investigation for eleven years and I thought that it would be a jolly good idea to have a look at it. On the question of redundancy, every airman knows what sort of redundancy pay he would get. The question outstanding is the various trades in which there will be redundancies. The announcement was made for last year. We will make our announcement for this year as soon as possible. Although this is only marginal, one or two people protest that they have not been made redundant. There are some financial advantages to being made redundant. I believe that the happens in civil life as well. However, I do not pretend that this is a significant factor.
      We are aware of the importance of public relations and are doing all we can to get it round the Service.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) always
      824
      puts the different viewpoint. At one point he talked about being the only one putting that view. He would be the last person in the House to want to be patronised by a relatively new Member. I hold a contrary view to his, but his view was one that I came across very early in my life. I come from the next village in South Wales to that of my hon. Friend. I assure my hon. Friend that I do not answer the points he made in any cavalier spirit.
      My hon. Friend said that I had predicted that 1969 would be a vintage year for the R.A.F. My prediction was made on the basis, which my hon. Friend does not accept, that the R.A.F. is flying large numbers of out-of-date aeroplanes. My view is that I certainly will not be responsible for men in the Service flying dangerous and out-of-date aircraft. I know that it does not meet my hon. Friend's point, but that is what I meant by "a vintage year".
      The great cuts will be in 1970–71. This is not the occasion to go into the argument about the increase in social expenditure. My service in the R.A.F. was very brief and was in wartime. I do not think I have ever known anybody in the Service, particularly amongst those who know something about nuclear weapons, who was not aware that there are very great dangers for civilisation. I have never found anybody really involved in the Services who glories in war. I do not think that my hon. Friend suggested that. If people are tied up in the Services, particularly on the nuclear side, they are not unaware of the holocaust that could be let loose. I believe that we are all working in our different ways to avoid that.
      I am grateful for the praise of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for the people who deal with individual cases. It is true in the R.A.F., as it is in the other Services, that a great deal of attention is given to welfare, and I often feel that it is a great deal more than in industry of all kinds. Those who arrange the visits will also be grateful for his praise.
      The career structure is very important. One thing that happened as a result of changes in the 1950s—I make no political point on this—is that we found ourselves in the R.A.F. with surplus N.C.Os., and a man becoming corporal with no chance

      825
      of promotion. It is most important to get this right, and most important in the context of a European-based Royal Air Force.
      I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who mentioned the problem of morale. We are aware of this. I tried to make the point earlier that the loss of the F111 was important to the morale of the Service, but it is most important to get it over that it is not the only aeroplane in the R.A.F. There are changes taking place, and it is our job in the Services and on the Service Board to see that morale is considered.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What was the point of the Minister's reference to a European context when he was speaking about the career structure? Why specially in a European context?
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is a marginal point. 11 just feel that the R.A.F. will be smaller because it has a European rôle. That is all I had in mind; I did not mean that there were any factors that would affect the career structure other than size.
      There was also mention of the hospital near Huntingdon which I visited the other day. I noticed that there were a fair number of civilians there. It is a fine hospital and the civilians appreciate being there. I know of nothing that would lead me to believe that it is shutting down. We are always very pleased to have civilians in if possible. Incidentally, I noticed that the maternity ward seemed to have a fair number of ladies from Swanton Morley R.A.F. station, but I draw no conclusions from that either.
      I have tried to deal as well as I can with the points raised. I shall write to hon. Members about any that I have not answered.
      I finish where I began. The R.A.F. is having its 50th anniversary. This is a year when there are problems for it. It is a modern Service, which does not look too far to the past. I am very sure that it will overcome its problems.
      Question put and negatived.
      Original Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 125,000, all ranks, be
      826
      maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.

      WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That for the remainder of the present Session the following paragraphs shall have effect:—
      (1) There shall be a Standing Committee to be known as the Welsh Grand Committee to consider such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire as may be referred to them and to consist of all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire, together with not more than Five other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by them and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.
      (2) A Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.
      (3) If such a Motion be agreed to, the Welsh Grand Committee shall consider the matter or matters to them referred on not more than Four days in the Session, and shall report only that they have considered the said matter or matters.—[Mrs. Eirene White.]
      It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  POLICE (SEARCH WARRANT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
  11.55 p.m.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: In my rôle as champion of the oppressed of all classes, from immigrants to the aristocracy, I raise this important issue of civil liberty and the circumstances in which Lady Diana Cooper's house, No. 10, Warwick Avenue, was serched for drugs on Monday, 19th February. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State has had the courtesy to come to listen to the arguments and I take it that he will reply.
  I will briefly recite the facts of what occurred that day. At midnight, Lady Diana's maid, Mrs. Vials, was asleep in

  827
  her bedroom alone in the house when she was aroused by banging on the door and the ringing of the doorbell. The house was in darkness, save for one light left on to discourage burglars—a reasonable precaution when one recalls that 18 months ago, Lady Diana and a friend, en route to the opera, were bound and gagged by a gang who broke into the house.
  Mrs. Vials went downstairs and prudently, in view of the experience of her mistress, opened the door on the chain only. She saw four young men standing on the doorstep, two uniformed and two in plain clothes. She said, "I cannot let you in. My Lady is not here." They replied that she was obliged to let them in, saying, "We have a warrant. We are policemen." Mrs. Vials was sceptical and said that she did not know whether the warrant was genuine or whether they were real policemen, adding, "You can get that gear in Carnaby Street". I understand that there is a practice in some police stations to lend uniforms to members of the public for private purposes, and I strongly suggest that that practice should be discontinued.
  However, the police said, "If you do not open up, we will break the door down." Discretion overtook valour and Mrs. Vials let them in. The policemen then went straight to Lady Diana's bedroom and asked, "Could we see the hat box?" I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to throw some light on the question of the hat box. On the previous Saturday, Lady Diana had returned from Rome carrying a hat box, which she carried through the Customs. It was a hat box of distinctive character because it was covered in paper made out to look like leopard skin. A question which arises here in my mind is whether there was some suspicion perhaps at the Customs which was later translated into information to the police. The police then searched Lady Diana's bedroom thoroughly, but reasonably, and caused no damage, and there is no complaint on that score. Having expressed surprise at the length of the dressers in her bedroom, they then left. They were in the house 45 minutes.
  Lady Diana returned from Brighton the following day and was naturally indignant, in fact outraged, at this invasion of her house. Later she received
  828
  an apology from the police. This incident raises grave issues about the liberty of the subject. They are of concern not only to Lady Diana Cooper but to every citizen of the United Kingdom. A brilliant and attractive woman like Lady Diana Cooper—the greatest beauty of her generation, and the bearer of a name which will always be honoured as long as there is an English nation—will never lack for champions. Even in this dreary epoch, where the contemporary idol is the computer, chivalry is not quite dead.
  What of others, less generously endowed with the graces of hereditary gifts and social rank? Their remedies are not so obvious. As Lady Diana, with typical modesty and magnanimity, remarked:
  "If they have me stamped as a drug maniac it doesn't matter at my time of life. It would be so awful if it happened to people, unlike myself, who were not in a position to make a fuss."
  It does happen to other people. The National Council for Civil Liberties has been in communication with me and informs me that there are frequent complaints of unjustified drug raids. I have had a communication from the Freedom Press, complaining about a raid on its premises on 27th February, a few days ago.
  Because of the necessity to protect the liberty of the individual, both common law and statute law have hedged about with restrictions the right to search a house. The common law allows only one instance of a search. Statute law has added others, but has always been careful to add safeguards. This case concerns drugs. I appreciate fully that in this, as in any other branch of the law, the police have a difficult task to discharge. If they are to discharge their duties, they must act swiftly.
  But the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964, while recognising this, goes out of its way to provide safeguards for the liberty of the subject. It requires that before a search of private premises be carried out a search warrant should be issued. That warrant can only be issued by a magistrate, and the magistrate must be satisfied, upon written information, substantiated on oath, that there is reasonable ground to believe that drugs are present on the premises. Unless those conditions are fulfilled, he is not to issue a warrant.

  829
  Were these conditions fulfilled in this case? The police, as we know, acted on an anonymous telephone call. It seems clear that no attempt was made to check it. Surely this is an intolerable practice. Anyone's house, their most private papers, their personal possessions, their personal privacy, is thus made liable to disturbance at the behest of an anonymous and possibly malicious troublemaker. If this is allowed to go unchallenged, then an Englishman's home, far from being his castle, is reduced to the status of a wigwam.
  What we require from the Home Office, and the Minister, is an authoritative statement of the practice of the police, what it is meant to be and why it was not observed in this case. I must ask the Home Secretary now to issue instructions to the police that in future an application in such circumstances for a search warrant will not be made until further inquiries have been made, such as the observation of the house, observation of the occupants, etc. All these should be carried out before action is taken on an anonymous tip-off.
  There is a second disturbing part of the case. Parliament has interposed a magistrate between the police and the public as a protection. As The Times has pointed out, this necessary safeguard is nullified if magistrates do not inform themselves fully of the grounds on which the police are seeking to act or if, having informed themselves, they are not prepared to exercise their discretion about what constitutes reasonable suspicion.
  If a magistrate's intervention is to be other than a mere formality, surely the police are under a duty to inform the magistrate or magistrates of the grounds on which they apply for the search warrant. If they do not do this, how can any inquiry be made into the justification for the issue of such a warrant? How can there be any judicial exercise of discretion? Surely, Parliament has imagined that magistrates would make inquiry into the grounds on which a warrant was being sought before issuing it.
  In the present case, there has been a double failure. It was never revealed, as far as I understand, by the police that the tip-off was an anonymous tip-off and the magistrate never made inquiry into the circumstances in which he was
  830
  required to issue the warrant. The least we can do is to ask that the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor remedy this shocking state of affairs and end the practice by which police approach for search warrants only those magistrates known to be accommodating or lax in this regard.
  If liberty is to survive in Britain, if we are to avoid the horrors of a police State, liberty must be zealously defended. The distress and anxiety caused to Lady Diana Cooper are deeply to be regretted, but they will have served some purpose if they lead to a more scrupulous practice in the police and others with regard to search warrants.
  The Home Secretary rightly supports the police in their difficult task of maintaining law and order, but he would be failing in his duty and he would rapidly lose the confidence of the people if he did not also exert himself to protect what is equally important: the rights and the liberties of the subject. Of those rights and liberties, the inviolability of the home is not the least to be cherished.
  12.8 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): We are debating an individual case of great importance, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), in a very fair speech, has properly pointed out. It started with a hat box but it is a case which concerns the liberty of the subject.
  As the hon. Member has said, the case attracted special attention because the lady concerned has always been a lady highly esteemed and widely respected and was recently concerned in an incident in which she acted most courageously when attacked by burglars. The House would not, however, want to treat this incident in isolation or, indeed, on the basis of the status, standing or admirable qualities of the individual concerned.
  We are concerned with the general safeguards provided for all citizens whatever their status or social background. I propose, therefore, to deal briefly with the incident and then to discuss the general implications to which the hon. Member has referred and also to mention the action which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to take as a

  831
  result of what has emerged from this case.
  The facts are not in dispute. The hon. Member has referred to them, but perhaps I may set them out from the police side. At a quarter to eleven on Monday, 19th February, a call was received in the Information Room at New Scotland Yard from a person who refused to give particulars of himself. It was an anonymous informant. He said that Lady Diana Cooper, and he gave the address, had just returned from Paris and that a large amount of heroin was in a hat box under the bed at her address. It was not information coming from the Customs. It was not suspicion aroused by the way the hat or the hat box had been got up. The information was passed to the local division to be dealt with. At 11·15 p.m., the station sergeant applied to a magistrate who issued a search warrant.
  Viscount Lambton: Will the Under-Secretary say whether it is the custom of the police to act on any anonymous call if no details whatever are given of the person making the call?
  Mr. Taverne: As I have already explained, I intend first to deal with the incident and then with the general practice and implications.
  Viscount Lambton: This is a simple point which can be answered at once.
  Mr. Taverne: I will answer it in the proper place.
  At midnight, the sergeant, in uniform, went with three other officers to the address. They asked to speak to Lady Diana Cooper and were told by her housekeeper that she was not at home. It was explained that they had a search warrant and they were admitted to the house. They searched a wardrobe in a bedroom, made an examination of the room generally, and in particular paid attention to this hat box.
  In the morning of 20th February, the station sergeant reported the facts of the search to his superintendent. The following morning, the superintendent called by appointment on Lady Cooper. He explained the circumstances which had led to the search and asked for Lady Cooper's assistance in tracing the identity of the anonymous caller. On 23rd
  832
  February, the Deputy Commissioner called upon Lady Cooper personally and offered apologies for the incident.
  The first thing to say about this incident is that a serious mistake was made by the police in acting upon an anonymous telephone call in the way they did. When the facts came before senior officers, the mistake was immediately admitted and an apology offered without delay. At no time has it been claimed by the police that the action taken by the sergeant was justified. Later I will say what is normally done in this kind of case. The officer who took the decision on the spot in the middle of the night had a difficult decision to take, but I would emphasise that there is no question but that he committed a serious error of judgment, and the hon. Member was right to draw attention to an invasion of privacy which should never have occurred. I want now to analyse what went wrong.
  Viscount Lambton: Before he goes on, can the Under-Secretary make it quite clear that there has been no other investigation of private individuals as a result of anonymous information?
  Mr. Taverne: I wish he would be patient. I will analyse what went wrong and then say what is the general practice, and deal with the question of whether it is right for the police to deal with anonymous telephone calls. I have said it was wrong for them to act, in the way they did.
  It is right to remind the House of the importance of the drugs problem and of the importance of dealing with illegal trafficking, particularly when there is an allegation about heroin. The police know that drugs have been introduced into legitimate consignments of goods and luggage and recovered when the container has been landed. They also know that supplies move rapidly and that bulk is soon broken down and distributed. It is therefore desirable to act quickly when information is received, so it must first be said in defence of the police that they have always to balance the need for quick action against the need to check the reliability of information. This is often a difficult matter of judgment and, although general guidance can help, about which I will say more later, no hard-and-fast rules can be laid down, as each case presents individual problems and there is no

  833
  substitute for the wisdom and experience of the individual officer.
  When one comes to information from an anonymous source, one has a particular difficulty. Recently, there has been an increasing amount of information about drugs coming from members of the public. Much of it has turned out to be true; some has no foundation and seems to be motivated by spite, malice or mental unbalance on the part of the informer. Obviously the police cannot ignore anonymous information, and it would be much preferable if information always came from impeccable and respectable sources, but that is not always so.
  Anonymous information must clearly be treated with especial care, and the sort of steps that can be taken to check information will depend on the circumstances, but they can include observation of the premises to assess the likelihood of the allegation and the need for speedy action, searches in various indices at Scotland Yard—and it is fair to say of the police officer concerned that he made a search, but it is not altogether surprising that nothing was found in this case—and contact with local informants to see whether additional information is available or whether such information as has been received can be verified.
  In this case, there was no attempt to find corroborative evidence. The officer concerned, felt, wrongly, that the overriding need was to act quickly, and he should not have acted in the way that he did. He should have checked his information in the ways that I have indicated. If he had, the incident would never have occurred.
  Viscount Lambton: I must interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, because this is one of the silliest speeches that I have ever heard. If the officer concerned received the information at 11 o'clock at night, how could he check and watch the premises until 12 o'clock before making a demand for an inquiry?
  Mr. Taverne: The hon. Gentleman is not helping the debate. His hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made a fair speech and raised a number of valid points, but the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lamb-ton) raises matters which are not relevant. I have made it clear that the officer was wrong to act without corroboration. The hon. Gentleman
  834
  is pointing to the fact that the officer did not do what could have been done. He might well have waited and should have waited until morning to see whether he could check on the premises, if by then he had not discovered who Lady Diana Cooper was. The officer acted on his own. He made some effort to get guidance, but could not because his senior officers were engaged on a major inquiry. As a result, he went to a magistrate and applied for a search warrant.
  As the hon. Member for Chelmsford his pointed out, the ultimate authority for the issue of a warrant rests with the magistrate, but he has to rely on the information and, to an extent, on the judgment of the officer applying for the warrant. Certainly the Commissioner of Police regards it as a police responsibility not to apply for a warrant without first taking all reasonable steps to check the reliability of the information on which the application is based. The Commissioner regrets that insufficient steps were taken in this case to check the reliability of the information on the basis of which the warrant was applied for, and that the magistrate was asked to issue a warrant.
  In another place, a discussion took place on the action of the magistrate in granting the warrant. Inquiries have been made about the practice of magistrates, and it has been pointed out that, from the magistrate's point of view, what he does when he grants a warrant on a police statement is merely what he is expected to do in many other cases in which applications are made ex parte. He is relying on sworn evidence from a source which he has no reason to suspect. But the mistake in this case was that the application by the police officer gave no indication that the source which he said he believed to be reliable was an anonymous one.
  Viscount Lambton rose—
  Mr. Taverne: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—
  Mr. Taverne: Certainly I will give way to the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Surely there must be some duty on a magistrate to make

  835
  a judiciary inquiry and to assess the evidence in some way. If that is not the practice of magistrates, the inclusion by Parliament of the intervention of a magistrate is a pure formality and of no effect.
  Mr. Taverne: The magistrate has to satisfy himself that the person making the application is a person whose word can be believed. If he has no reason to believe the person making the application, he should not grant a warrant. In many cases, with the many inquiries which come, particularly to Bow Street—this is not a matter for the Home Office, but we have information about this from the magistrates—the magistrates look at what is stated on the form, they look at the person before them, and, as with other ex parte applications, if they have no reason to disbelieve what is stated there, and it gives grounds for action, they grant a warrant.
  In this case the police officer made a mistake. He considered that he had reason to believe that there was reliable information, when there was none. In this situation, quite clearly some action is called for. I have made inquiries into other cases in which it has been alleged the police have acted on anonymous tips. As far as I have been able to discover, on those occasions the police have made further inquiries, and have obtained corroborative evidence before they have applied for a warrant.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to draw the attention of chief officers of police to this incident, because, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford has rightly said, it illustrates the need for police officers to take all reasonable steps to check information before they take the serious further step of applying for a search warrant. It also points to
  836
  the need—and my right hon. Friend intends to draw this to their attention—to consult a senior officer in case of doubt or difficulty, because in this case the action was taken by a station sergeant. It is very important to reassure magistrates that what is said by police officers can be relied on.
  Viscount Lambton: How can one check anonymous information?
  Mr. Taverne: If the hon. Gentleman had not been so obstructive, unlike his hon. Friend, he would have heard me say that there are many ways in which one checks this information from other sources. Watch can be kept on premises to see whether a large number of people are going in and coming out who may be known to be drug takers. Some of them are known to the police. Again, searches are made at Scotland Yard to see whether the person against whom the allegation is made has a record of this kind of offence. The police also have to rely on their own information. There are some local informants on whom they can rely, and if the information is confirmed from a number of different sources, there is some sort of corroborative evidence. What they should not do is to act, as happened in this case, simply on an anonymous telephone call without seeking to check it from any other source.
  It is therefore important that this incident should be drawn to the attention of chief officers, and that the practice in all cases should be to check anonymous information. If this is done, the magistrates can be reassured in relying on the word of police officers, as they should normally be entitled to do.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Charges
  Charges
  Kiosks (Cost)
  Kiosks (Cost)
  Trimphones
  Trimphones
  Shared Lines (Folkestone and Hythe)
  Shared Lines (Folkestone and Hythe)
POST OFFICE
  Postage (Surcharge)
  Postage (Surcharge)
  Saving Stamps
  Saving Stamps
  Mail (Northern Ireland)
  Mail (Northern Ireland)
WALES
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Educationally Subnormal Children
  Educationally Subnormal Children
  Sport and Physical Recreation (Capital Investment)
  Sport and Physical Recreation (Capital Investment)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Special Educational Treatment (Cardiff)
  Special Educational Treatment (Cardiff)
  Remedial Departments (Secondary Schools)
  Remedial Departments (Secondary Schools)
  Radio Telescope (Site)
  Radio Telescope (Site)
  Nottingham Playhouse (Grant)
  Nottingham Playhouse (Grant)
  Veterinary College (Wales)
  Veterinary College (Wales)
  Veterinary Science (Welsh Students)
  Veterinary Science (Welsh Students)
  Scottish Certificate of Education
  Scottish Certificate of Education
  University Entrance
  University Entrance
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  School Discipline
  School Discipline
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Clandestine Entry
  Clandestine Entry
  Coloured Immigrants
  Coloured Immigrants
  Road Fund Licence Offences
  Road Fund Licence Offences
  Premises (Police Search)
  Premises (Police Search)
  Certificates of Naturalisation
  Certificates of Naturalisation
  Reading Borstal Centre (Inquiry)
  Reading Borstal Centre (Inquiry)
  Fireworks (Injured Persons)
  Fireworks (Injured Persons)
  Prisons (Police Dogs)
  Prisons (Police Dogs)
  Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968
  Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  The Gambia (Aid)
  The Gambia (Aid)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Banks (Nationalisation)
  Banks (Nationalisation)
  Administrative Machinery (Development)
  Administrative Machinery (Development)
  Women Employees (Government Departments)
  Women Employees (Government Departments)
  Sanitary Towels
  Sanitary Towels
  Gold Coins (Applications for Collector Status)
  Gold Coins (Applications for Collector Status)
  Inland Revenue Affidavits (Disclosure of Information)
  Inland Revenue Affidavits (Disclosure of Information)
  Government Printing and Binding Work (Wales)
  Government Printing and Binding Work (Wales)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Employment, Northern Region
  Employment, Northern Region
  Cost of Living and Earnings (Statistics)
  Cost of Living and Earnings (Statistics)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Regional Expenditure
  Regional Expenditure
  Rhondda Borough Council (Grants)
  Rhondda Borough Council (Grants)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Live Births (Illegitimacy)
  Live Births (Illegitimacy)
  Population (Estimates)
  Population (Estimates)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Gastro-Enteritis Outbreak (Tees-side)
  Gastro-Enteritis Outbreak (Tees-side)
  SIMONSTOWN AGREEMENT
  SIMONSTOWN AGREEMENT
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Polaris Missile (Test)
  Polaris Missile (Test)
  Scientific Research
  Scientific Research
  Army Housing
  Army Housing
  Decision-Making (Decentralisation)
  Decision-Making (Decentralisation)
  Policy (Central Control)
  Policy (Central Control)
  Polaris Submarine "Resolution" (Running Cost)
  Polaris Submarine "Resolution" (Running Cost)
  PERSIAN GULF
  PERSIAN GULF
  RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT
  RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES (TRANSPORTATION)
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES (TRANSPORTATION)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  JEWISH COMMUNITY (SOVIET UNION)
  JEWISH COMMUNITY (SOVIET UNION)
  PRICES AND INCOMES (TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIONS)
  PRICES AND INCOMES (TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIONS)
  ALUMINIUM SMELTERS
  ALUMINIUM SMELTERS
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  BRIGHTON COASTLINE (PROTEST)
  BRIGHTON COASTLINE (PROTEST)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Grants and Subsidies
  Grants and Subsidies
  Cow Kennels (Farm Improvement Scheme Grant)
  Cow Kennels (Farm Improvement Scheme Grant)
  Statutory Smallholdings (Wise Committee Report)
  Statutory Smallholdings (Wise Committee Report)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Slate Quarry Workers (Industrial Diseases)
  Slate Quarry Workers (Industrial Diseases)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Local Office Network (Review)
  Local Office Network (Review)
SCOTLAND
  Nuclear Power Station, Hunterston (Breakdowns)
  Nuclear Power Station, Hunterston (Breakdowns)
  Cow Kennels (Farm Improvement Scheme Grant)
  Cow Kennels (Farm Improvement Scheme Grant)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Wales (Government Assistance)
  Wales (Government Assistance)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia (Death Sentences)
  Rhodesia (Death Sentences)
TECHNOLOGY
  Aviation Contracts
  Aviation Contracts
  Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Advanced Combat Aircraft (Project Study)
  Advanced Combat Aircraft (Project Study)
  International Projects (British Participation)
  International Projects (British Participation)
  Research and Development (Development Areas)
  Research and Development (Development Areas)
  Atomic Energy Authority Establishments (Accidents and Breakdowns)
  Atomic Energy Authority Establishments (Accidents and Breakdowns)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rugby)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rugby)
BOARD OF TRADE
  British Airlines (Accidents)
  British Airlines (Accidents)
ROADS
  Schemes, Cornwall
  Schemes, Cornwall
TRANSPORT
  Roads (Prohibited Vehicles)
  Roads (Prohibited Vehicles)
  Fares, London (National Board for Prices and Incomes Report)
  Fares, London (National Board for Prices and Incomes Report)

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

CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND S.E.T.
3.6 p.m.
LORD MAIS: 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 give serious consideration to relieving British consulting engineers from paying selective employment tax in respect of the members of their staffs employed in Great Britain on the design of overseas work.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Association of Consulting Engineers have made representations on this matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has replied that he will take these representations into account in framing his Budget proposals. As noble Lords will be aware, provision was made in the Finance Act 1967 for relief of the selective employment tax in respect of employees working overseas, subject to a qualifying period of 13 weeks.
LORD MAIS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I hope that when the matter is considered he will bear in mind—and I hope he is aware of the fact—that British consulting engineers in fact—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question, question!
LORD MAIS: I did ask, my Lords, whether the noble Lord was aware that British consulting engineers are in fact at this moment engaged on £1,600 million worth of work overseas; and I would also hope that the noble Lord is aware that they are already competing in very difficult conditions against foreign consultants.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, my right honourable friend is aware of the very valuable contribution which these consultants are making. There are certain difficulties, however, in differentiating between them and others who also make a valuable contribution to our export earnings. Nevertheless, as I have said, the Chancellor is taking all these considerations into account.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there are many staff, particularly in the City of London, who are employed solely on administering overseas enterprises of Britain and thus producing foreign exchange?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. That is one of the difficulties in this matter.

RAILWAYS: USE OF PRIVATE SIDINGS
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 how many private sidings connected to the Railway Board's lines have been closed since 1962 and whether, in view of the increasing congestion on streets, they will encourage the Board to keep private sidings traffic on rail throughout the journey.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, the British Railways Board inform me that figures of private railway sidings closed between 1962 and 1967 are not available. I understand, however, that there were 5,894 private sidings in use in 1960 and that at the end of 1967 some 3,690 remained. Her Majesty's Government wish to make the maximum use of our railways as well as our roads by promoting the transfer of all suitable traffic from congested roads on to the railways. At the same time, the Railways Board are keen to encourage the use of private sidings to the greatest possible extent. On a tonnage basis, such sidings produce about 90 per cent. of the freight traffic carried by the railways. But there are inevitably some

1417
of them which become uneconomic from the railways' point of view as local circumstances change, and the Railways Board must have freedom to withdraw these facilities where the traffic is insufficient to justify their retention.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his long and informative Answer, may I ask him whether he would not agree that it is perhaps a little disappointing to say, on the one hand, that the Government are encouraging private sidings and, on the other, that British Railways have closed down over 3,000 in the last six years? Is the noble Lord aware that in France alone since the war over 3,000 sidings have been opened, and that in consequence three-quarters of their rail freight traffic never reaches the streets?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am confident that the British Railways Board take all these facts into acount when formulating policy, but where a private siding is causing the railways significant loss we must permit the Board to use commercial criteria in deciding whether to keep it open or not.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply, will he encourage the Railways Board to replace some of the railway lines which they have pulled up, so that the goods now carried by road may revert to the railways?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: That, I am afraid, my Lords, is another question.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the financial criteria which the Railways Board sometimes use in these cases are often disputed?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid that many decisions are disputed.

VANDALISM AT STONEHENGE
3.12 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 measures they are taking to protect Stonehenge against vandalism.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend has asked the principals of some fifty educational establishments to try to stop this senseless vandalism which could do irremediable damage to one of our finest monuments. He is also grateful for the collaboration of the police, who are regularly patrolling the area. In addition, he is considering further security measures.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, I should like to ask the Government what action is being taken to trace those who were responsible for desecrating this unique monument by painting slogans on it last month.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, certain inquiries have been followed up, and certain papers are in front of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am certain the House will not wish me to comment further on this matter at the moment.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that this is a really unique monument and that, valuable as educational work in the schools may be, that really is not adequate for dealing with a menace of this kind? The harm that is done by vandalism is really irreparable. I hope that the noble Lord's Department will be prepared to look at the possibility of taking more stringent steps in order to avoid a repetition of this vandalism.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that the House is in full sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has said. This is possibly our greatest historical monument, and in my Department we are conscious of the need to preserve and protect it. In my reply I said that my right honourable friend was considering further security measures. I think the House would agree that were I to reveal these measures now they might not prove successful.

PRICES OF PROPRIETARY DRUGS AND MEDICINES
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in the name of my right reverend Brother the Bishop of Norwich.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any action has been taken, or is contemplated, to limit the rapid rise in prices charged for many proprietary drugs and medicines.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, the prices of ethical proprietary drugs and medicines are subject to the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme agreed between the Health Departments and the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry. The Board of Trade has discussed prices of other proprietary medicines, namely, those sold to the public for self-medication, with the Proprietary Association of Great Britain and with individual manufacturers. The industry has been urged to restrain price increases in accordance with the criteria set out in Government statements on prices and incomes policy. Her Majesty's Government keep a close watch on price movements of proprietary drugs and medicines.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while declaring an interest as a director of a research-based pharmaceutical company, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the fact that the price to the National Health Service of the leading branded prescriptions has been falling for years at the rate, approximately, of 4 per cent. per annum?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures of the rate at which they have fallen. I think the noble Lord is referring to ethical drugs; and there have been reductions in the price of those. I have taken the question of the right reverend Prelate to refer to the other type of drugs.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, as revealed by the Sainsbury Committees, three large drug firms have admitted to profits of over
1420
50 per cent. and does he not agree that that is an instance of gross profiteering at the expense of the unfortunate taxpayer?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I think that the question of individual profits of the drug firms is rather a different issue. I should be glad if the noble Lord were to put down a Question on that subject.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that proprietary drugs cannot be put down on National Health prescriptions and that therefore very many aged, chronic cases will suffer from the increase of prices?
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord is putting me in some difficulty. The Board of Trade is responsible for dealing with price-rises of proprietary drugs and another Ministry is responsible for dealing with ethical drugs. I am not sure whether the noble Lord's comments are true or not, but I will get an answer to him in writing.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the sale of proprietary drugs of this type very often depends on excessive advertising? Can he say whether any limitation could be placed on it?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, no doubt the advertising is substantial. I am not in a position to comment as to whether it is excessive or not.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, will the noble Lord make it clear that, so far as ethical drugs are concerned—that is, drugs obtainable on prescription—manufacturers are not allowed to advertise except to the medical profession?
LORD BROWN: That is so, my Lords.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that up to 10 per cent. could be saved on the drug bill by some restriction of the sales promotion methods of many of the drug firms, and especially by restricting the number of interview representatives, whose activities are resented by a very large number of doctors?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this series of questions is getting outside the terms of the original Question. I think we might let the matter rest here.

PEER'S NEWSPAPER ARTICLE AND PRIVILEGE
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I rise to put before your Lordships a matter—I do so with no pleasure; and I have naturally informed the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that I am going to raise this question—based on an article of which the noble Earl is the author which appeared in last night's issue of the Evening News. I can merely put this before your Lordships' House because, as your Lordships well know, we have no set of procedures, as in another place, for matters of privilege; and only this House can decide whether or not they wish to leave the matter alone or whether they wish to remit it to the Committee for Privileges.
The article in question, I submit, offends in two directions. If I may, I will read an extract. The noble Earl's article, after some gay remarks on how various noble Lords voted, contained the following sentence:
"For the hundred Peers who voted for the Government I have nothing but contempt."
That sentence, if it means anything, means that the noble Earl holds 109 of your Lordships in contempt. This is not restricted, nor is it qualified to their action in voting; it describes the noble Earl's judgment of the character and integrity of 109 Members of your Lordships' House.
Let me hasten to say that I escape from the ink blots of the noble Earl's pen in that, having listened to the whole of the Second Reading debate, I felt unable myself to vote. I hope I am not—and I am sure your Lordships are not—unduly sensitive. No-one at all minds political criticism. We have all been subject to criticism in your Lordships' House and in another place, and on platforms throughout the country. That is healthy and good, and all political controversy is to be praised. But surely this goes beyond reasonable and fair criticism and is personally offensive to 109 Members of your Lordships' House.
The second direction in which I submit the article offends is in the next sentence, which says:
"When it comes to the Socialists begging the Tory backwoodsman not to go home but to stay and vote for them, we no longer have
1422
an Upper House for which one can have the slightest respect."
This, I submit, is a general insult to your Lordships' House by one of its Members. We listen to and accept lots of rude things said about this House, but not said in those terms by one of its Members, whether inside or outside your Lordships' House. I must say that when I read the noble Earl's opinion 3f this House, I wondered why he graced our debates, feeling as he did.
It is for your Lordships to take a view and to take any action you may like, but I submit that this article has transgressed what is said in the Companion to Standing Orders, which on page 512 says:
"Each House is also the guardian of its dignity and may punish any insult to the House as a whole."
If ever anything insulted your Lordships' House as a whole it is to say:
"We no longer have an Upper Hot se for which one can have the slightest respect."
We all make mistakes. Nobody is more conscious of that than I myself. Looking back now over seventy years of life I know so well that. I have made many mistakes, and if the noble Earl Lord Arran, expresses regret for those words I for one would advise your Lordships to leave the matter alone. I conclude by saying this. I do not know whether there has been a breach of privilege. I do know that there has been a breach of taste.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I have little to say, except, first of all, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for telling me, in his usual courteous fashion, that he was going to raise this matter, and then to say this. The things I wrote in the article to which the noble Lord refers were things which I believe. Had I spoken during the debate, I should have used exactly the same language as I used in the article itself. It still seems to me shameful that any country, and our own country in particular, should go back on its pledged word. Had I said these things during our debate, I wonder whether any noble Lord would have moved that I be no longer heard.
As your Lordships must surely know by now, I am an ardent admirer of the House of which I am fortunate enough to find myself a junior Member, and I

1423
try to play my small part. But it is the duty, as well as the privilege of the Queen's Peers—and let us not forget that we are the Queen's Peers—to express ourselves according to our principles. I have done exactly that. If in doing so I have been guilty of any insult against the traditions or dignity of the House as a whole, or against the feelings of any individual Peers, then I am most truly and deeply sorry. But I propose to continue saying and writing what I think about Governments and politicians inside or outside Parliament. That is my birthright. it is the birthright of every Englishman. I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether my apologies are or are not satisfactory.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think that it is a little over a quarter of a century ago since a similar Motion was made in this House, and at the end of the debate at that time the whole House felt that it had better be left alone. I think that the matter now has been quite sufficiently aired by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and that it would be better all round if we just allowed the matter to drop at this point.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, if it means that the noble Earl's apology is accepted, I would entirely concur.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I should like to echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I do not think that any of us has any knowledge of how we would deal with a privilege case, because we have no clearly formulated policy. In another place they have very strict rules and—though I must be careful not to be in contempt of another place—they contrive so far as possible not to discuss an alleged contempt until the Committee of Privileges has had a go at it. It would be open to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, to put down a Motion. I do not think that it would be appropriate that I should even discuss whether there was a contempt or try to interpret the noble Earl's remarks, which we shall read to-morrow with interest. The matter having been aired, I hope that your Lordships will feel that it would best befit our dignity to let the matter drop. I do not think that any of us would wish to interpret the noble Earl's remarks as a
1424
threat. Indeed, I think I should not comment any further, except to say that I am sure that your Lordships, with customary good sense, will now feel inclined to let the matter go.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be allowed to support what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said. I must apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, if I reveal that I am not normally a reader of his output and therefore know only what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. has read out. But for some time the noble Earl was a supporter who sat on these Benches behind me, though not a member of my Party, until he moved away and joined the Liberal Party—or perhaps the Liberal Party has joined him, I am really not quite sure which. But wherever he goes, all of us are 50 per cent. of the time full of admiration for him and for the other 50 per cent. exasperated, but all of the time full of affection for him. And perhaps we must take the rough with the smooth.
I do not know about the rest of your Lordships, but it seems to me, if I am not committing a breach of privilege myself, that we in this House are a good deal more sensible about our privileges and a good deal less sensitive than those in another place. And perhaps my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, having aired this matter, as he was perfectly entitled to do, will feel that justice has been done to the occasion, and that, at any rate, we have given the noble Earl material for vet another column.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, very much for the admiration which he has expressed for my noble friend Lord Arran. I should like to say that I support the remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and I hope that the House will accept his advice.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, make two remarks? Of course, I am more than content to follow the course advocated by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, expressed his regrets if, intentionally or unintentionally, he had in any way insulted the House collectively. We all know that in life an apology is

1425
accepted in the spirit in which it is made, and therefore I am more than content to follow the wish of your Lordships to leave the matter as it is, with no regrets for having raised it and no ill-feelings following.

AIRDRIE COURT HOUSE COMMISSIONERS (DISSOLUTION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

FIREARMS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Consolidation Bill, and if your Lordships give it a Second Reading it will go in due course to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMONWEALTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

REVENUE (No. 2) BILL
3.34 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Bowles.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to raise a point at this stage of the Bill and to draw attention to Clause 2, in which the termination of export rebates is dealt with. At present they are not to be payable on goods exported after March 31, 1968, except where there is a contract of sale to supply them which was made before November 19, 1967, which is the date of devaluation, and also where the transactions would not result, putting it mildly, in any exchange profit to the exporter resulting from devaluation and cannot be altered to protect the exporter from adverse effects of devaluation.
In the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Dundee asked the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, this question:
"My Lords, do I understand the noble Lord to mean that if the law courts should decide that a certain tender or bid before November 19 was irrevocable in character and binding on the person who made it, and it was accepted by the purchaser after November 19, it would then follow that the exporter would receive the rebate?".
The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, said in reply:
"My Lords, I think that what would happen is that the exporter would take action against the Board of Trade, suing them for his rebate. If the court said he could have it, then he would have it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/2/68, col. 721.]
I am bound to say—and I would ask the noble Lord to explain this point—that I do not believe there is any possibility of such an action being brought or, if it were, that it could possibly succeed if it arose simply out of a tender or bid. The Bill itself, as drafted, seems to exclude any such possibility unless there is a signed contract. So I would ask the noble Lord whether he would be so kind as to make this matter perfectly clear. The exemption, as I understand it, extends only to contracts under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of that clause.
I recognise that it would not have been possible to continue to give export

1427
rebates in all cases where a tender alleged to be irrevocable was put in before devaluation and accepted after it, but it does not seem to me to follow that because it would be impossible to cover all cases there was no alternative to covering none. It is true that a firm which has put in an irrevocable tender is not always bound to sign the contract if it is awarded to it; but the practical consequences of refusing to do so may be very severe, even if there is no financial penalty involved, as there may be. A firm tendering to a foreign Government or public authority would never have a chance of winning a contract in that country again if it now withdrew because of the withdrawal of the export rebate.
In my submission, it would not be difficult to provide that sterling tenders which were made to a Government or public authority abroad, and which had been published by that Government or public authority along with other competing tenders, should be exempted from the withdrawal of the export rebate. I see no difficulty in that. I am not suggesting that there should be a discretionary power in the Board of Trade to accept or reject such applications—although the Board of Trade, let us note, is becoming more and more accustomed to making discretionary payments, whether on investment grants or on payments under the local employment Acts. At any rate I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, that such a discretion would be a far cry from Crichel Down, which the noble Lord prayed in aid. I agree with the noble Lord that the courts should be able to decide, but what is necessary is to draw the clause in such a way that the narrow band of really hard cases to which I refer should receive their payments, and receive them as of right.
I know it is not possible for your Lordships to amend the Bill in the sense that I should like. What I am asking is that the Government should introduce a short Bill to extend the exemptions to irrevocable tenders quoted in sterling and made to and published by Governments and public authorities before November 19. I need not expatiate on the enormous blow to morale where a company has been working hard to obtain a contract for months, or maybe years, when the
1428
contract has been ultimately won and signed, but not signed before November 19, and where there may be a continuing responsibility to produce and export the goods, very possibly at a loss, over a considerable period of time, running into tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. I do not think it is good enough for the Government to say, "Too bad. We never said the export rebates were irrevocable". This sort of "Stop-Go" is as bad as any. This is real default on the part of the Government, and none the less unworthy because it is a default not to foreigners but to our own people.
I am asking the noble Lord to say that the Government will look at this matter again, and meanwhile to clarify what he said on Second Reading. It does not make sense to say that, because it would not be administratively practicable, however right in principle, to extend the exemption to irrevocable tenders, therefore it should not be extended to any.
3.42 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I have given this matter a great deal of thought. The noble Lord was going to raise the matter on the Committee stage two days ago. I heard when I got up to speak that he was not going to do so. I do not know whether he has changed the ground on which he was going to speak then, but he did not raise the matter on Committee, when we could have had more than one speech each. Therefore, any questions I ask him he cannot really answer without permission of the House.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I reply to that, because one is in real difficulty in matters of this kind? This is a Supply clause, and it is generally considered not proper to attempt to amend on Committee. As I could not amend on Committee I did not think it worth while raising the matter on Committee; I thought it would be more appropriate to do it now.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the noble Lord knew it was a Supply Bill; he knew it on Tuesday perfectly well. He realised that he could not put down an Amendment, because his noble friend Lord Dundee said he could not; and that was made quite clear to the House last week.

1429
I was in this difficulty all the time, and I have been thinking about it a great deal. I am talking about whether it is possible in law to have an irrevocable bid, tender or offer. I was a lawyer many years ago, and they may have changed the law since I ceased to practise, but it seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. If I say to the noble Lord, "I will give you £10,000 for your house. Keep that offer open for me, please; it is irrecovable so far as I can possibly make it, until midday on Sunday", and the noble Lord says, "Yes, I will", but nothing is put in writing—if I make that offer off my own bat and say, "I promised by Sunday to carry this out or to complete my offer, if I do not revoke it then"—I still say then that I am sure in my own mind that I can revoke it the next hour. It is, as I say, a contradiction in terms. I have thought about it a great deal.
Furthermore, if, for instance, some of his right honourable friends in another place referred to a bond accompanying an irrevocable tender, offer or bid, I do not think that makes any difference at all. If I offer, or add to my so-called offer, a 10 per cent. deposit to him, or his solicitor, or to the estate agent, that does not make any difference to the fact he still cannot enforce it. It is not a contract, and I can still withdraw my offer and I can still withdraw my deposit. We all know that from experience. That is why all negotiations about house buying, land and so on, are made subject to contract.
There are other points relating to situations in which a man might find himself—for example on the Stock Exchange. It may be that a man instructs his broker to offer to buy certain stock at a certain price and the broker does that, and then the client changes his mind. It still probably is not a contract that can be enforced at law, and no doubt the broker who has dealt with his own jobber would feel he had been let down by his client; and possible Stock Exchange rules might be such that he would in effect have to go through with the deal. But I am trying to keep this matter as a matter of law.
The noble Lord just now referred to an English exporter who, if he withdrew an irrevocable tender, might suffer practical consequences of great seriousness. I understand that, and it is the kind of risk he has to take. But we have gone into
1430
this matter very carefully in the Board of Trade since my honourable and right honourable friends in another place said they would look into it. In fact, they tried very hard to look into it; they almost made an irrevocable offer to look into it. But they came to the conclusion that it was impossible in an Act of Parliament to put in words which would be stronger than a written contract of sale. An irrevocable bid, in my humble opinion, is something that cannot possibly exist.
The noble Lord asked whether we would look at the matter again, and asked if we could find some way, in a short Bill, of covering the point he has in mind. I, of course, would not refuse to make an offer of that kind. I will report this discussion to the President of the Board of Trade. I agree that, on the face of it, the business world would not expect suddenly to have a rebate withdrawn on a certain date because we have suddenly devalued or taken some such action. I understand how important the export rebate is in getting the contract at all, or even getting the offer considered. I appreciate all this, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade does so, too.
The noble Lord may think it is a long way from Crichel Down. In his opinion it may be, but I do not think it is all that far. We have had the view expressed that public decisions relating to law should mainly be decided by the courts. If the noble Lord agrees that these bids are irrevocable, or if he, or his friends, can ever prove one before a court, he has nothing to worry about. This is the part in his speech I do not understand. If these offers or tenders are irrevocable in his sense, or the sense of his right honourable friends in the other place, then the court would hold so, too; and therefore I cannot understand why he takes that line. However, I promise the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will have his remarks referred to him, even if he does not care to read mine, and we shall see whether my right honourable friend can possibly see some way to meet the point of view raised by the noble Lord and his right honourable friends.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say a word in reply to the noble Lord? I must say that during his speech, when

1431
he said that an irrevocable bid is something which cannot possibly exist, I was reminded of the child who looked at the camel and said, "I don't believe it!". These things are common, very common indeed, and they do exist. I was not speaking just from the legalistic point of view on this question. I am most grateful to him for his undertaking to look at the matter further. In those circumstances, I feel he has gone as far as can be expected at the present time, and I am much obliged to him.
3.48 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I add a word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn? I am speaking in no way as a lawyer. I have never been a lawyer—even twenty years ago—but it seems to me that it is purely a matter of both common sense and common decency that where an individual or a firm has made a bid under certain apprehensions that certain conditions exist, and that bid is then within a short while accepted, even though the conditions have changed afterwards, it would be wrong for the firm to withdraw its bid. Even though it legally might be able to, it would not be the right sort of thing for it to do. It had given its bid in good faith, and it certainly would not be good business either for it, or for the country, to withdraw it, especially in the case of considerable export contracts we are all familiar with.
I cannot accept the fact that the Board of Trade is unable to frame legislation to cover this point. It is, after all, the duty of the officials serving the Government to do what the Government want, and they have the ability to do it. It must be for Her Majesty's Government to tell them what to do. If Her Majesty's Government come out straight and say, "We want some form of arrangement to be made to cover this point, because we think it a good point", I cannot believe it cannot be done. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will in fact say that, because I think most of us, whichever side of the House we sit on, feel that the point which has been raised is a very fair and a very important one.
On Question. Bill read 3a, and passed.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND RECEIPTS BILL
3.50 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the main provisions of this Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move, are part of the effort to put Britain's economy on to a genuinely sound basis. If we are to pay our way and wipe out our indebtedness we need to export more. If we are to sell more abroad we need to cut back consumption at home. All this is common ground. We are all agreed about it. Disagreement sets in when we get down to hard cases and decide how the home consumption cuts are to be made.
The Prime Minister described our general strategy as meaning:
"a progressive and massive shift of resources from home consumption, public and private, to requirements of exports, import replacement, and productive investment".
This Bill will help to implement that strategy in respect of economies in home consumption. As I have said we all agree about the objective in general, but I have no doubt that this afternoon we shall have disagreement about its implementation in particular. It is reported that yesterday in another place the Opposition spokesman claimed that the proposed cuts in defence expenditure could not be justified on economic grounds. Some of my friends have said precisely the same sort of thing about the proposed cuts in home expenditure. The truth is that no cutback in consumption can be pleasant, and in our hearts we must all agree that, if we are honest about our support for the general objective, we should all of us have to accept the necessity for particular economies which we would rather avoid.
Having said that I must go on to add that Clause 1 of this Bill and Schedule 1 would in fact have been necessary quite apart from the considerations behind our other economies. I will explain why. When the higher rates of National Insurance benefit were introduced at the end of October last year they were accompanied by increases in the flat rate contributions. At the time when the legislation of last June authorising those increases was introduced, it was estimated that the proposed increased contributions would be sufficient to support the

1433
increased benefits until the early part of 1970. In fact there has been a continuing worsening in the financial position of the National Insurance Fund. It is now expected that in 1967–68 the Fund will show a deficit of £75 million; and if there were no increases in contributions, further deficits would follow in 1968–69 and 1969–70, and the balance available in the Fund might be insufficient to finance the demands upon it.
The reasons why the estimates made only eight or nine months ago have now been falsified are set out in the Report of the Government Actuary (Cmnd. 3532). Very briefly, they are:

(a) A continuing rise in the level of sickness claims, not allowed for in last year's calculations.

(b) An increase in the proportion of men retiring as soon as they reach the age of 65.

(c) People are on average living longer so that the mortality rate among pensioners has been lower than expected.

(d) Apart from the loss of contributions due directly to unemployment, there has been a fall in the total working population since 1966, and this has led to a shortfall in contribution income.

For these reasons an increase in the contribution rates becomes necessary. The Prime Minister announced on January 16 that there would be an increase of 6d. a week for employees and 6d. a week for employers. To increase both the contributions by about the same amount is in accordance with normal practice. The 6d. relates to an employed adult male over the age of 18, but, as Schedule 1 to the Bill indicates, there is a wide range of contribution rates. Again in accordance with normal practice it is proposed that the increase should be roughly proportional to the contributions paid by or for each class of contributor. There are certain adjustments to this, involving the rounding-off of halfpennies, to which I need not refer.
Subsection (2) of the same clause is designed to secure that the powers of the inspectors of the Ministry of Social Security for the purpose of enforcing contribution liability shall extend to premises or places where the inspector has reason
1434
to believe that an agency, or a business for the supply of labour, is being carried on; and it also imposes upon people operating an organisation for the supply of labour the obligations regarding the furnishing of information and production of documents to inspectors imposed on employers generally by the 1965 National Insurance Act. This provision will enable the Ministry to stop up what it is feared may be a growing loophole for the evasion of payment of contribution.
Subsection (3) of the clause deals with the case of the person who commits an offence by refusing to give information required under the 1965 Act. At present the penalty for such refusal is a fine of £10 on first conviction, and £50 on a second or subsequent conviction. Unhappily, the extent to which some people, by refusing to give the information required under the 1965 Act, might evade contribution payments is maybe so great that it would pay them to continue their offence even at the cost of paying the periodic fines. The purpose of this subsection is to increase the fine on second conviction to £10 a day for each day on which the offence is continued. It is believed that this deterrent will end evasion of proper contribution payments
Clause 2 and Schedule 2 provide for an increase in the National Health contribution of the employee of 6d. a week. In the debate of January 24 on the economic situation I ventured to confess that the reimposition of prescription charges seemed the least justifiable of all the cuts. I preferred a straightforward insurance policy and that would mean an increase in the Health Service charge sufficient to meet the cost of prescriptions. The Government decided that the necessary increase, of 1s. a week, on top of the increase in the National Insurance contribution, called for in Clause 1, would bear unreasonably hard of the poorer sections of the community. On the other hand, if all prescriptions were to be paid for when taken then again those least able to pay would be hit hardest. The proposals in Clause 2, and Schedule 2 are the result of a compromise.
Patients over 65, children up to the age of 15, expectant and nursing mothers and the chronic sick, will be exempt from prescription charges, and the cost of these exemptions, approximately £25 million

1435
in a full year, will be met by this 6d. increase in the National Health Service contribution of the employee. The increased rate of contribution will be introduced as from May 6 next. No date has been fixed for the reintroduction of prescription charges, but it is anticipated that the one will follow the other as soon as practicable.
Clause 3 of the Bill is concerned with the withdrawal of school milk from secondary schools. Here again I get absolutely no satisfaction in asking for this particular economy. I do claim, however, that the decision to make this change comes after the most careful consideration. We considered the possibility of providing free milk for some secondary school children, but not for all, on grounds of special need, but reluctantly concluded that this selection or segregation of certain secondary school children was not a feasible way out. Apart from obvious difficulties in selecting individual children on medical grounds, or because of nutritional condition, or on grounds of family finance, there was an overriding human difficulty. To have some children selected in this way while others in the class sat by and watched them drink the free milk would create embarrassment. Some sensitive children to my certain knowledge would rather not take it in this sort of situation.
One factor relevant to the decision in this clause is the way local education authorities have been co-operating with the Government to improve the take-up of free school meals. As a result of a survey published last summer, it was revealed that only about 50 per cent. of the children eligible for free school meals were receiving them. A campaign has now been mounted to draw the attention of parents to the availability of free school meals where the parental income falls below a certain level, and although it is too soon to be sure of the effects of this there is reason to believe that something like an additional 100,000 free meals have been served over the figure of last November. Moreover, from April of this year free meals will become automatically available to the fourth and subsequent children in families, irrespective of income. I hope that this will be accepted as evidence that the Government, in spite of the decision they
1436
have taken on secondary school milk, are not unmindful of their responsibilities for the health of the nation's children.
The next clause, Clause 4, is related to the economic policy, but only indirectly. It makes provision for the payment of compensation to those people who lose their employment, or otherwise suffer loss or diminution of emoluments, in consequence of the Government's decision to reduce civil defence preparations to a care-and-maintenance basis, and to disband the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service. The terms on which compensation will be paid will be set out in regulations, and it is intended to follow the general pattern adopted in other cases of statutory compensation—for example, the reorganisation of local government. The cost of compensation under this clause is particularly difficult to estimate, since it will turn very largely on the ease with which those concerned find alternative employment. Altogether, a total of from 2,000 to 2,500 people may be affected. We hope that the great majority will find other jobs either within the local authority field or elsewhere. But to the extent that they do suffer loss the regulations will provide help.
Clause 5 of the Bill does not derive directly from the announcement of January 16, but its aims are broadly in line with the objectives. Briefly, the position is as follows. Over the years a number of fees and charges for various Government services have been fixed by Statute. Where the original Act contains no power to vary such fees by order it has meant that they could be varied only by a further Act of Parliament. This would obviously be an extremely cumbersome way of proceeding if one wished to do no more than up-date a few minor charges and fees. For this reason a whole range of such charges is now completely out of line with the cost of the services to which they relate. In order to overcome this difficulty, it is proposed through this clause to take power to vary such fees and charges by an Order, which would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, made by the appropriate Minister. This clause of itself does not vary any charge at all. It is purely an enabling power. I would draw your Lordships attention to the limitation on that power imposed by

1437
subsection (1) of the clause, which provides that the fees may be amended so as to produce a net return
"corresponding more nearly with the cost of the matters for which they are payable".
That is to say, our aim here is not to impose a new tax, but merely to require people to pay a fair price for the services concerned. We are also taking power to abolish any fees where the yield from them is likely to be such that their collection is uneconomic.
Finally I come to Clause 6 of the Bill, which embodies a minor but useful reform of the procedure for considering applications in the Board of Trade for building grants in development areas. Under the Local Employment Act 1960 the Board cannot make building grants unless they have first consulted the Board of Trade Advisory Committee (B.O.T.A.C.). Clause 6 would relax this requirement and allow the Board discretion in this matter to consult the Committee as the Board thought fit. The Board of Trade consider that the present statutory requirement leads to a disproportionate amount of time and administrative resources being spent on a large number of small applications. Few of these have in fact been rejected by B.O.T.A.C., and the intention would be that applications relating to a building cost of £10,000 or less should not normally be referred to the Advisory Committee.
Clause 7 of the Bill is of a formal and technical character and I think there is nothing I need say on that.
My Lords, the provisions of this Bill are very varied, but they all contribute to the Government's overriding economic aim of ensuring that demands upon national resources for the purposes of home consumption are reduced to make way for that export-led growth without which all the opportunities of devaluation would be wasted. If, on the other hand, we accept these unpalatable measures, as part of a wider strategy, then I hope that the day will not be too far distant when we can once again concentrate on positive measures to improve and expand our social services. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
4.7 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for dealing in detail with a rather curious type of Bill, because it is unusual to have a Bill of seven clauses six of which deal with separate subjects and the seventh dealing with the whole lot. This, of course, puts your Lordships into some difficulty in debating it, because on a Second Reading we are generally dealing only with a matter of principle, and here we really have principles within the main principle. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I follow the noble Lord's example and deal with the clauses one by one, because they are so different in character that it is difficult to dell with them otherwise.
The noble Lord started by saying that this is part of the effort to put Britain's economy on a sound basis, and so far as that goes, of course we welcome it, although one is bound to say when one looks at the second page of the Explanatory Memorandum, that it is a relatively small part. Seventeen million pounds is not a small sum of money, but in relation to the national expenditure as a whole and to the increase in the, Estimates, which is £560 million for the current year, it seems a relatively small amount.
LORD BESWICK: Did the noble Lord say £17 million?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Seventeen million pounds. The noble Lord will see, from the second page of the Memorandum, that if you deduct, as I suppose you have to deduct, the amounts that are being paid out, such as those involved in Clause 1, the total amount involved, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, is £16,780,000.
Turning to Clauses 1 and 2, the effect here, as the noble Lord said, is to increase the cost of the National Insurance stamp to unemployed and non-employed persons by 1s. for men and (perhaps I may go into a little more detail, because I think it is of interest to noble Lords) by 11d. for women, and to the employer by 6d. for men and 5d. for women. That is Clauses 1 and 2 together. This increase comes on top of an increase in contributions of 2s. for an employed man in 1965, and another 2s. last year, and will bring the total increase for an

1439
employed man since 1964 to 5s., an increase of 43 per cent. on the contribution which then applied. For women the increase since 1964 is from 9s. 8d. to 14s. Id., an increase of 4s. 5d.; that is, if my mathematics are correct, 45 per cent. The flat rate benefits for single persons have been increased over the same period from 67s. 6d. to 90s., an increase of 22s. 6d., so that the flat rate benefits have increased by 33⅓ per cent. Quite clearly, therefore, the contributions have, relatively, increased more than the benefits. The increase in contributions falls with considerable severity on the lowest paid workers. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is to reply, inasmuch as this increase falls particularly hardly on women whose average wage is so much lower than that of men.
When benefits were increased in 1963 by 10s., the contribution for employed men to the National Insurance Fund was raised by 11d. The reason for this—the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—was largely to be found in the fact that the top of the bracket on which graduated contributions were charged was raised in that year, in 1963, from £15 to £18, whereas no similar change was made in 1965 and 1967. At the time when the increases were made in 1965 there was some justification for not raising the top of the bracket, because we were all given to understand that a new graduated scheme would be introduced quite soon. In 1967 it was reasonable to presume that the introduction of that scheme was still nearer. But I cannot help observing that over three years have passed since the 1964 Act, and the result of this dalliance is a much heavier burden on the lowest paid workers than it would have been if the flat rate, the top of the bracket, had been increased. Even if a Bill is introduced next Session—and perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to tell us whether the promised graduated pensions Bill is to be introduced next Session—it is unlikely to be brought into effect, I should have thought, until more than a year from now, possibly a year and half.
I would not dispute, and I do not suppose any noble Lord would dispute, that the National Insurance Fund should not be allowed, as the Government Actuary says, to fall so low as to be
1440
insufficient to finance the operations of the National Insurance scheme. I am sure this is right. As the noble Lord said, the increases in Clause 1 are made necessary, and they are not really in the same category as the other clauses of the Bill. We would all agree that a further increase in contributions is now necessary. The deficit is now running at £75 million a year as compared with an estimate last year for a virtual break-even in the current financial year, 1967–68, and a deficit of £17 million in 1968–69. The noble Lord quoted the reasons given by the Government Actuary, and if I may just draw the attention of the House to one common feature in them, it is that in every one of those reasons except the last one this is simply a continuance of a trend which already existed. He drew attention to the continuance of the trend in sickness benefits, which have been increasing in the past five years, and presumably the Government budgeted for the trend to continue; to a continuance of the trend towards earlier retirement; to a continuance towards longer life among pensioners; and lastly, a rise in unemployment, coupled with a fall in the total working population.
When we last had these rises considered by Parliament, Government policy was just about to change. I submit that the change in the Government policy was bound to lead, and was intended to lead, to a higher level of unemployment in the short term at least, and a fall in the total working population was predictable in the circumstances. It was not for the Government Actuary to foresee this; it was for the Government to foresee it. It is for the Government to say what the level of contributions should be. Of course, it may be said that at the time when the 1967 Act was being prepared nobody could have foreseen the complete volte face of the Government last July, least of all the Government themselves. It is clear that Clause 1 is really a monument to the incompetence and the maladministration of the Government. The increase in the contributions has nothing whatever to do with the effect of devaluation. It has to do with its cause, which is nothing more nor less than the inability of the Government to run the economy and to foresee the continuance of existing trends, intensified by their own actions.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to ask whether it would not also be fair to say that a lot of this is the result of 13 years of Conservative misrule?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, not at all. I have been trying to point out that, as the Actuary said, all this has arisen from continuance of trends that were known at the time, apart from the action which was taken—a sudden reversal of policy, when the Prime Minister said on one day that we were turning the corner, and three days later we were faced with the new Prices and Incomes Bill and a complete change of policy.
It is also relevant to say that of course people will retire earlier when unemployment is falling. When redundancies are inevitable, it is almost always the case that those who have reached, or are about to reach retiring age, are the first to suffer. What is remarkable about the Actuary's Report is that it was the Actuary who had to draw the attention of the Government to the precarious condition of the Fund. It was he who had to recommend an increase in contributions. But the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the Government who, in my experience at any rate, fix the contributions and then ask the Actuary to comment on them.
Quite apart from the burden on employees, one should not, and one cannot, disregard the effect of the increase on employers and the self-employed so far as the costs of production are concerned. In my experience Government Departments are a little apt to pooh-pooh comparatively small increases of this kind, but they soon mount up, especially when they are weekly payments; and this is particularly important for the labour intensive industries and, above all, the service industries who are already so hard hit by S.E.T.
So much for the effect on employers and employees. So far as the third man in all this is concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—because there are three parties to the National Insurance Fund; he of course acts on behalf of us all—the effect is an annual increase in expenditure of £13 million representing his share to the contributory National Insurance Fund, or 25 per cent., I think, of the flat rate contributions. So that the upshot of this particular clause is to
1442
place a greater burden on employers, on employees, on the self-employed, on the non-employed, on industry and on the Exchequer.
I turn to Clause 2. The purpose of this clause is to enable the Exchequer to obtain the full benefit of the increase in prescription charges. As the noble Lord said, that is £50 million. Without it, the Exchequer would get only £25 million. So those who have to pay the prescription charges for themselves will also have to pay through their higher National Health Service contribution on the National Health stamp the prescription charges of those who are to be exempted from them, or who are exempted for the time being from paying for their stamp.
This is an odd way of doing things. We have come so far from the idea of a mutual health insurance that it is difficult to justify increasing the flat rate contribution to the National Health Service. It is quite true that increases of 6d. have been made from the original 8½d.—which was the original charge in 1946, if I remember aright—on two occasions, and one increase of 10d. On precedent, I cannot find fault with this increase, were it not for the increase in the National Insurance contribution at the same time. I suppose we should be grateful that the Government have tempered the economic wind to the much fleeced working population, by knocking off a halfpenny in order to reach a round contribution of 40 coppers to the National Health Service contribution. This is what it now amounts to, 3s. 4d.
This is not the occasion to debate the exemptions which are to be provided for. I would only say that if it is possible to give exemptions in the case of the chronic sick in this context, which must involve defining what is meant by chronic sick, why was it not possible to define the chronic sick for the purposes of National Insurance benefits, so that they could have been given graduated benefits now available to the short-term sick? This is something which I raised at the time when the graduated sickness and unemployment legislation was going through, and I still think that it could and should have been done on that occasion. If you are going to be able to define chronic sick for this purpose, then you could have done it for that other purpose.

1443
I now turn to Clause 3. The repeal of the duty laid on local education authorities to provide free milk in secondary schools is justified by the Government on the ground that the proportion of pupils taking it is falling. The noble Lord gave a figure of 50 per cent. I think that in another place a figure of 58 per cent. was given for those now taking milk in secondary schools.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that the 50 per cent. related to the take-up of free school meals.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I think it was said in another place that the proportion of secondary school children taking free milk was falling, and had fallen from 60 to 58 per cent. It was also said in another place that it is not possible to justify the retention in secondary schools of free school milk on nutritional grounds alone. There has been some doubt as to official advice on this matter, but it was said that it cannot be justified on nutritional grounds alone. May I ask the noble Baroness whether this means that local education authorities can go on providing milk in secondary schools if they so choose? If so, must the pupils who take it pay the full cost of it, or can the local education authorities still charge part of the cost to their ratepayers if they wish? The noble Lord bound this matter up with free meals, and I am glad to hear that the publicity activities of the Government are succeeding in getting a greater uptake of free meals.
I also should like to ask what is meant by the proportions of pupils taking school milk. There have been allegations of considerable waste in milk, and that is why I ask the question. Does it mean that 58 per cent. of pupils actually drink their milk, or does it mean that the amount of milk delivered to schools is 58 per cent. of what might be delivered if the 100 per cent. all took it? What check has there been on wastage in school milk? I know from contacts with school teachers and others that it is thought that there is a good deal of wastage in this sphere.
Clause 4 deals with civil defence. We shall be having a debate on the Government's decision before long, so I need not say much about that now. It appears
1444
that the amount of compensation provided is rather small. The noble Lord said that there was great difficulty in estimating what would be required, and the amount which has been put down is £250,000. Relating that to the figure which he gave of 2,000 to 2,500 people who might be affected, this means an average of £100 to £125 each. I daresay that a fairly high proportion will not require compensation, but will those who receive compensation also be entitled to redundancy payments, and will those Civil Defence workers who are taken on by local authorities receive their redundancy payments in the same way as those who are taken on by a firm which takes over the firm for which they are working?
Clause 5 is the sort of clause which Governments long for the opportunity to introduce, and I readily welcome it. Little by little we shall find out what it means for the public. Most departments and local authorities concerned have been anxious about the fact that charges are so often insufficient to cover costs, and most of them will have made up their minds by now what they are going to ask for when the Bill becomes law. Surely it would have been possible for the Government to produce a White Paper to accompany the Bill, giving fuller information and indicating their intentions. I say this because one hears rumours that charges are likely to be increased very considerably. The noble Lord was good enough to point to the policy in this matter—and I welcome this—namely, that the charges should not be regarded as revenue-producing but should be kept sufficient to meet costs. We would not dissent from that and we are sure that it is the right policy.
They are certainly a mixed bag. I looked up one or two of the Acts, and I noted that the Explosives Act 1875 dealt with the licensing of small firework factories, and the next one dealt with increases in fees. It is remarkable—I suppose it is still the position—that one of the Acts which I looked up indicated that where a commissioner is appointed to hold an inquiry and costs are awarded against one party, it is not possible to charge the party against whom costs are awarded more than 5 guineas a day for the services of the commissioner. That has gone on now since 1923 and might well be changed, so we welcome that.

1445
Lastly, I come to the building grants in development areas. The Government are asking for power to pay building grants without reference to the Board of Trade Advisory Committee. They say that it will save £30,000 a year in administration. The danger, of course, is that the grants would then be paid without the same care in investigation as has been taken by the Board of Trade Advisory Committee and before it decided whether to recommend a grant. I know from my own experience in the Board of Trade how short are the Government of accountants to investigate applications. I appreciate that there have been great extensions of the development areas and that the burden on the B.O.T.A.C. must have been considerably increased, but Parliament is entitled to expect that Government money will not be "dished out" to ventures which are unlikely to prove economic. The consequence of this clause is likely to be, not so much to save money on administration, as to increase the numbers of building grants for dubious ventures. It is at least doubtful whether there will be a saving in the long run.
I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could deal with these points because, although the noble Lord said that most applications for building grants are allowed, it still remains true that they are all fully investigated at present. The House would not like to feel that the investigations were in any way reduced. This is a real rag-bag of a Bill, parts of which are designed to save expenditure to the Exchequer and parts of which will increase Treasury expenditure as the inevitable consequence of Government decisions and indecisions. The net financial effect, as I said, is a saving of under £17 million to the Treasury as against an increase in the Estimates for next year of over £560 million. The best that can be said about this Bill, as the late Sir Winston Churchill once said of a pudding, is that "it has no theme".
4.31 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, this Bill is what is known in popular language as a "package deal". As has been pointed out, it consists of a number of miscellaneous financial provisions which are necessary to carry out the Govern-
1446
ment's programme of reduced expenditure. If the other aspects of the Government's programme of reduced expenditure had encountered as little opposition as this Bill looks likely to do, I am sure that the Government would have been very well satisfied.
There is one matter concealed in the verbiage of this Bill to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. It seems to me to be a matter which is so unjust that at a later stage your Lordships may be ready to amend it. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has pointed out, the Bill contains provisions for the payment of compensation to persons who lose their employment, or who suffer some diminution in their emoluments, as a result of the Government's programme of placing the Civil Defence Service on a care-and-maintenance basis. Compensation will be paid by the local authorities, and the Bill provides that the local authorities shall be reimbursed by the Exchequer in respect of their expenditure in paying compensation to those persons who will be entitled.
The Minister is to make regulations defining, I suppose, the classes of persons to whom compensation will be paid and other matters, but the most important matter that he will have to include in the regulations is the extent to which the cost of the compensation will be borne by the Central Government. The regulations which the Minister will be required to make are to be made subject to the provisions of the Civil Defence Act 1948. That Act provides that regulations may provide for a reimbursement of sums which the local authorities, as civil defence authorities, have disbursed. The Act of 1948 further provides tint the regulations may require the Central Government to reimburse the local authorities to the extent of 100 per cent. of their expenditure, or to not more than three-quarters of their total expenditure.
One does not, of course, know the present intention of the Government whether the intention is to provide for full compensation—that is to say, for a full reimbursement of the sums expended in compensation—or whether the intention is to provide for only three-quarters of it. One gets a fair indication of what is intended in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. If your Lordships

1447
will look at the note on Clause 4, at the bottom of the first page, you will see that it says:
"The payments by local authorities of compensation provided for in this Clause are estimated broadly at up to £¼ million, attracting 75 per cent. Exchequer grant."
That must mean that when we see the regulations we shall find that the local authorities are to be reimbursed only to the extent of three-quarters of their expenditure on compensation.
I submit to your Lordships that, if this is what is intended, it is rather difficult to justify a reimbursement of no more than three-quarters of the expenditure which the local authorities have incurred. One-quarter of the cost of securing this economy is going to fall upon the local rates. I think one is entitled to ask the Government whether their economy programme consists, so far as this item is concerned, of shifting on to the local authorities the cost of securing the economy which the Government will enjoy. It seems a strange form of economy that one-quarter of the cost of securing it is to be paid by somebody else.
At the present time the local authorities are themselves engaged in trying to carry out programmes of economy. They are endeavouring to reduce their expenditure in every department where that is possible. I submit that it is not right that the Government should expect the local authorities to pay one-quarter of the costs of securing this item of their economy programme. It is really a poor sort of economy if one is going to do it like that. I hope that the noble Baroness who is going to reply to this debate will be able to assure us that the Government will think again about this matter, and will ask themselves whether it is a fair and just settlement that one-quarter of the cost of securing this economy should fall on somebody else.
4.37 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, the National and Local Government Officers' Association has raised with me one or two points in connection with Clause 4. However, I should at the outset declare an interest. I happen to be an honorary member of NALGO, but that is the extent of my interest. I should like an assurance—
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me for a moment if I interrupt him to say that, if a personal explanation is necessary, I ought to have given a personal explanation on the same ground, that I also am an honorary member of NALGO.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I should like an assurance that NALGO will be taken into consultation on the draft compensation regulations to be made under the Bill. Secondly, it is pointed out that compensation is to be payable in the case of persons affected by the revocation or amendment of regulations made under Section 2 of the Civil Defence Act 1948. Understandably, there is no indication in the Bill of when this is likely to happen.
In the Home Office letter of February 12 to local authorities, it was pointed out that, in the meantime, dismissal of an officer would prejudice his entitlement to compensation. As may be expected, NALGO members are apprehensive about their position. Can information be given about the proposed timetable, when the regulations are drafted? Alternatively, perhaps the compensation regulations could be made to act retrospectively to meet the case of officers who might be dismissed before the revocation or amendment of the Civil Defence Act regulations.
This brings me to a further point. The regulations will apply only in the case of loss brought about by the revocation or amendment of Civil Defence Act regulations. Last summer, a number of members of NALGO employed in the Civil Defence Service lost their jobs, not because of such revocation or amendment of regulations but in consequence of a letter, CD1 1967, issued by the Home Office which called upon local authorities to economise on their civil defence expenditure. It was a broad hint to them—a very broad hint—to get rid of staff to reduce their expenditure. What was the result?
The overall picture was that urban and rural district councils severely cut down their expenditure on civil defence, leaving the county councils to do most of the work. NALGO members who lost their jobs in consequence of this change will not be covered by the new regulations. How are they to be dealt with? Surely they are entitled to the same treatment

1449
as those who will now lose their jobs in consequence of the revocation or amendment of statutory regulations. It is true that some of those who lost their jobs last summer were awarded redundancy payments, but in many cases compensation, if it were available, would exceed the amount of any redundancy payment and the officers would be entitled to the difference between the two sums if the compensation regulations could be made to act retrospectively.
I am sorry that I was not able to give the Minister previous notice of these points, but I myself received intimation in regard to them only this morning. Perhaps I may express the hope with which I began; namely, that NALGO will be consulted at all stages of the discussion in regard to the regulations, when I am sure that some of the points that I have made will be ironed out, I hope to the satisfaction of all concerned.
4.43 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I do not wish to take up the time of the House in repeating what has already been said, but perhaps I may say how entirely I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. They covered all that I had intended to say; and, as he put the case to the Government so convincingly and so well, there is no need for anyone to repeat it. I feel the more assured in saying no more than this in that I am not at all sure that I should not be wasting not only the time of the House but also my own time, as I feel confident that the Government will take a sympathetic view of the plea which has been put before them. It represents views which I can assure the Government—they probably already know it—are widely held by a number of people.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, I wonder if I might ask whether the Government would consider making a more just relationship between the payments for National Insurance of the employed and the unemployed. I should perhaps declare an interest, because I happen to belong to the ranks of the unfortunate unemployed myself, at least for National Insurance purposes, though I am very far from unemployed in fact. I find for myself that the payment of 14s. 3d. per week for the
1450
privilege of being unemployed is quite as much as I want to pay; but there are many others who are in far worse circumstances than I am. There are those who are old and infirm, who perhaps have nobody to help them, who are living on very small incomes which they have no prospect of ever enlarging.
My Lords, is it fair that such people should have to pay such a sum as this? I do not think anybody would question the justice of support for the nation by those who are earning large salaries and are very well off, but I think that to ask so much from those who are in such an unfortunate position as these old and. as I say, often infirm people seems to me very far removed from justice. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to do something about this.
4.46 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I will endeavour to reply to all the points which have been raised by noble Lords, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has so rightly said, this Bill covers a tremendous number of subjects; so if I omit to give a reply during this Second Reading debate to all the questions raised it will not be with the intention of evading them, but simply because it has not been possible to provide a reply in the time. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, straightaway that, although the point he raised does not come within the context of the Bill we are discussing to-day, it will be taken back and looked at.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Word, I should like to give him an immediate reassurance on the question of the cost of compensation to redundant civil defence employees. His first point, I think, was: How much will the Exchequer bear? The reply to this is, 75 per cent. This is fair because, after all, the effect of the rundown in civil defence will be to reduce local authority expenditure by about £5 million, per annum. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and also the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that NALGO will be consulted on the question of the retrospective effect of compensation and the loss of employment to NALGO members; and although I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Burden, a direct reply on every

1451
point he raised, I will see that this is done during the Committee stage.
It would probably be helpful to both noble Lords, as well as to the noble Lord. Lord Milverton, if I were to make some reference to the question of compensation regulations. These will be on the lines of those made for previous similar cases, and generally accepted by local authorities and their staff as reasonable. They will be based on what is known as the Crosby code. On the question of retrospection—and I am sure that this will reassure noble Lords—there is provision in subsection (4) of Clause 4 to apply compensation retrospectively where the Civil Defence Act regulations are revoked or amended before the passing of the Act or the making of the compensation regulations. The employee's redundancy must, however be attributable to the revocation or amendment of the Civil Defence regulations, as required under subsection (1). That, I think, was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, raised particularly, and it will be looked at. The question whether any employee who ceases to be employed on civil defence work before the Civil Defence regulations are revoked or amended will have any claim to compensation, will depend on whether the cessation of employment is covered by the word "attributable". Each case would have to be considered in the light of the particular circumstances, but retrospection would ordinarily be acceptable if the redundancy occurred after the Prime Minister's statement of January 16, 1968, and the local authority employing the individual concerned stated that it was a redundancy attributable to the prospective revocation or amendment of Regulations which were subsequently revoked or amended.
On the question of the rate of grant, the local authorities' association have represented that the compensation payments which the authorities will make should be subject to 100 per cent. reimbursement. Most civil defence expenditure has been grant-aided at 75 per cent. and there seems no reason to depart from this level of grant, particularly since the local authorities share the benefits of the saving in expenditure which accompanies the reduction of civil defence activities. I hope, therefore, that both
1452
noble Lords will accept that any further discussion—
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, there is one point and it is the basis of the case that I put. Will discussions be entered into with NALGO to see whether the points that I raised can be settled satisfactorily?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I understand that all the matters I mentioned will be subject to consultation with NALGO; but I will check on this for the noble Lord and give him a reply later.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am much obliged.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I believe raised points on each clause of the Bill. If I do not deal with them in order, at least I hope that I shall cover them satisfactorily. The noble Lord referred to the saving of £16 million under the Bill as being small; and that is true. But these savings are part of an overall saving of £300 million in 1968–69 and over £400 million in 1969–70. The Bill simply deals with that part of the saving which requires legislation.
On the question of Clause 4, again we are back to the subject of compensation. The noble Lord said that £250,000 is a small sum. But it should be remembered that it is an annual amount and the total may be greater—for example, for employees who qualify for continuing payments. And to Lord Drumalbyn's further question on the same clause, as to whether the redundant employees will receive redundancy payment, the answer is, Yes; they will be entitled to do so. In answer to his question on Clause 5, he may like to know that discussions are in train with the local authorities on increasing fees for the registration of births, marriages and deaths. These and all increases will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
The noble Lord raised a further question concerning the Government Actuary and suggested that the Government fixed the contributions and then asked the Actuary to comment on them. In fact, that is not strictly correct. The Actuary drew the Government's attention to the emerging deficit and advised what contribution would be necessary to meet that

1453
deficit. That is the normal and proper function of the Government Actuary in relation to the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also suggested that the trend had been there before and that, presumably, the Government should have noticed it and made the increases earlier. It is true that the trends were there; but we are dealing with the degree of increase. It was the sudden steepening of the trend which put the earlier calculations out.
I notice that the noble Lord suggested that people retired because of a shortage of work. May we not take the more hopeful view that people are retiring because they are more satisfied with the rate of retirement pension? At any rate, perhaps one reason is as good as another in the existing circumstances. I think it is heartening—to use the phrase used in another place—that "people are dying less frequently". There is no doubt that this is a very heartening trend.
On the subject of the supply of milk, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, mentioned the figure of 58 per cent. That is, in fact, the quantity of milk supplied to the pupils, but there is no reason to suppose that there is any great difference between the amount supplied, and the amount consumed. The question of wastage is constantly before the Department. The noble Lord said that he had talked with teachers and children about this problem. So, also, have I. From my own recollection, I would say that there is no wastage; it simply means that some children perhaps have more milk than they actually need. I suppose it may be described, technically, as wastage; but in fact no milk is ever put down the drain or thrown away. As my noble friend Lord Beswick has made the point about the decision to withdraw free school milk from secondary schoolchildren, I will not labour it further, but I think it is important to remind the House that this step was taken in relation to the investigation of the quantity of free meals which were being taken up. It is, of course, rather surprising to learn that a percentage of the free meals available was not taken up. But this is, happily, a situation which is now changing.
I think—perhaps I dare say I hope—that I have dealt with all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord
1454
Drumalbyn. I would again remind your Lordships that it is probably unique to have a Bill presented which covers such a wide and varied number of subjects. I hope noble Lords will accept my assurance that during the Committee and subsequent stages I will let then have any further replies. With this rather inadequate little speech, I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]
4.58 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 2:
Admissibility of out-of-court statements as evidence of facts stated
2.—
(2) Where in any civil proceedings a party desiring to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section has called or intends to call as a witness in the proceedings the person by whom the statement was math, the statement—

(a) shall not be given in evidence by virtue of this section on behalf of that party without the leave of the court; and

(b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, shall not be given in evidence by virtue of this section on behalf of that party before the conclusion of the examination-in-chief of the person by whom it was made,

(ii) in so far as the court allows the person by whom the statement was made to narrate it in the course of his examination-in-chief on the ground that to prevent him from doing so would adversely affect the intelligibility of his evidence.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved,VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), after the first "made", to insert:
"if that person is called in order to give evidence as to the matters contained in the statement".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I hope your Lordships will allow me also to deal with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 because the subject matter is really common to all of them. I must also apologise if it takes me a little time to explain these Amendments; but the subject matter is not a little complex and in order to make myself clear I shall have to do it

1455
by way of illustration. I want to take for my illustration a notional case concerning a car which was bought on hire-purchase. The plaintiff in the case is the hire-purchase company, and the defendant is the man who bought it.
In the first part of the illustration I simply want to draw attention to what will happen if it is wished by the plaintiff to prove that the defendant bought the car. The evidence consists of a statement which was made by a clerk in the plaintiff company, a written statement which is part of the record of his business, upon being told by the sales manager that he had sold the car to the defendant. The fact is that the car was sold, but it appears primarily in a statement made by somebody else, and it is therefore hearsay. This really comes under Clause 4 of the Bill, but perhaps this is the easy way to illustrate the matter. The plaintiff company wish to put this statement in evidence, so they serve a notice under Clause 8, upon which the defendant may do one of two things. He may either do nothing, in which case the statement is admissible as of right under the Bill as evidence of the fact that the car was sold, or he may serve a counter-notice requiring that the man who originally told the clerk that the car had been sold—that is, the sales manager—should be called to give evidence.
If he does that, again one of two things may happen. Either the plaintiff company may call the sales manager or they will say, in accordance with Clause 8(2)(b), that since the sales manager was dealing with the sales of cars every day over a long period of time and dealt with about 25 cars on the day concerned, and that day was three and a half years ago, he cannot reasonably be expected, having regard to the time that has elapsed since making the statement, to have any recollection as to the accuracy or otherwise of that statement. If that is established in interlocutory proceedings before the case comes on for trial, he need not be called and the statement is capable of being produced as of right under the Bill as evidence that the car had been sold.
Suppose that does not happen. Suppose the sales manager is called at the request of the defendant and he is asked about the sale of the car. He is an
1456
honest man and has told those who conduct the plaintiff's case that he remembers a little about it but not very much, and therefore the plaintiff has not used the provisions in Clause 8(2)(b) to keep him out of the case, but in examination-in-chief it becomes clear that he remembers very little about it and his testimony is somewhat more than shaken on cross-examination. As the Bill stands, the statement which was contemporary and which in other circumstances would have been admissable as of right, can only be put in after examination-in-chief at the earliest and then upon the discretion of the court. I think that in most cases where the plaintiff had called the sales manager and the hearsay statement was in fact a contemporary one and most unlikely to be inaccurate, the discretion of the court would usually be exercised in favour of letting the statement in, because having regard to Clause 6 of the Bill the court could put such weight on it as it thinks fit and it is not bound to be conclusive.
So far that is what the Bill says, and I am content. But take a further complication. Not only did the sales manager sell the car and tell the clerk who made the record, but subsequently the sales manager had to go and reclaim the car, and when he did so he found that it had no mudguards. The plaintiff also wishes to give in evidence that the car had no mudguards. This has nothing whatever to do with the other piece of evidence related to the sale of the car. Since it is desired to give the first piece of evidence in the court it is necessary to serve notice under Clause 8. If no counter-notice is served, or if the plaintiff company can rely on Clause 8(2)(b) so that for the purpose of that statement there is no necessity to call the sales manager, then ordinarily speaking that statement will be admissible as of right. But if the plaintiff company also wish to call the sales manager to give evidence of the fact, which he clearly remembers, that the car had no mudguards, then although the position is that while the plaintiff company, despite the absence of a counter-notice or the fact that the sales manager remembered nothing about it, could have put in that hearsay statement as evidence of right, they can no longer do so, because of the wording of Clauses 2 and 4.
Because of the pure chance that it was the same man who sold the car who subsequently found that it had no mudguards, the hearsay statement has been converted from one that can be admitted as of right into one admitted only by the discretion of the court, and then only after the examination-in-chief. How is the court going to exercise this discretion? No doubt it would say that had not the sales manager been called to deal with the mudguards, this statement could have been put in as of right and therefore it will exercise its discretion in favour of it being put in. But again there may be courts, and perhaps some judges, who would be stricter than others about the best evidence rule, and would say that if somebody knows something about a matter he should come and tell the court and that the court should not rely on any hearsay statement at all. Some courts may say that, notwithstanding the fact that the sales manager had not been called and this hearsay statement could come in as a right, nevertheless as the sales manager was present the court should hear what he has to say about it and not admit the hearsay statement at all. The plaintiff company would then be in the position in which they would have lost the only piece of evidence they could call as to the fact that the car was sold in the first place.
In these four Amendments I have attempted to deal with the matter in this way. If the sales manager is called to give evidence about the original sale of the car, then both Clauses 2 and 4 should stay as they are, with the same rule as is in them now; but if he is called incidentally to give evidence about something else, there should be rules of court which could, if necessary, make some differentiation from the strict rule in Clauses 2 and 4. The rules would possibly be complex. The complexity of the matter is such that I do not think that proper criteria could be put in the Bill itself, but this is just the sort of thing rules are for, and they can be changed if they seem to be wrong. I would suggest that, instead of tying the whole of this situation to the strict rule in the Bill, we ought to relax it a little so that in these circumstances a plantiff who wishes, perfectly properly, to rely on hearsay evidence, may not find, when the matter gets to court, that he does not know whether he
1458
will be able to put it in or, if he is unlucky about the view the court takes, that he will not be able to put it in.
This is a practical problem, which is not quite so obscure as it may sound to your Lordships as I have explained it. I should be grateful to the noble, and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he could tell me what solution he may have to this. Perhaps it is in the Bill already, or perhaps we need an Amendment. I apologise for not putting these Amendments down on Committee stage, but at that time I had not fully appreciated the difficulties that might arise. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, after ("made") insert ("if that person is called in order to give evidence as to the matters contained in the statement").—(Viscount Colville of Culross).
5.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that with this Amendment there should be discussed the three following Amendments. Their object, as I understand it, is to exclude the court's discretionary powers to admit or reject an out-of-court statement the maker of which is called, or proposed to be called, by the party seeking to adduce the statement in order to give evidence from the witness box, but only on matters not dealt with in the statement.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, with respect, it is not to remove the court's discretion. It is to allow rules to be made which may produce a different exercise of the discretion in different circumstances. I have not gone so far as to suggest that the court should have no discretion. I am simply saying that the court should not have in the Bill a discretion every time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is saying that we will not have any discretion in the Bill; we may or may not let the courts have discretion by rules.
As drafted, the Bill makes the admissibility of such statements subject to the court's discretion. If the statement is not a "record", it is the calling of the maker which renders it admissible only at the discretion of the court. In the case of a record, the discretionary powers of the court arise only if the informant, as

1459
opposed to the recorder, is called (or proposed to be called), as a witness; in either case the statement cannot, unless the court otherwise directs, be put in before the conclusion of the maker's—or informant's, as the case may be—examination-in-chief. In any event, the admissibility of the statement is subject, under the Bill, to the notice and counter-notice procedure. The reasons for bringing in the court's discretion are set out in paragraphs 35 to 39 of the Law Reform Committee's Report, which make it clear that there was a division of opinion about this—and I will refer to that later. The Bill implements the majority recommendation that such statements should be admissible if the court in its discretion so allows, subject to the conditions referred to above.
The noble Viscount's proposals are based on the principle that, where the witness, or potential witness, is called to give evidence of some matter entirely divorced from the contents of the statement, there is no point in bringing in the court's discretion. In particular, the party concerned may either (i) have served, in respect of the statement, a notice which has provoked no counter-notice; or (ii) whether or not a counter-notice has been provoked, be in a position to show that the maker of the statement (or the informant in the case of a "record") cannot be expected to have any recollection of the matters stated. In the example of the car hire-purchase which the noble Viscount took, the position under Clause 4 is that the plaintiff can give notice of his intention to rely on the statement recorded by the clerk and (as long as he does not call the manager) can adduce it as of right if either (i) the defendant does not give a counter-notice, or (ii) the plaintiff can show that the manager cannot reasonably be expected to remember the details of the transaction. As I follow it, the noble Viscount argues that the plaintiff should not be prejudiced in adducing the statement merely because he wishes to call the manager to give direct evidence of the condition of the car.
At first sight, this seems an attractive argument, but I suggest that the noble Viscount's Amendments would lead to considerable difficulty, because, first, although there may be some cases where
1460
it is perfectly clear that the evidence the plaintiff wants the manager to give from the witness box has nothing to do with what is contained in the statement recorded by the clerk on the manager's information, this will not always be the case; the distinction is likely in many cases to be blurred. Secondly, it is probably anyhow difficult enough for the plaintiff to say, at the beginning of the trial, whether he intends to call the manager at all. To say that he intends to call the manager to give evidence of fact A but not of fact B may well be impossible. In the example the noble Viscount has taken the plaintiff may not know until the clerk has been cross-examined whether he needs to call the manager to say what the details of the transaction were, and it is almost certainly more convenient to all concerned for the plaintiff to prove the terms of the hiring before proving the subsequent condition of the goods on their return.
Moreover, the noble Viscount's Amendments are aimed at a difficulty which it is thought will not occur. Irrespective of the court's discretion, the manager will almost certainly be able to use his recorded statement to refresh his memory, and, if there is any real controversy about its accuracy, it will be put in evidence and, under Clause 3, become evidence of the facts stated. The manager will in most cases have had to use a note to refresh his memory about the condition of the goods on their return. Secondly, and more importantly. the court will, in its discretion, let the statement be put in at whatever is the most convenient moment, unless there is any good reason for refusing. The noble Viscount's Amendments are directed at a comparatively unusual case. The underlying assumption of the Bill is that, where the admissibility of a statement is made dependent on the discretion of the court, that discretion will be exercised sensibly. If that assumption were not well founded, the Bill would he unacceptable in toto.
The second Amendment is intended to leave it to rules of court to provide for the time at which a statement may be admitted in a case such as that to which the noble Viscount referred. It is not easy to see how this could work in practice. In some cases the natural order in which the plaintiff's story is told will require the statement to be put in before the maker

1461
or informant is called; and this is particularly likely to happen when the statement is contained in a written "record". In other cases, this will not be so. The circumstances are so various that the rules could do little more than leave it to the discretion of the court, which is what the Bill as drafted already does.
The second Amendment also enables rules to provide for "any discretion of the court subject to which" a statement is to be admitted if the maker is called to give evidence on some point other than that dealt with in the statement. The precise significance of these words is not readily apparent. If the noble Viscount's object is to make the statement admissible as of right (subject only to compliance with the notice and counter-notice procedure), it is inconsistent with this object to bring in any further discretionary powers of the court. If this is not his object, there seems no point in his Amendments, since the Bill already gives the court discretionary powers. I am myself always strongly in favour, as cases differ so much, where necessary, of leaving things to the discretion of the court. The majority view of the Committee was expressly in these terms. They said that they consider that, whether consistent or inconsistent with the witness's oral testimony, a previous statement made by him should be admissible at the judge's discretion, which could be exercised where circumstances justified his taking this course. They attach considerable importance to conferring on the judge a residual discretion to admit statements as evidence of the facts which they tend to establish; and they give various reasons why, for example, a statement by an eye-witness shortly after the event may be more accurate than his recollection at a trial some time afterwards.
My Lords, I confess to a prejudice in favour of the view of the majority of the Committee, because I do not believe in the law of evidence at all. In a sense (I am not going to say that I am disappointed with this Report, because it is a magnificent Report), the Report itself is very complicated. What is said in this House is on record, and I will go on record as saying that I am quite sure that within twenty years we shall have no law of evidence at all. Most legal systems do not—all those that follow the Napoleonic Code. A French judge
1462
is astounded to find what a rigmarole our law of evidence is. He listens to whatever is put before him, and attaches such weight to it as he thinks fit.
Our existing law of evidence really comes only from the time, not long ago, when no judge was ever allowed to decide questions of fact: he could decide only questions of law. Even when I was called to the Bar, nearly all the injury cases were done by juries in the county courts. You had your county court jury in the days of Martin O'Connor—as no doubt the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will remember—and I think this is just a survival of a time when it was felt that juries might be misled by evidence which was not really reliable. Hence the hunt for the best evidence, no hearsay, and so forth. Therefore, if I have any choice, I naturally personally favour, on a point like this, which would hardly ever arise, leaving it to the judge's discretion, and not to omit that provision in the Bill and say, "Later on, if it is not too complicated, we might give him some discretion under the rules". It is for those reasons that I respectfully ask the House to reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:
My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, but I have one thing to say about it—it may be because I misheard him, but it is also possible that the noble Lord has missed one point in the Bill. I cannot believe that to be so, but it seemed so to me from what he was saying. If he would accept for one moment that circumstances such as I describe could occur, then, as he rightly said, in the course of telling the story to the court it would certainly be sensible to introduce the matter of the sale of the car before the condition in which it was when it came back was dealt with. Under the Bill that cannot be done.
If the noble and learned Lord would be so good as to look at Clause 4(2), he will see that if the plaintiff is going to call the sales manager to deal with the question of the condition of the car, then the statement by the clerk about the sale of the car is certainly allowed to be put in at the court's discretion. But, under paragraph (b), it cannot be put in before the end of the examination-in chief of the sales manager. Now, he is

1463
going to be called to deal with the condition of the car. What the noble and learned Lord said was that the natural course of events is to have the hearsay statement by the clerk in beforehand. But, as I understand it, if you look at the word "and", between paragraphs (a) and (b), this is exactly what you cannot do with the Bill drafted as it is.
I am not asking for one moment that the House should accept that my Amendments are correct. Very few of my Amendments ever are, and I should not be surprised if the same were true on this occasion. But I believe that, if the noble and learned Lord is really the convert he has confessed himself to be, he must upon examination of this matter come to the conclusion that—perhaps in the rare circumstance—this Bill is too tightly drawn and that a further relaxation (how this is to be done I do not know) ought to be provided in it. Indeed, I have no idea what the case would be if the statement had already gone in and then the plaintiff called the sales manager, because that would break every axiom underlying, not only the Report of the Law Reform Committee but Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill. I do not know what would happen in this situation, and I should have thought it essential that this matter should be considered a little more. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, with his usual courtesy, will do that.
Perhaps he could also consider this. I am not altogether concerned with the question of what happens at the hearing. I have no doubt whatever that the courts will exercise their discretion in a sensible fashion; again, they always do. But there is the point about the preparation of the case. How does the plaintiff know what he is going to be able to do in the second circumstance, where there are the two points in evidence that had to be given? How does he know, when he gets to the door of the court, whether he will be able to prove the hearsay statement?
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could consider this. Would it be possible for this matter, if it is clear enough at any rate, to be dealt with at an interlocutory stage outside the court and before the matter comes up for hearing? If the Master could exercise the discretion, at least in a clear case,
1464
then when it came to the hearing a great deal of time would be saved. The plaintiff would know where he was. And if, as the noble and learned Lord agreed, the situation would be that, if it were not for the manager being called to prove something else the hearsay statement could have gone in anyway, then in practice it will in fact go in anyway as all right; and what I am seeking to achieve will probably have been achieved. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord (I know that this is the Report stage, and I cannot invite him to speak again) would, if I withdraw the Amendment, look at those two points, because I still think that there may be something in them and that they are not altogether fanciful. If the noble and learned Lord would do that, I would certainly at this stage beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may, with the leave of the House, speak again before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say that I do not think the point is sound, because both subsection (2)(a) and subsection (2)(b) of Clause 4 expressly make the admission of the statement subject to the discretion of the court. But I will certainly consider the matter. I do not know whether it is proper for me to ask whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, as Chairman of the Committee, would wish to assist the House on this matter at all.
LORD PEARSON: Yes, my Lords. I was much impressed with the extreme lucidity with which the noble Viscount was able to explain this rather intricate matter. I think I ought to say that what the Committee mainly had in mind in dealing with this matter was to preserve, so far as possible, the usual method by which evidence is given orally on any matter which is in dispute. The important thing was to prevent a witness from handing in his mere proof of evidence, instead of giving his evidence orally. It is very important, to operate the usual system of oral evidence, that the witness should give his evidence-in-chief without being able to read it out from some previously prepared document, which may have been well or ill prepared, fairly or unfairly prepared; and that is the main object of the special provisions, the special safeguards, for the case in which the maker of the statement is himself called to give evidence.

1465
I should not have thought that any serious difficulty is likely to arise in a case like this. If there is a written record of what happened, and some witness, who has himself either made the record or been responsible for it by giving the information on which it is based, is going to be called, I should not have thought that there was any substantial risk of that written record not being permitted to be given in evidence. It would be the most obvious case, I should have thought, for the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of that record being admitted. So I should not have thought there was great risk. On the other hand, if I may say so, I was impressed by one of the last observations which the noble Viscount made: that it is important for the party to know in advance of the trial whether or not he can rely on certain evidence. I think it might be advisable to consider whether there should be a power at the interlocutory stage for such a record to be admitted, that is to say, for an interlocutory decision that such a record can be admitted at the trial.
Also, I should like to say that I was impressed by what the noble Viscount said, that it is desirable to have these rather complicated matters settled, so far as possible, by rules of court, rather than by Act of Parliament. I think it might be right to give a little more consideration to that aspect of the matter. The obvious advantage of rules of court is that they are more of an experimental character than statutory provisions can be, and if it is found that they do not work in practice they are relatively easily altered. I think that, with a Bill of this kind, which has to be to a considerable extent of an intricate character, there is something to be said for considering that aspect of it.
May I say, in defence of this Bill, in so far as it is based on the Committee's proposals, that we are here dealing with a subject which has been developed partly in the ordinary Common Law manner, and partly also by Statute, over a period of two or three hundred years, and the existing state of the law has considerable complexity. And I do not see how in this Bill, which is seeking to alter it, one could have hoped to get anything very simple. But what matters is not simplicity in the form of the Bill itself, but simplicity in the ultimate operation of the provisions; that when the provi-
1466
sions are put into operation one does have a hope that they will work in a relatively simple manner. I should have thought there was something to be said for considering whether some provision should be made in the Bill for rules of court to be made; and perhaps they should go a little further than they do now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Admissibility of statements produced by computers used for put poses of any regular activities]:
5.31 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I invite your Lordships to consider at the same time Nos. 6, 7 and 8. These linked Amendments substitute, for the provision in the Bill whereby immaterial defects in a computer are to be disregarded for the purpose of ascertaining whether the computer was operating properly, a provision whereby it becomes a condition precedent to the admissibility of a computerised statement that throughout the material period the computer was operating properly or that, if it was not operating properly, any defect in its operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents.
The Amendments are designed to meet points raised on Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Your Lordships may remember that he criticised Clause 5 on the following two grounds. The first was subsection (1)(a) requiring the computer to have been operating properly at the time when the document was produced. This might be argued, not be the only relevant time, since the production of the document might follow some material part of the operation of the computer at a considerable interval, and what really mattered was whether the computer had been operating properly throughout the period during which the information from which the statement was derived had been processed. Particularly in a case in which, as was common practice, a computer l ad been used to "up-date" records, a defect occurring long before the eventual printout was produced might have affected the accuracy of a statement contained in that print-out.
Second, the noble Viscount argued that subsection (4)(d) enables an immaterial defect to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether a computer was operating properly. In practice, he said, this would mean that the computer party would be the sole judge of whether a defect was immaterial, because he would simply certify that the computer was operating properly and his opponent would never even know that there had been any question of defective operation. He thought that the opponent ought to be informed of the defects, so that if, in the light of such expert knowledge as he might have, he thought they were not immaterial he could make use of that knowledge.
The Amendments meet the noble Viscount's first point entirely. The new paragraph inserted in Clause 5(2) makes it a condition of admissibility of the computerised statement that the computer was operating properly throughout the material period, or, if it was not operating properly, that any defect was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents. Thus, the party seeking to put in the computerised statement will have to prove these facts, which he may do either by calling evidence of somebody responsible throughout the period for the operation of the computer or by putting in a certificate from such a person (or several such persons) under subsection (3). He will thus have to cover the operation of the computer over the whole of the relevant period.
The Amendments go most of the way to meet the noble Viscount's second point. They do not, however, go so far as to require the computer party to set out in terms every respect in which the computer was defective and which he contends was immaterial to the issue. To do this would be impracticable and could only lead to a waste of time and money. Moreover, even if the computer party could comply with such a requirement, in 99 cases out of 100 it would be of no real value to his opponent to learn that the computer had suffered from defects which he would almost certainly be incapable of understanding. In all such cases it would be desirable to require the computer party to state in his notice
1468
under Clause 8(2)(a) whether he is contending that (i) the computer operated properly throughout or (ii) although it was defective, the defects were immaterial. If that were done, the rules could also entitle the opponent to ask for particulars in the second case. In practice, however, such particulars would probably be useful only in the exceptional cases where the opponent is in a position to assess the importance of any defects of which particulars might be given.
I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that this Amendment and the following Amendments clearly meet his point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for these Amendments, which certainly meet my point. In so far as the noble and learned Lord suggested that my second point had not been entirely met, I do not think I agree with him. I would certainly not suggest that one should be required to give in every case a complete history of all the troubles and tribulations (if there had been any) of the computer throughout the period, whether it was material or not. All I wish is to do very much what the noble and learned Lord has just said.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in thanking both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the great consideration given to this clause and the possible dangers of computers, perhaps I might bring to the attention of the House (if your Lordships are not already acquainted with it) the fact that, although the possible dangers of computers have not, I think, been the subject of any case decided in our courts, they are the subject of an important case in fiction. The case was tried by Mr. Justice Squirrel in the year 1963. It is the case of Haddock v. The Generous Bank Limited and Others. It would be wrong for me to go into the details of the case, but among the parties, apart from the Bank, were the computer itself, the company from which it was hired and the Central Electricity Board. The facts were these. Mr. Haddock wished to buy a flat. The property company

1469
asked for a banker's reference. Mr. Haddock's bank referred this request to their computer, which issued the following three messages:
"Mr. Haddock's account is overdrawn in the sum of £51,000 7s. 3d. The market value of the securities he holds is £2 0s. 8½d. What is more, he owes the Inland Revenue £159,000 6s. 2d."
My Lords, all these statements were inaccurate. This was caused by the fact that the computer was consulted about the time of the mid-day meal and many people had turned on their electric cooking apparatus, with the result that the voltage fell below the safety level of the computer. The defences were ingenious. The bank said that they were not liable for the action of their servant, the computer, because it could not be their servant since they were unable to exercise any control over it. The company which supplied the computer said there was nothing wrong with the computer (which was true) and the Central Electricity Board—I need hardly say—had a statutory defence. In those circumstances, the court decided that if you brought a thing as dangerous as a computer on to your premises the stern doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher must be held to apply, and the person who so brought the device on to his premises was under an absolute liability for the consequences.
There is one passage in the judgment which I wish to read to the House:
"As we have seen, the suggestion that these monsters are 'infallible' can hardly be sustained. Nor is it only such physical accidents as a reduction of voltage that weaken the claim. Given a mass of correct and relevant facts the machinery may produce the right answer to the questions put much sooner than the human mind, and the nature of that answer is uncontrollable by puny men. But given a mass of erroneous information its answers must be wrong, for it is not capable, like man, of distinguishing between the false and the true; yet it would still, within the limits of the facts available to it, be giving a correct, and, if the word be appropriate, an honest answer. It is proper then, to imagine what would follow if unscrupulous, ambitious, persons deliberately fed into a machine which had won the public confidence information which was untrue or twisted."
The wording of that judgment is not unworthy, I think, of a speech in this House, sitting in its judicial capacity; and against the dangers to which the judgment calls attention I believe that the learned draftsman and the noble and
1470
learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have done their best to guard us.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment has been covered in the preceding argument. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("and") and insert—
("( ) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was cut of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its consents; and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the same observations apply to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, leave out from ("device") to end of line 33.—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the same observations apply to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 14, leave out from ("equipment") to end of line 20.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Rules of Court]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2)(a), to leave out "recording or production of the statement" and insert:
"or recording of the statement or, in the case of a statement falling within section 5(1) of this Act, of any person who was in any manner so specified concerned as mentioned in section 6(3)(c) of this Act".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and to invite your Lordships to consider with it Amendment No. 10. They are linked Amendments which require rules of court made under Clause 8(2)(a) to provide that a "computer party" is to include in his notice particulars of any person who was (in such manner as may be specified by the rules) concerned with the

1471
supply of information to the computer or with the operation of the computer or any equipment by means of which the document containing the relevant statement was produced by the computer.
These Amendments meet a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on Second Reading. He criticised Clause 8(2)(a) on the grounds that it referred, in the case of a computerised statement, only to persons connected with the production of the statement and thus excluded those concerned with the earlier stages, such as the supplying of information or the operation of the computer before the document was produced. This criticism I thought was well founded because of the narrow sense in which "production" is used in Clause 5. Accordingly the Amendments bring in those who were concerned with the earlier stages. They do this by attracting the formula used in Clause 6(3)(c), which requires the court, in estimating the weight to be attached to a computerised statement, to have regard to the question whether anybody concerned from the beginning to the end had any incentive to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The substantive Amendment is the Amendment to Clause 8(2)(a); the Amendment to Clause 8(2)(b) is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 43, leave out ("recording or production of the statement") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for these two Amendments. I hope he will allow me to comment that in fact it was not only on Second Reading that I dealt with this matter and also the matter covered by the previous group of Amendments; I had one of my ineffectual efforts to produce Amendments which would have these effects. I agree that these Amendments are much preferable. They entirely meet the point, and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has moved them, or at any rate the first of them.
I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could say one other thing in a moment. There is no Amendment down, either in his name or in
1472
mine, to Clause 10 at this stage, but there is still an unresolved matter which the noble and learned Lord said he would look at—that of a peculiarly abstruse type of computer problem relating to the definition of visual and non-visual productions of computers. I hope he will say that this matter is still under consideration, because I believe that somewhere in the Bill and at some stage—it may be in another place—something may have to be done about it. But I am quite content if it is still being thought about with the necessary experts. I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord could say what has happened.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I have the permission of the House to speak again, may I say that that matter is still under consideration. The fact is that my computer expert has been overwhelmed with work and I have not been able to get the benefit of his advice, but we have the point still in mind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the preceding Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 10, leave out from ("connected") to ("and") in line 11 and insert ("or concerned as aforesaid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Admissibility of certain hearsay evidence formerly admissible at common law
In this subsection "admission" includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise.
(3) In any civil proceedings a statement which, if this Part of this Act had not been passed, would by virtue of any rule of law mentioned in subsection (4) below have been admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein shall be admissible as evidence of that fact by virtue of this subsection in so far as that statement is not capable of being rendered admissible as evidence of that fact under section 2 or 4 of this Act.
(4) The rules of law referred to in subsection (3) above are the following, that is to say any rule of law—
5.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to omit from subsection (2), "In this subsection 'admission' includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise", and the whole of subsection (3). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if it is possible, these two Amendments—I should again like to speak to both—raise a point of even greater difficulty than the first four I dealt with, but I may be able to explain it slightly more briefly. Clause 9 deals with a number of Common Law rules of evidence which constitute exceptions to the present hearsay rule. What the clause does in subsections (1) and (2) is to say that the rules listed in subsection (2) shall be preserved as they are now, and then it goes on, in subsections (3) and (4), to say that certain other Common Law exceptions to the hearsay rule shall be preserved as they are now except in so far as they are dealt with under Clause 2 or Clause 4.
This clause, like the rest of Part I of the Bill, is not drafted by the Committee itself, who did not produce a draft for their Thirteenth Report; but they dealt with the matter in paragraph 42, and, preceding that, paragraph 41. I have looked very hard indeed but have failed to find any distinction made by them in those paragraphs between the two sorts of Common Law rules dealt with in the two parts of Clause 9. Indeed, in paragraph 42, the first of the rules which they illustrate, admissions made by the parties to the suit or their agents in that behalf, appears in the list in subsection (2), so it is going to be admissible as of right in any event, as before. But the other three instances which they give appear for some reason in subsection (4), where they are going to be admissible henceforth only if they are not dealt with and to the extent that they are not dealt with by Clauses 2 and 4. I fail to understand the distinction, unless it be one of tidiness.
I think that this matter can best be illustrated, if I can only get this exceedingly difficult matter right, by reference to a pedigree case, which occurs in subsection (4). As I understand the rule in Common Law at the present moment, as evidence of the fact that your great-aunt was married you are allowed to
1474
call your mother to say that she was there at the time. You may also call your mother to say that it was the reputation in the family that great-aunt was married. You may also call somebody who is not a member of the family to say that it was the reputation in the neighbourhood where great-aunt lived that she was married. What you cannot do is to call somebody who is not a member of the family to say that he heard from somebody else or from great-aunt. that she was married.
These rules are immensely difficult, and I do not believe that anybody truly understands the full extent of them. There is a difficult case called Sheddon v. The Attorney General, which appears in the Law Journal, Probate Divorce and Admiralty Reports, volume 30, at page 217, and there is a most interesting passage, I think in the course of argument, by Sir Cresswell Cresswell, beginning at the bottom of the right hand column of page 231, and I hope that that says what I have told your Lordships.
My argument is this. Supposing that I wished to call my mother to say that she heard that her great-aunt was married and it was the general reputation in the family, this is not a case which is caught, as I understand it, by Clause 2, because it is not hearsay of any one given sat of facts, but it is a statement relating to common parlance in the neighbourhood or in the family which cannot be pinned down sufficiently to turn it into a statement which is covered by Clause 2. As I understand it, that situation will continue to be dealt with under the Common Law rule, and no notice and counter-notice procedure will have to be undertaken.
If, however, I wish to call my mother to say that she was at the wedding, or if I wish to produce a statement by my mother that she was at the wedding, then I can do that only in two ways: I can either call my mother, or I can show that she is dead, or that for some other reason under the counter-notice procedure in Clause 8(2)(b) she cannot come to give that evidence. The situation as to the stranger to the family is much the same, because I would still he able to call the stranger to the family to show that the reputation in the district where he lives was that great-aunt was married.
In some cases now we are to have the notice and counter-notice rule, and in some cases we are not. I think that in most of the cases where the notice and counter-notice rule will be applicable, certainly in pedigree matters, the person who made the statement will not in fact come, because the only circumstances in which the statement could be given are also circumstances which would operate the procedure whereby under Clause 8(2)(b) that person could not be called. The most notable, of course, is that the person is dead.
So therefore, although we have the whole rigmarole of Clauses 2 and 8 being involved in this matter we shall not get the witness before the court at all; and therefore, as I understand it, the only advantage of making a separate list in Clause 9(4) is that in some cases my opponent will have noticed that I am going to put in, or seek to put in before the court, a certain first-hand, secondhand or even third-hand hearsay matter relating to the pedigree, and he will therefore have an opportunity to call counteracting evidence because he knows about it.
In the cases where the evidence is most likely to be correct, such as a statement that my mother was at the marriage, or the statement of a member of the family who was at the marriage, which is more likely to be correct than a statement of a stranger as to the reputation, it would be in the first case only that my opponent will have notice. In the case of the more dubious type of evidence, perhaps that of reputation, there will be no notice and counter-notice procedure, and my opponent will have no notice to put him on his guard.
With the greatest respect to those who drafted this Bill, I should have thought that this was making it more complicated than is necessary. If the rules, such as they may be, which have governed these matters heretofore have not been criticised by the Law Reform Committee in their Thirteenth Report, as I believe is the case, then why not leave them alone? Why not leave the present rules on these matters to operate as they have done before, instead of complicating them by in some cases, and not in others, insisting upon the notice and counter-
1476
notice procedure whether in fact it results in anybody being brought to give evidence or not?
Therefore, I have sought to amalgamate the list of rules in subsection (4) with the list of rules in subsection (2). The result of that would be that all these rules would be governed by the existing rules of law, and not by the notice and counter-notice procedure which precedes them in this Bill. The second Amendment is purely consequential. I should be glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say in support of what seems to me to be an illogical and probably a most tiresome distinction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, leave out lines 12 to 22.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
5.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount has the habit of raising most complex points on what is admittedly a complex Bill, and it will take me a little time, I think, to deal with this Amendment. The two Amendments, this and the following one, would make hearsay evidence which is admissible under any of the Common Law rules referred to in Clause 9 admissible under the Bill independently of the "procedural safeguards". As drafted, the Bill draws a distinction between evidence admissible (a) under the rules described in Clause 9(2) and (b) under those described in Clause 9(4): the former is admissible independently of the procedural safeguards; the latter is so admissible only to the extent that it is not covered by Clause 2, first-hand hearsay, or Clause 4, records.
Clause 9, save in so far as it covers admissions, is based on paragraph 42 of the Law Reform Committee's Report, which recommends the preservation of the Common Law rules under which second-hand hearsay is admissible. Such evidence would not be covered by Clause 2 nor, unless it constituted a "record", by Clause 4 and, without Clause 9, would be totally excluded by Clause 1. The policy underlying the Bill is that all the Common Law rules under which hearsay is admissible should be superseded by the Bill and subjected, where appropriate, to the procedural safeguards provided by the notice and counter-notice system.

1477
Those safeguards cannot be applied to the types of hearsay covered by Clause 9(2)(b), (c) or (d), because it would be impracticable to ascertain whether they were first-hand, second-hand or more remote hearsay and, in any event, the public nature of the documents in question makes the notice procedure inappropriate.
Clause 9(4), however, covers evidence of reputation, and such evidence, which can include first and second-hand hearsay, may be admissible to prove the existence of the reputed fact—such as a marriage, a genealogical issue in a pedigree case, or a public or general right. The existing Common Law is highly technical and, particularly in pedigree cases, obscure. The main rules are these. First, a witness may give direct evidence of reputation as to any of the matters covered by Clause 9(4); for example, the existence of a marriage. Secondly, the declaration of a deceased person as to such reputation can be proved, subject to the qualification which I will mention shortly, in pedigree cases. Thirdly, except in pedigree cases, no such declaration is admissible if it relates to a specific fact, as opposed to general repute, from which the reputed fact might be inferred. Fourthly, in a pedigree case, the declaration of a deceased person is admissible either as to general family repute or as to a specific fact, but only if the declarant was a member of the family.
Lord Colville's Amendments would preserve these rules as they stand, whereas the Bill as drafted, first, does away with the need to distinguish between members of the family and strangers when considering the admissibility of first-hand hearsay relating to a pedigree issue; secondly, does away with the distinction between pedigree and other cases relating to the admissibility of statements of specific facts as opposed to reputation; thirdly, renders all statements of fact which the maker could have given from the witness-box admissible subject to the notice and counter-notice procedure, thus letting in statements by persons who are still alive but who are either unavailable, or not the subject of a counter-notice, or in respect of whom the court exercises its residual discretion.
The noble Viscount's Amendments would not simplify the law: it would
1478
remain necessary for the party seeking to put in an out-of-court statement to take into account these Common Law distinctions for the purpose of deciding whether a notice was necessary. Under the Bill as drafted the party's task is simpler: he has only to resolve the question, "Am I calling "X" to speak of his own knowledge as to what the general reputation was, or am I calling him to prove either what "Y" told him of the general repute or what "Z" told him about a specific fact relevant to the reputed fact?" In the former case, no notice is necessary; in the latter, notice must be given.
As to the information of the marriage in the example which the noble Viscount took, I would respectfully suggest that the argument is not a sound one. If one takes a person who is going to say that when he was young the family reputation was that the marriage had taken place, the reason why his evidence of repute does not require a notice is that a notice could not do any good. It could not sufficiently identify either the original sources of the reputation or the occasion on which the relevant statements were made. But this is not true of the person who can say that when he was young another relative, now deceased, had told him that he had been present at the wedding, nor does the fact that that person is dead make a notice useless. It enables the opponent to ascertain before the trial whether that person was a reliable person or somebody who had contradicted himself on the matter so that his statement could be challenged by calling evidence under Clause 7.
As to the contention that the plaintiff could get round the notice by getting the last person referred to to tell his story to somebody else—which I rather gather the noble Viscount was suggesting—that, on the authorities, would seem to be wrong. The current law would not let him recount what the other person had told him, because a declaration as to a specific fact or as to general repute is admissible only if the declarant is dead. For those reasons, I would advise the House not to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think it is very plain that this is not an easy matter. I should like carefully to study what the noble and learned Lord has said before I attempt to come to any conclusion upon this

1479
matter. I agree that he has set out a number of advantages, and indeed changes in law, which would ensue from making certain of the present rules into cases which are covered by Clauses 2 and 4. At the same time, he has not dealt with my point about actually getting the best evidence. In almost every case, if not in every case, the net result through the notice and counter-notice procedure will not be actually to produce a witness, but it will be merely to put the other side on notice. I think I am right in saying that he will be put on notice where the evidence is more likely to be right, and not put on notice where the evidence is a matter of reputation—which is therefore much more likely to be something which he would wish to produce evidence to challenge.
The other difficulty which may arise—I hope I am wrong about this—is that I do not believe it has ever before been settled, for the simple reason that it has never had to be, whether the evidence as to reputation is first-hand hearsay, or is second-hand, or indeed is not hearsay at all. If it is found to be first-hand hearsay—and I think that this will require judicial decision, because the Bill does not say one way or the other—then notice and counter-notice procedures will need to be given in those cases as well. The noble and learned Lord said he thought that it was not because the identity of the person from whom the news came and the time and place were not expressly specified. But it will be required to be decided, for sooner or later some party in some case will object to the production of this evidence on the grounds that it is, after all, first-hand hearsay and ought to have been subject to the notice and counter-notice procedure. I think that that is a case which, on the procedural point, will come before your Lordships in another capacity.
There is no question of my pressing the Amendment to-day, but I am not at the moment satisfied that the matter has been completely cleared up. I should like to go away and study what the noble Lord has said, read some more books, and have leave perhaps to deal with it again on Third Reading next week. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
6.8 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, I wish to make a short statement about the position arising from the amendment made to the Bill at the Committee stage on Tuesday. Noble Lords will recall that the Committee carried, against the advice of the Government, an Amendment to leave out the word "permanently" in Clause 1(1) of the Bill. The effect of that Amendment was that, assuming dishonesty, it would be theft to appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of depriving him of it, even if the intention was to take the property only temporarily.
I made it clear when the Committee discussed that Amendment that the Government fully shared the view of the Criminal Law Revision Committee that it would be wrong to make mere temporary deprivation stealing except in the cases specially catered for by Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill. I have carefully studied all that has been said, in this House and elsewhere, in favour of dropping the concept of permanent deprivation, but I have to tell the House that the Government remain of the view that the Amendment was wrong in principle. We believe that the criminal law should be extended only where there is a clear mischief with which it fails to deal, and which it is appropriate to deal with, by a criminal sanction. We do not think, and we cannot believe, that the House, on mature reflection, will think that the person who has taken something in some dishonest way but who intends to return it—and may indeed return it—should, whatever the circumstances, be equated with a thief and that we should set out to extend the law, as the amended Bill would now do, to make theft conduct of this kind which has never been criminal. I must therefore tell the House that the Government will feel bound, when the Bill comes to its Report stage, strongly to advise the House to reverse the Amendment which was made on Tuesday.
My Lords, I thought it right to give the Committee that information, in the interests of both sides. We have clauses and Amendments to them to consider—I refer to Clauses 6, 11, 12 and 15—on which

1481
the Committee might wish to take one view on the assumption that "permanently" was not in Clause 1, and another on the assumption that "permanently" would be restored to Clause 1. The House will have to take its own decision at the Report stage as to whether or not the word "permanently" should be restored, but I have made it clear that the Government will seek to restore it. I hope the House will agree that, without prejudging what will happen at a later stage, it will be in all our interests to have the debates which we should have had on later clauses as if the Amendment to Clause 1 had not been made.
Noble Lords who do not agree with Clauses 6, 11, 12 and 15 as they stand will then have the opportunity of explaining to the Government their criticisms of the clauses, and—although, of course, I can give no undertakings to accept Amendments, either in principle or in detail—the Government will be able to take account of those criticisms before the Report stage in considering whether any changes are desirable to the clauses, on the assumption that Clause 1 will be restored to its original form. If the Committee were simply to take the view that Clauses 6, 11 and 12 should be dropped from the Bill, consequentially on the amendment of Clause 1, and Clause 1 were then restored to its original form at the Report stage, we should, as it were, be "back to square one" on those clauses, and I cannot think that that would be to anyone's advantage.
I hope that noble Lords who voted for the Amendment on Tuesday will temper whatever satisfaction they may feel to the extent of agreeing that this is a reasonable approach to a difficult situation. We have all agreed that our mutual objective is to see that, at the end of the day, the Bill is as right as possible. I have no doubt that we shall best help to get it right if we conduct our further debates at the Committee stage in the way I have suggested. I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has made, if I may say so, a rather tendentious statement. He has referred to the debate that
1482
we had last Tuesday and he has made certain observations with regard to that debate. I do not propose to take up time by going over that ground again, and by seeking to answer the arguments which he has advanced as to whether dishonest appropriation of property should be a criminal offence. It is quite clear that we can argue that when we get to the Report stage.
The noble Lord said that the Government have decided at this early stage that they intend to seek to put back the word "permanently". I am sorry to hear that the Government have so concluded so soon. I cannot help thinking that, when they hear the criticisms that are bound to be advanced to the later clauses to which he has referred, if the Government had anything like an open mind on this matter they might well come to the conclusion that the change which we made last Tuesday is beneficial, as indeed I believe it to be. It is not only in relation to Clauses 11 and 12 that there is an exception to the rule that there must be an intention permanently to deprive. The same exception occurs in Clause 15, 15, and also outside this particular measure in relation to vessels and boats. I remain of the opinion that it would be a considerable simplification, and an advance in the criminal law, to retain the change that we have made. I know that I am not alone in that opinion, and that there are many experienced in the criminal law who share it.
The statement which the noble Lord made kept on repeating what the Government have decided and what the Government are going to do about it. I am sure the noble Lord will recognise that in this particular field, although views may differ, it does not necessarily follow that the Government and the Home Office are best able and best equipped to pronounce upon these subjects.
Secondly, I ask the noble Lord to deal with this point. This is a Bill which was drafted by a distinguished Committee. It contains three clauses inserted by the Government. It is not strictly, in the ordinary sense of the word, a Government Bill. The Government have quite rightly introduced it, and sponsored it as coning from the Committee; but it is quite different from a Bill of the character, for instance, of the Transport Bill, which is a Government Bill in the ordinary sense.

1483
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, at an earlier stage, hoped that Lords of Appeal and other distinguished lawyers would not only make their views known for the Government's consideration, but would seek to improve the Bill.
I should have thought that, although this is a Government-introduced Bill, it is one about which no Party politics can ever arise, and that we ought to approach it, as indeed I have done, on a completely non-Party basis. That means, I should have thought—and I hope the noble Lord can give an assurance about this—that this is really not the kind of Bill on which a Government should seek to make their views prevail, perhaps by keeping their supporters here till a late hour during the Committee stage to vote on Amendments which they may not have heard discussed. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that he agrees that this is not a Government Bill, in the sense in which that term is usually used, and that this is a Bill on which all sections of the House can combine to try to make as good a Bill as possible.
The noble Lord has dealt with what should happen on further clauses. I certainly do not propose to move that those clauses should be left out until after there has been a full consideration of them, because the more they are examined the more I hope the noble Lord will see that the change made last Tuesday was a good change. But I shall seek to remove them from the Bill during the course of the Committee stage, and I think it only fair to tell the noble Lord that.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion, except to make two points. First of all, we will listen, I have no doubt with the greatest interest, when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, seeks on Report stage to reintroduce the word "permanently" into Clause 1. I think he will probably produce arguments which may be based upon the paragraph in the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Report; but I hope that he will be prepared to extend those arguments and spread them out a bit, and perhaps he will also be able to deal with the Canadian situation which was mentioned on Tuesday.
LORD STONHAM: And the Jamaican situation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I did not know whether or not that had, in fact, been implemented. But apart from that, I hope the noble Lord will take some comfort from the fact that I share the view of my noble and learned friend and, even if for the sake of consistency we have in the end at this stage to leave out Clauses 6, 11 and 12 and to do something, at any rate, with Clause 15, I hope that we shall discuss in Committee whether Amendments should be made to those clauses. Then if, subsequently, for the sake of consistency, they are left out, and then the House decides, on Report stage, to restore the word "permanently" in Clause 1, we shall at any rate have an opportunity of discussing the reinsertion of Clauses 6, 11 and 12 in what will perhaps by that time be an agreed form. Therefore, I support the noble Lord in the process that he suggests.
LORD STONHAM: Very briefly, my Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his support, and, having heard him, I do not think there is very much between us with regard to procedure; nor, indeed, between us and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. My object is to secure discussion of these subsequent clauses on which Tuesday's Amendment has a major effect; that is all. I did not intend to make a tendentious statement, as the noble and learned Viscount described it. The first paragraph of my statement merely set out, as I thought, the effect of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment; and that was my only intention.
I entirely agree that this is not a Government Bill in the sense that it is a Party political Bill. No one in his right mind would suggest that. Nor am I suggesting that, distinguished though the Committee is which produced this Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said on Tuesday, we cannot discuss it, or that these things are immutable. I believe the noble and learned Viscount is already aware that later stages of the Bill will prove our willingness to consider suggestions. But with regard to the assurance for which he asked, I agree that it may not be the case that the Government and the Home Office are the

1485
best equipped bodies to deal with this Bill, but the Government and the Home Office have the responsibility, and someone must have the responsibility, of seeing this Bill through Parliament. In that sense we are responsible, and that is the responsibility that we will discharge.
But, my Lords, in case there should be any misunderstanding, may I repeat that during this Committee stage on no Amendment shall we have a closed mind. If it is impossible to accept what noble Lords say, we will say so. If it is impossible for them to agree with us and to withdraw their points, then I suggest that we defer a decision until the Report stage. It may well be that on Clauses 6, 11, 12 and 15 the arguments may be such as to cause us to agree with suggestions, if not in Committee then on Report; but what I now hope is that we can go forward and consider all that is in the Bill at present in the spirit that, together, we are going to get it right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Basic definition of theft
(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.
6.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, to leave out subsection (2). This subsection must be read with Clause 33 of the Bill, which defines what is meant by "gain" as "gain … in money or money's worth …" I may have missed it, but I have failed to find anything in the body of the Committee's Report giving a reason for the inclusion of this subsection. The only reference I can find to this subsection is in Annex 2 to the Report, which contains the notes on the Draft Bill. This is what the note says:
"The subsection will prevent argument that it is not theft to take something which is useless to the taker or to take something with the intention of immediately destroying it."
1486
Usually, throughout these notes, there is a citation indicating the paragraph of the Report in which the matter is dealt with. There is no such citation hero, and that rather confirms my belief—I may have missed it, as I say—that nothing appears about this subsection in the body of the Report of the Committee.
This is going to be a very long Bill if we are going to include in it provisions just to prevent argument arising in the courts, and I think that the inclusion of this provision for this reason, to prevent argument, indicates a weakness that is apparent in other parts of the Bill as well. It should be a Bill, and we want to make it such, which clearly—and I should like to emphasise the word "clearly"—defines the ingredients of the offence to which it relates; and here, in Clause 1, we want a very clear definition of what is the meaning of "theft". But this clear definition has been blurred by attempting, in different parts of the Bill, to provide for particular cases without regard to fundamental principles, and by attempting, as in this subsection, to prevent argument in the courts.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to answer one question. I should like him to say what was the date of the last reported case in which an argument on the lines of that which this subsection seeks to prevent was advanced in the courts. I think it must have been a very long time ago. It is now, I am sorry to say, over forty years since I was called to the Bar, and I cannot recollect a single case in which such an argument was advanced, although the motive with which the theft was committed may be material when considering sentence. Section 1 of the Larceny Act 1916 was intended to reproduce the Common Law, and no one could possibly argue with the slightest prospect of success that the purpose of the theft, the motive for it, was material in determining whether a theft had been committed. It simply was not open on the language age of that section of the Larceny Act 1916. The newest barrister, the newest admitted solicitor, will know that it is immaterial what the motive for the theft was, whether it was for gain or the thief's benefit; and if he does not know that, then he is unlikely to have passed his Bar exams or his solicitor's finals, for it is elementary.
Why, then, is it necessary now to put this provision in the Bill? There is nothing in the definition of "theft" in subsection (1), or in subsection (2), which is a partial definition, to suggest or imply that the motive of the accused is of any relevance in determining whether or not he is guilty of theft. I believe that this subsection is wholly unnecessary. There is no reasoning that I can find advanced in the Committee's Report for its insertion, and I am against inserting unnecessary provisions in a Bill. For that reason, I think it would improve this Bill to leave this provision out.
But I do not argue that it should be deleted solely on the ground that it is unnecessary. Its inclusion is, I think, positively dangerous, for it implies that sometimes the motive with which the accused has acted is material to the question whether he is guilty of theft. The subsection says only:
"It is immaterial that the appropriation is not made with a view to gain, or is not made for the thief's own benefit".
Does not the language of the subsection of itself clearly suggest that if the appropriation is made for gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit, then that is material in determining whether or not his conduct falls within the definition of theft? It would seem to me that that must be so. Under the existing law and under the Common Law, which Section 1 of the Larceny Act 1916 seeks to reproduce, it is not and was not the case that the motive, whether it be for gain, for anyone else's benefit or for the thief's benefit, was relevant.
So it seems to me that, in fact, the insertion of this subsection, far from preventing argument, will indeed give rise to very considerable argument; for it will be argued that Parliament would not have inserted this subsection if it did not regard motive in some cases as material to the question of whether or not conduct falls within the definition of theft. I have put my argument as shortly as I can. I think that every clause of the Bill—and perhaps every word of it—is of very considerable importance. I can see myself that this subsection really serves no useful purpose and, as I say, far from preventing argument, I think it will lead to very considerable argument in the courts, and I believe the Bill
1488
would be much better without it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (21.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
6.33 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: The noble and learned Viscount in moving his Amendment said that we have already a clear definition of theft. In my view, this is an extension of the definition, an extension which he regards as unnecessary and indeed, in his own words, as positively dangerous. But at least as far as the first part is concerned, I believe he is wrong. He asked me to quote the date of the last case of this kind, and said that he had not known of one in his 40 years of experience at the Bar. His memory is not at fault. We cannot say when there was last a case to which this subsection is relevant. But the rarity of cases is no argument against including the subsection to make the Bill a comprehensive statement of the law of theft. All the time we are thinking of a criminal code of which the Theft Bill will form part.
The noble and learned Viscount is right in saying that in the body of the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee there is no reference to this particular matter. It was included in the annex because the Committee regarded this as detail which could be adequately covered in the Bill. On the point of whether the words are necessary, in our view they are essential in order to counter in advance arguments that it is not theft to take something which is useless to the taker, or to take something with the intention of immediately restoring it. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, mentioning on Tuesday the theft of his car, said that his notes were in the car—he managed very well without them, if I may say so—and that they would be no good to him on the following day, even if the car were returned. That was the point that we were on in the first Amendment. But, with great respect, I would suggest that they were useless to the taker.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Hear, hear! They were just legible.
LORD STONHAM: I have tried to read the noble Viscount's writing! But they were useful to the noble Viscount

1489
and of value to him, and indeed of value to this House. Therefore it is quite wrong, in our submission, to argue against the inclusion of these words when they would make a charge of theft stand against someone who took something that was of no value to the taker but which was of value—even if only of sentimental value—to the owner.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not quite follow the noble Lord's argument. Is he saying that if the article is of sentimental value to the owner, the charge of theft should not stand?
LORD STONHAM: I was arguing the other way. The subsection which the noble and learned Viscount wishes to delete reads as follows:
"It is immaterial that the appropriation is not made with a view to gain"—
that is, something of sentimental value to someone but of no other value—
"or is not made for the thief's own benefit."
These are the words which it is proposed to take out. I am giving instances of cases where in our view it ought to be theft if something of that kind is taken. If something has been taken which is useless to the taker, or even if it is taken in a spiteful way with the object of immediately destroying it, it still would have value to the owner, and we think it should be treated as theft.
There is, of course, a case for arguing that the words are not absolutely essential, otherwise the noble and learned Viscount would not have argued it. But we think they are of value in a Bill which is intended to form part of a criminal code. Certainly the Criminal Law Revision Committee regarded them as useful, and we do not think they should be omitted. I must confess that I had not fully considered the point about its inclusion being positively dangerous because of the implication that the thief's motive is material. I should like to consider that argument. I think I have made the case for retention of the words in the Bill as useful, but I will look at the other implication and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be satisfied with the explanation on this occasion.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that he would look at the converse of what is immaterial because I think it is possible that there may be
1490
difficulty here. The only thing I should like to say about this—and I am afraid that I am against the view put forward by my noble and learned friend—is that provided we can make perfectly certain that there is no positive danger in this subsection, I think it is possible, in view of the emphasis that is placed elsewhere in this Bill upon pecuniary gain and loss (although I do not agree with it as being right in every case) that there are cases where it will have to stay in the Bill. I think it may be meritorious to put in this subsection to draw a distinction between theft cases and those other offences where, at any rate, the Committee may come to the conclusion at the end that it is right to keep the pecuniary gain and loss point. I therefore have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in seeking to retain this subsection.
LORD CONESFORD: I have no objection to the principle that is conveyed in this subsection but I was a little puzzled by the part of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that suggested that it was really necessary for the complete definition of theft. That proposition appears to me to involve the further proposition that, if this, subsection were deleted, the theft he has described would not be dishonest appropriation within subsection (1); and I find that rather alarming. I should have thought it would be covered; but, like my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, I have no objection to the subsection.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I listened with the greatest care to what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said. I think it is right to say, is it not, that the Larceny Act 1916 was drafted by Mr. Justice Avory. And I think it is right to say, is it not, that Section 1 of that Act, which contains the definition of "larceny" which subsection (1) of this clause is intended to replace, contains no subsection similar to subsection (2). It was not considered necessary then, and I believe, subject to what I am going to say, that it is not in the least degree necessary now.
I asked the noble Lord whether he could turn to any reported case in which it had been argued that it was material, in considering a theft, whether or not it had been made with a view to gain or

1491
made for the thief's own benefit. The noble Lord cannot refer to a single case in which it has been argued that dishonestly to appropriate something that is useless or is to be destroyed is not theft. The fact that he cannot argue that indicates to my mind—and after all we have had this definition since at least 1916—that there is no likelihood of that argument being advanced in future. Subsections (1) and (2) of the clause define what is meant by theft. If we go on to suggest that certain motives are immaterial, that must imply that other motives are material. I should not object if the noble Lord put in a more general phrase to say that in determining whether or not conduct amounts to theft (I am not trying to draft while on my feet) the motive with which the accused has acted is immaterial, because that would cover all kinds of motive, and motive is immaterial.
I concede that if we keep these words anywhere else in the Bill—and we cannot say yet whether or not the relevant words will be retained; and I think that in most places they should come out—the requirement of proof that certain conduct is criminal depends on whether it is done with the view to financial gain or with a view to financial loss, and there is an argument for retaining in Clause 1 some words to make it clear that the question of motive is irrelevant in considering whether or not conduct constitutes theft. But subsection (2) does not go so far as that. It deals only with particular motives, and I think it has dangerous implications. I welcome what the noble Lord has said. I hope that he will give further consideration to both aspects in relation to this subsection, and that we shall see it in a definite form at a later stage of the Bill. In the light of what he said, I shall not seek to divide the Committee on this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful for what the noble and learned Viscount has said, and I will consider his words. It may be that because the present law does not turn on appropriation but on taking, my advisers have not come up with a case. Certainly a search will be made. I think it could be argued that appropriation could imply a benefit to the appropriator. Nevertheless, we
1492
will have a careful look at this, and maybe by discussion before Report stage we shall arrive at something satisfactory to all concerned.
LORD SILKIN: This is not a question purely of appropriation, but of dishonest appropriation. Therefore I should have thought that some kind of elaboration would be desirable. It could be argued, though probably it has not been argued for at least 40 years, that certain types of appropriation are not dishonest. This is designed, it seems to me, to indicate that whether it is intended for gain or not, it is still a dishonest appropriation. It may be that the words are not as effective as they might be, and I am very glad that my noble friend is to look at this again.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
"Dishonestly"
2.—(1) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, or that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(b) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

(2) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he pays for the property.
6.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a), and insert:
"(a) unless he appropriates the property without claim of right made in good faith".
The noble Viscount said: There is a slight error in the printing of this Amendment. There should be an "a" between "without" and "claim". This subsection is dealt with in paragraph 39 of the Report in the following words:
"But we decided to include the partial definition in Clause 2 to preserve specifically two rules of the present law. The first is the

1493
rule mentioned above, that the claim of right made in good faith is inconsistent with theft. This rule is preserved in different language in paragraph (a) of Clause 2(1)."
That is all they say about it.
I entirely agree that the rule should be preserved, but why completely alter the language in which it is expressed? The Committee gave no reason for that. The Lord Chief Justice said on Tuesday that he believed—and I agree with him—that reform should not be done just for the sake of reform but only if we are satisfied that what we are putting in instead is better than what is already there. I am sure we all agree with that. So the question arises: is the language in the Bill better than that in which the law, which is familiar to nearly all of us, was expressed in 1916? The Committee do not say that it is expressed in better language and give no reason at all for the change. I feel that the change of language not only does not effect an improvement but is a change for the worse. I will indicate why I say that.
Under the law as it stands to-day and as the Committee want it to remain in future, if the accused says bona fide, "I believe I had a right to take this property," then it matters not whether in law he had a right to take that property; he will be acquitted. It has to be a bona fide belief of a claim of right. That is what the Committee want to continue to be part of the law. But now, under the new formula, will it not run like this? If the accused says, and believes when he says it, "I honestly thought I had the right to take this property", will he not be told, "That is not enough; did you believe in law that you had the right to take it?". If he is an honest man he will probably answer: When I took it I did not think anything about the law. I am not a lawyer. I thought that I had a right to take it, and I took it. "What is going to be the position then? If he gives that answer, can it really be said that he has come within the words of this provision, that
"he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it"?
If I be right in thinking that under this wording his honest belief that he had a right to take it will not be sufficient unless he goes on to say that he believed he had a right in law to take it, that honest belief
1494
that he had a right to take it wi1l not suffice to secure his acquittal. I recognise that it was not the intention of the Committee to produce that result; and no one wants that result. But ii seems to me that the language used in this new expression of an old and familiar rule may well produce that result when the matter comes to be discussed in the courts. And when the matter comes to be discussed in the courts, the courts will not be able to refer to the Committee's Report and see what the Committee intended to do. That is one reason why I believe that the rule which the Committee wished to preserve should be preserved in the same language is that in which it has been expressed since 1916 and which is, I think, understood by all those who practise in the law and at the criminal Bar.
Clause 2(1)(a) goes further than to restate in different language the a le that a person who takes property with a claim of right made in good faith is not guilty of theft. It goes on to provide fiat his conduct shall not be regarded as dishonest if he appropriates the property in the belief
"that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it".
I think I am right in saying that no such provision as these last words I have cited appears in the Larceny Act 1916. The Committee do not, in their Report, so far as I can see, give any reason for the inclusion of those words; and they are not unimportant.
I put to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, another question (I am sorry to go on asking him questions, but I will try to give him time to get the answers to them): Is there a decision of the courts on this point, a reported case? I do not believe that there is, but there may be and I may not have found it. I would say to the noble Lord that I do not myself think it is necessary to include these words, unless there is a decision of the courts which indicates that, despite such a belief, the accused could be convicted of theft. I will put it in this way: in the absence of such a decision, I cannot believe that any court would regard a man as acting dishonestly if he appropriated property in the bona fide belief that the owner of it would consent to the appropriation if he knew of it. I cannot

1495
believe that without these words anyone would think that that was dishonest conduct. That being so, I feel that the inclusion of these words is really unnecessary unless there is a case to the contrary effect.
I do not like having words in a Bill which I think are unnecessary. And I think the inclusion of these words is again open (I may be wrong about this) to a little danger. I think that putting this in the forefront of the Bill may lead to this kind of defence being raised in a great many cases where the charge is the theft from someone whom the thief knew. That defence is not frequently run nowadays (and this is another aspect of it), and I feel that putting it in the very beginning of this Theft Bill may encourage people to run that defence in future when there is any theft from someone whom the thief knows.
Believing, as I do, that no court could possibly come to the conclusion that it would be dishonest to borrow property in circumstances in which the thief honestly and bona fide believed that if the owner knew of the circumstances he would consent to the borrowing, I cannot myself think that this is necessary. I have seen the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, receiving very rapid instructions. I do not know whether I have given him enough time, but I will not pursue the matter, because I hope I have said enough to get him to say that he will give serious consideration to this point between now and Report. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) unless he appropriates the property without a claim of right made in good faith").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
6.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I deal with the two points which the noble and learned Viscount has raised on the first point as to a claim of right. A claim of right, of course, means a claim of right in law, and I do not understand why the noble and learned Viscount objects to the words "in law" in the alternative phraseology here put forth. A claim of right does not mean a religious right, a moral right; it means a right in law, and always has. Secondly, I would respectfully agree with him on the second point,
1496
that a judge would not seek to have anybody convicted who had taken something without somebody's consent but in the belief that he would have had the other person's consent if he had known of the appropriation and the circumstances of it. The noble and learned Viscount says: If that is the law, why do we want it expressed here? Here I must say that I admire very much the courage of the noble and learned Viscount in putting down 25 Amendments to this Bill. The Bill was drafted by 17 of the best-known judges and academic lawyers, all of them specially—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Is the noble and learned Lord addressing the Committee?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought there were slightly more here than there are. They spent nine years on this subject. They started in 1959 and took a long time considering whether it was possible to have a Bill which would amend the existing law so as to cure the well-known defects in this branch of the law. They went into it very exhaustively to decide, first, what kind of Bill it ought to be. Then they came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible to do that, and that they must scrub out the existing law and introduce a code in new words which would cover the whole of this field. They having done that, I should have thought it is a brave thing to say on 25 different Amendments: "I know better than they". They thought about every word. They had long arguments, and, indeed, it appears from the Report in most cases that they chose this word rather than that word.
One of the interesting Amendments—I am not undertaking on behalf of the Government to accept it, because it may or may not be the right place to do it in this Bill—and certainly a very important Amendment which has been put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is Amendment No. 58, which says:
"The provisions of this Act"—
this is something new in English law, incidentally—
"shall be interpreted and applied according to the plain and natural meaning of the words used, read in the context of the Act as a whole, and given a fair, large and liberal construction".

1497
Then paragraph (b) states:
"It shall not be permissible in any proceedings upon this Act to refer to any decisions of any Courts prior to the passing of this Act other than decisions dealing in general terms with the interpretation of Statutes".
Then it says the very thing which the noble and learned Viscount said they could not do—and he would be right without this Amendment:
"Reference may be made, for the interpretation of this Act. to the NOTES ON DRAFT THEFT BILL contained in Annex 2 of Command 2977 but this commentary shall be for guidance only and shall have no binding force."
So this is a Bill the whole object of which is to be an entirely new self-contained code of this part of the law. And the suggestion is made that as this distinguished Committee say in their Report why they used one word rather than another, when a judge has to construe the Act it might be sensible that he should be able to look at this, which at the moment in law he is not allowed to do. We shall have to consider, when we come to the Amendment, whether or not that would be a wise thing to do. But here the Committee are clearly using perfectly ordinary English words:
"if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, or that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it …".
That, I suggest, is much more comprehensible to the ordinary person than this curious old legal phrase "a claim of right", which makes it sound as if there has to be a claim. One of the first things one has to explain to the jury is that there does not have to be a claim; the phrase does not mean what it appears to mean. Of course, all lawyers know what it means, because they are used to it; but it is not law in words which ordinary people ordinarily use. Therefore, I hope that, when we consider this matter on Report stage, the House will accept the words of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, rather than those now contemplated by the noble and learned Viscount. But, of course, we shall be quite ready to consider what he has said.
One of the difficulties, of course, about retaining this very old phraseology is that people want to go off to look at the old cases. Really, the object of
1498
this Bill, as I understand it, is to have, so far as possible, a complete code in words which people can understand, and which stand on their own. But we will certainly consider further what the noble and learned Viscount said.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not want to take part in the merits of this discussion, but I want to say one thing to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in relation to a point in his last speech. I think it must be understood that any of us who puts down Amendments to this Bill does so with a feeling that he is being presumptuous to question the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Who am I to say that they were wrong? I fully admit that I have not their experience, I have not their background, and I have not the benefit of the no doubt interminable discussions which took place on each of these matters. But what I wish Her Majesty's Government would realise is that a Report from the Criminal Law Revision Committee is not an Act of Parliament. It would be wholly wrong for this House, and, I venture to think, for another place too, although I must not comment upon that procedure, to take as Holy Writ the words of the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
I do not think that any noble Lord will have put down Amendments in this House in order to show that he knows better, or that he is cleverer, than those who wrote this Report and framed the draft Bill at the end. What we are doing, I venture to suggest, is testing out whether this is right; and in so doing we are doing our job as a House of Parliament. Indeed, if we did not do this job we should be falling short of the duty which is laid upon both Houses of Parliament.
There is one other matter. It is all very well on occasions for Her Majesty's Government and, with the greatest respect to him, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice to say that this is a most valuable Report and the result of much labour. But it will be clearly discerned in the course of this Committee stage that a large number of Amendments are going to be moved which do not agree, and do not disagree, with anything that has been put in their Report by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. A great number of these Amendments will

1499
be upon topics that have not been explained at all in this Report. It is because they have not been explained at all in the Report, apart from our general duty as a House of Parliament, that I, for myself, feel it wholly justifiable that we should put down Amendments and discuss them. Particularly when that is done, I very much hope that the spokesmen for Her Majesty's Government will not continue to say, "It is in the Report, and therefore it must be right whether it is explained or not". Because every time they do so, I shall get up and make this same speech.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nobody is suggesting that the House is not entitled to consider Amendments, and carry Amendments, and of course there are in the Bill some clauses which have been put in which were not in the draft Bill of the Committee at all. All I am suggesting is that, whereas in the ordinary way there ought to be a presumption that whatever is in a Government Bill is wrong, when we are dealing with a matter which has been considered by as distinguished a Committee as this there ought to be a presumption that what is in the Bill is right.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor really cannot have it both ways. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to invite those who are practised in the law, Lords of Appeal, to attend at this late hour and give the benefit of their views and criticisms upon this matter, and then, when one puts down Amendments, which one feels to be important and worthy of consideration (I do not profess always to be right about this) for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to get up and say that it must take a lot of courage to put down so many Amendments. I am grateful for the compliment, but at the same time noble Lords on the Government Benches cannot expect assistance in seeking to make this Bill a really good measure if that is the way in which suggestions put forward are to be treated.
The noble Lord refers to Amendments which are not at the moment the subject of consideration at all. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had
1500
been in another place it would not have been open to him to make a great speech about Amendment No. 58, or any of the other Amendments. I have confined my remarks to this particular Amendment. Then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went on to say that in the Amendment I dealt with—referring to the notes in the Annex to clauses—I was wrong in what I said. With great respect to him, I was not. What I said was that there was not a single word in the body of this Report to explain why the language was changed.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I read out the only passage in the Report that deals with it. I will not read it out again. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that the Committee say why they used one word in preference to another, this is just what they have not done in relation to this change.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that. I said that in many places they had done it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not dispute that in many places they have done this, but we are at the moment discussing one place where they have not. Of course I know perfectly well that when you speak of a "claim of right" you mean a claim of right in law. That is perfectly true. But it does not matter, so far as that offence is concerned. And this is equally true whether that claim of right is well founded or is ill-founded, so long as it is bona fide. I do not want to pursue this point, although I do not think it unimportant. But this is really a matter of language, because there is nothing between what the Criminal Law Revision Committee want to achieve on this and what I want to achieve.
But I do put this other point; and I ask the noble and learned Lord to look at it again. If the question is put, "Did you honestly believe that you had a right to take this property?"—which is the simplest way of putting it—and the man says "Yes", under the existing formula, if bona fide, that would suffice. I think there can be no doubt about that. But if it has to be said: "Did you honestly believe that in law you had a right to take

1501
this property?" that is a complete change of emphasis. I might add to the argument by saying that I think that is dangerous because it may lead to the interpretation that it is not just enough to say, "I thought I had a right to take it".
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to support entirely what has been said on this side of the Committee. I, too, have the greatest deference and regard towards the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and for that reason I have ventured to put down only three or four Amendments to this Bill. Were I an ex-Lord Chancellor I dare say I should have ventured to put down 25 Amendments.
What I cannot understand about paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 2, which this Amendment seeks to leave out, is that that paragraph contains two propositions, and the purpose of it is to say that they are not to be regarded as dishonest. Reading paragraph (a), if you went before any class of secondary schoolchildren and put these two propositions to them and said: "Have any of you any doubts whether this conduct would be honest or dishonest?", I do not believe any of those children would for a moment suggest that either of the propositions in paragraph (a) would amount to dishonesty. If that is right, I cannot see the point of solemnly stating in an Act of Parliament that these two things, which any intelligent child would accept at once as not amounting to dishonesty, are not to be regarded as dishonest. It seems to me that paragraph (a) is in any sense superfluous.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that the Government would look at this again with a view to meeting the points we have raised and would certainly consider them seriously.
LORD STONHAM: I agree, as long as the noble and learned Viscount understands that it is without an absolute commitment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am certainly not asking for a commitment upon it; it is just the way in which it is phrased. There is nothing between us as to what is wanted. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1)(a), after "in the belief that he has", to insert "on his own or another's behalf". The noble Viscount said: Continuing for one moment with the theme of what I said just now—and it is unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord has just left his place—I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that despite what he said I cannot accept the onus which he placed upon those who propose Amendments to this Bill, that it is essential they should show that the wording suggested by the Criminal Law Revision Committee is wrong before there can be any assumption that it should be changed. I do not intend to take that course, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, if he does not agree with the Amendment that I have put down (for reasons other than those of drafting, which I am sure will be good ones) will be so good as to defend positively the wording of the Bill as it stands and say that it is better than the Amendment I am suggesting.
This Amendment is a comparatively small point, but it is another one that the Committee has not specifically explained. The previous expression in the Larceny Act 1916, about which my noble and learned friend has just been speaking, does not require it to be said specifically that a claim of right made in good faith may be exercised on behalf of the person making the claim, or on behalf of somebody else, but the fact remains that at any rate in a case decided in 1962, namely, that of R v. Williams, it was held that a claim of right may be exercised on behalf of some other person and fall within the expression in the old Larceny Act. I have no reason to suppose that that is not so.
One then comes to look at paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 2, and we see that it says:
"if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right …"
Unless I am persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this has been comprehensively considered by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, who have a very good reason to suppose that in what is meant to be a clear restatement of the law "he" means "on his own behalf or on behalf of anybody else", I would

1503
suggest that there would be merit in saying so clearly and explicity in the Bill, because if that is the present law—and I have no reason to suppose that the Government wish to change the law on this point—then I do not believe that the Bill as it stands on this point is a clear restatement of anything at all in this connection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, at end insert ("on his own or another's behalf").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD STONHAM: The insertion of the words proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, would make the subsection read:
"if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has on his own or another's behalf in law the right to deprive the other of it or that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it".
I am not saying that the words of the Criminal Law Revision Committee are better than those proposed by the noble Viscount, but I say that in my view his words do not add anything to the meaning of the paragraph, because the words that he proposes to insert are already sufficiently implied by the phrase,
"in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, or that he would have the other's consent…"
Under the clause as drafted, the action of a person who took property on behalf of someone else, on whose behalf he believed he had a legal right to take it, would not be theft. In our view, therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary, but certainly I will look at it again. If there is found to be a gap in the clause it will be considered, but my present view is that the words are not required.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I will just say this to the noble Lord, if I may, in support of my noble friend, who I think said that the decision in R v. Williams was in 1962. The Criminal Law Revision Committee have been sitting for a long time and whether they had passed this part of their Report before the decision in R v. Williams, I know not. There is no issue of principle between the noble Lord and my noble friend, but it was not until 1962 that we had this decision on the present language "without a claim of right made in good faith".
1504
Until that decision many people thought that was a claim of right made by the person who took it. Even though it be the case that the courts would interpret the words, "that he has in law the right" as meaning that he is exercising a right which he believes someone else has in law, I think that maybe there is some doubt. I would have thought that there was a case here for the insertion of words not necessarily the same words my noble friend has put down, to make it quite clear that the belief may extend to a belief that the person on whose behalf he is appropriating the property has the right to deprive the other of it. I think the noble Lord may be right in saying that it is in fact covered by these words, but I think it is desirable that it should be covered explicitly, particularly after the decision in Williams. It should not be left in doubt, and if I may quote something which appears very frequently in the case of the draft Bill, it will, I think, prevent argument if it is made explicit. At the moment it may be implicit; I am doubtful whether it is. I hope the noble Lord will look at it and insert words on Report to make it explicit.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Will the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, allow me to say at this stage that I do not suppose that there is any elegance in any single one of my Amendments. If he does not like the wording of them, or the way they are expressed, he need not say so: I will assume it to be the case. I have tried to put down a matter of principle in each Amendment to which I am asking the noble Lord to address his mind. On this one, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at it again; but I believe he is a little misled if he supposes that the second half of paragraph (a) has anything to do with this. The situation, as I understand it, is this. "A" has something which "B" takes away. "A's" consent, or his deemed consent, simply does not enter into this at all. The point is whether "B" takes it, thinking that he has a right to do so for himself, or whether he does so thinking that he has a right to do it for his wife. It is if he does so for his wife that I am saying these words are necessary. It may be that in law it is his wife's property he is collecting, and the fact that the person who has it—"A" in

1505
my example—would or would not have given consent if he knew the circumstances really has nothing to do with this. I would ask the noble Lord, when he is thinking about it again, to concentrate on the words "in the belief that he has in law the right" and to leave out altogether the second part of that paragraph. Before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I think that another noble Lord wishes to say something.
LORD WILBERFORCE: I only wanted to make one possible suggestion that the noble Lord might care to have in mind when considering this matter. I am not sure whether it is in the mind of the noble Viscount or not, but it might be the sort of case his Amendment would be required to cover, and, like him, I think it is relevant only to the first part of paragraph (a) and not to the second. It is the case of a company employee, the employee of a bank or someone like that, who takes property in the belief he has the right to take it on behalf of the company. It is not his right, it is the company's right, and he takes the property back, quite legitimately, in the belief that his employer, or whoever it is for whom he is acting, has a right to take it. I feel some doubt whether without some words such as have been suggested that case would be covered. I simply throw that into the discussion, parallel with the case of the wife to which the noble Viscount referred, as something which, one way or another, ought to be taken care of by these words.
LORD AIREDALE: If this paragraph is to be looked at again, since its contains two quite separate propositions and there has been confusion, is not there something to be said for separating them by (i) and (ii) so that it would read: "if he appropriates the property in the belief (i) that…" or "(ii) that…"? In that way you have two separate propositions which cannot be confused.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has a lot to think about on this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out
1506
"reasonable steps" and to insert instead:
"such steps as he believes to be reasonable in the circumstances".
The noble Viscount said: I think I can deal with this Amendment without making too heavy weather of it. It is a problem which can become a trifle intricate. The second defence provided in subsection (1) of Clause 2, unless one takes Lord Airedale's point—at any rate the defence in paragraph (b)—says that a person's appropriation is not dishonest
"…if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps."
It must be immediately recognised that the last part of this phrase is taken word for word from the Larceny Act 1916. But it raises the question as to what "reasonable" means in this context. Is it reasonable in the minds of the jury as being exemplars of what the ordinary man in the street thinks, or is it reasonable in the subjective sense, that this is what the accused thought at the time when he appropriated the property? I do not believe that this is made wholly clear by the insertion of the words "in the belief" at the beginning of the whole phrase.
I should say further that, as I understand it, the existing law is that the test is subjective. The steps which ought to be or could be taken are those which the prisoner believes to be reasonable, and it is not the objective test of what the ordinary man in the street would think in those circumstances. And I look again at Archbold, paragraph 1502, in which reference is made to the case of Thurborn, which was approved later in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I: that is right, I believe that the matter should be put beyond doubt in this clause. And it is all the more important that it should be done if one looks for a moment at Clause 20, where (although I believe there are no Amendments down on this point) we find exactly the same proposition. In that case two terms are used: there is "reasonable" in paragraph (a) and there is "proper" in paragraph (b).
If one looks at what the Criminal Law Revision Committee had to say about blackmail—and this was a matter of much discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill—it really is, I suggest, very far from

1507
clear whether they thought that these matters in Clause 20 were to be governed by the subjective or the objective test. No doubt when we come to that clause the point can be discussed further, but at this stage I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, first: Is it the intention of the Government that it should be a subjective test or an objective test? And if, as I believe to be the case, it is the former, is he absolutely certain that no argument can arise from the way that this Bill is drawn in this particular respect—because again this could give rise to a large amount of litigation and appeals which, if only we were clear and explicit in the Bill, would be avoided. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("reasonable steps") and insert ("such steps as he believes to be reasonable in the circumstances").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful for the very careful explanation which the noble Viscount has given of his reasons for tabling this Amendment, because my reaction otherwise would have been merely to say that the new words add nothing to the meaning of the paragraph, since it is already implicit, in the words
"the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps",
that they should be steps which he believes to be reasonable. The noble Viscount has made this clear by asking the direct question, Is the test of "reasonable" to be a subjective test, and the answer is a very firm, Yes; and we believe that this is embodied in the clause as it now stands.
The noble Viscount mentioned that it should be linked with a similar test in Clause 20. I will not enlarge upon that at the moment, except to say that I agree. But I do not think that the Amendment itself really raises a question of whether it should be a subjective test. Under Clause 2(1)(b) a person's appropriation of property belonging to another (except where the property came to him as a trustee or as a personal representative):
"is not to be regarded as dishonest… if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps."
1508
The test therefore is subjective, because the honest man believed that the owner could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps. Even if we made the change suggested by the noble Viscount, his subsection would still be subjective, as I believe he wants it to be, because it would still be governed by the word "belief". It would then read,
"if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking such steps as he believes to be reasonable in the circumstances."
I can only say again that I think I have answered the noble Viscount's question. We are satisfied that what he wants to achieve is achieved, and that the words which he proposes to insert in substitution for the words "reasonable steps" do not add anything to the meaning or clarify the matter in any way.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I just say a word about this? I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that as this sentence is preceded by the words "in the belief" the whole of what follows would appear to be the application of the subjective test. But I think it is not so much what is the content of the words "in the belief"; the difficulty I see here lies in the use of the word "reasonable" before "steps". Again this is a case where there is absolutely nothing between the noble Lord and my noble friend as to what they seek to achieve. But I must say that, if it be the case at the end of the day that all consideration of authorities bearing on these questions has to be ignored, then I can well understand that there may be argument on the question, independent of the belief, as to whether the test to apply in relation to the steps being reasonable is itself objective or subjective. Does the noble Lord follow me? It is rather a narrow point. It is quite true the man has to believe something. Has he to believe something which he considers are reasonable steps? Or, in determining whether or not there are reasonable steps which can be taken, is the test of that objective? This is different from what follows from the belief.
It is quite clear that the noble Lord wants, and I want, the test to be: "Does the man believe that the owner cannot be discovered by taking such steps as he thinks reasonable, whatever anyone else

1509
may think?" That is what we want. But I greatly doubt whether that appears as clearly as it should in the Bill as drawn. I am not going to suggest re-wording it. I say again that it would be an advantage if this matter could be looked at to make that clear beyond all doubt. I do not think it is at present.
LORD STONHAM: Of course it will be looked at in the light of what has been said. I should have thought that if the accused person acted in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps, the implication must be there that there are reasonable steps that could be taken. That seems to me to be implicit in the clause.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If the noble Lord says that, that there are reasonable steps that can be taken, then that immediately brings in the objective test as to whether or not there are in fact reasonable steps that can be taken. That is the point. It does not matter whether you and I would think that there were reasonable steps that could have been taken. That is not the point we want to secure. The question is whether the accused had a bona fide belief that steps which he considered reasonable would not have produced the person. That is just the difference, and I think that what the noble Lord said indicates that, while our objectives are the same, the language could be made more explicit.
LORD STONHAM: The assumption of the noble and learned Viscount is quite right. We depend on the belief of the person; it is what he thought. I think that the Criminal Law Revision Committee indicated in Clause 20 their view about the objective test, that the difficulty in applying the objective test would be quite insuperable; and it might be so here. But certainly I will look at the point again.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In that case, I have much pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (1)(b):
"and a person's obtaining of property shall, for the purposes of section 15 of this Act, be interpreted accordingly."
The noble Viscount said: This again relates to a matter of wording and clarification. Her Majesty's Government have said on several occasions already that it is essential that we should get this clear and right, and to that end, among other things, they have put in Clause 6, and propose to extend it in accordance with Amendment No. 15. The definition in subsection (2) of "dishonestly appropriates" is partly applicable also to the offences in Clause 15, and if one looks at paragraph 88 of the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee one will see that they intend this to be so. They say:
"In this respect also the offence will be in line with theft, because a belief in a legal right to deprive an owner of property is for the purpose of theft inconsistent with dishonesty and is specifically made a defence by the partial definition of 'dishonestly' in Clause 2(1)(a). (The partial definition in Clause 2(1) is not repeated in Clause 12(1)"—
that is Clause 15(1) in the Bill—
"It would be only partly applicable to the offence of criminal deception, and it seems unnecessary and undesirable to complicate the Bill by including a separate definition in Clause 12)"—
that is, Clause 15. The paragraph goes on:
"The fact that a claim of right will be a defence to a charge under Clause 15 is probably in accordance with the present law of obtaining by false pretences; for the existence of a claim of right to the property obtained is regarded as inconsistent with that of an ' intent to defraud' for the purpose of Section 32(1) of the 1916 Act."
There are two points here. First of all, as I understand the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the law at the moment is not clear on this subject If it were, I think that they would not have put the word "probably" in the passage that I have read. This is reinforced by the fact that, so far as I can discover, Archbold does not deal with this matter under "false pretences", although I may be wrong on that. If the law is not clear upon this point, then I would suggest to the noble Lord that it must stand to reason that if we intend that the law should be made clear, we ought to do something specific about it.
The second point is that although the Criminal Law Revision Committee said that the definition should only partly apply—and my Amendment probably is not effective to achieve that—it must be

1511
in line with the whole approach which the Government have adopted to this Bill to be explicit where one needs to be explicit. I do not believe that in this respect we are suitably clear about the availability of this defence under Clause 15. For those two reasons I earnestly ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to have another look at this matter to see whether it ought not to be made perfectly plain that the proper part of this defence is also available in Clause 15. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD STONHAM: I shall be grateful if I may briefly put our view on this Amendment, because, frankly, I am not yet clear precisely what the noble Viscount wants. I know that it is my fault, but if I tell the Committee how I see the position the noble Viscount can come in again. The noble Viscount made it clear that the effect of his Amendment would be to attract the provisions relating to the offence of criminal deception in Clause 15, subsection (1).
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No—to attract the defence which is provided under Clause 2 in the case of theft to be applicable also to the offence of criminal deception under Clause 15. I am not trying to attract the "offence", but to attract the "defence".
LORD STONHAM: The noble Viscount is trying to attract the same approach, the same form of words.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes.
LORD STONHAM: We think that an addition of that kind to subsection (1), paragraph (b), of Clause 2 would not be appropriate. A person
"who by any deception dishonestly obtains property belonging to another"
must have practised the deception on someone to whom the property belongs, including any person having possession or control of or some proprietory right or interest in the property, and, by virtue of the definition of "belonging to another" in Clause 5(1)—which is applied to Clause 15 by Clause 33(1)—the pro-
1512
perty will "belong" to that person. The circumstances envisaged in Clause 2(1)(b),
"that the person to whom the properly belongs cannot be discovered"
can hardly arise. I do not know whether the noble Viscount has followed me.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am afraid not. I start off from the point that the Criminal Law Revision Committee said that this defence did apply to Clause 15. That is plain from paragraph 88. They said that they thought that it was probably the law now, and they further said that they had not drafted a partial definition of "dishonestly obtains" for the purposes of Clause 15 as they had done in the case of "dishonestly appropriates" for theft. Paragraph 88 said—and I did not propose to read it all out, but it is relevant to what the noble Lord says:
"…though the deception may be dishonest, the obtaining is not."
They were saying that, owing to the words "dishonestly obtains", a person who uses deception in order to obtain property to which he believes himself entitled will not be guilty, for though the deception may be dishonest the obtaining is not. Therefore, the two elements necessary in the offence, "dishonestly" and "obtaining", are not both fulfilled. Therefore it is implicit in this, and is plain from this subsection, that this defence is intended to be available in the case of Clause 15.
May I read the next sentence in the paragraph? It says:
"In this respect also the offence will be in line with theft, because a belief in a legal right to deprive an owner of property is for the purpose of theft inconsistent with dishonesty and is specifically made a defence by the partial definition of 'dishonestly' in clause 2(1)(a)."
There cannot be any doubt about what is intended here. This defence is meant to apply. I am not saying that I have done it the right way; I am not saying that it should go in Clause 2. I am simply raising for the consideration of the noble Lord whether we ought not properly to set this out clearly, instead of leaving it to be implied from the words "dishonestly obtained" in Clause 15. I am drawing attention to what the Report says, and I am saying that I think that the law is not clear at the moment and

1513
that we ought to make it clear in this Bill. That is all I am asking the noble Lord to consider.
LORD STONHAM: I have got it clear now, whereas I did not have it clear before, so my words were useful. We will have a look at it, as the noble Viscount asks.
LORD AIREDALE: As it is going to be looked at and as the noble Viscount said that he may not have done it in the correct way, may I suggest that the way to do it is not by means of a forward reference from Clause 2 to Clause 15, but by a reference back in Clause 15 to Clause 2. Nobody will act on Clause 15 without reading it. When they read it they will discover that there is a defence mentioned in Clause 2 which applies to Clause 15. But if you do it by a forward reference, somebody may read Clause 15 and not appreciate that, had they looked at Clause 2, they would have discovered a defence which applies to Clause 15.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I support what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said; I am inclined to agree that the reference back should be in Clause 15. May I add another point. My noble friend has read out part of paragraph 88. I hope the noble Lord will consider what is said in that paragraph and what is said about the case of Parker in the Committee's Report in paragraph 92. It will be most anomalous if what is not criminal conduct under paragraph 88, with this claim of right contained in it, still remains criminal conduct if the deception is effected by way of a forged instrument. If the noble Lord will look at paragraphs 88 and 92 he will see that there is an anomaly which ought to be ironed out before the Bill is passed, and it bears on the question of the cross reference.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful for that suggestion. I am a little at variance with the noble Viscount because he quoted paragraph 88, which refers to the whole of subsection (1) paragraphs (a) and (b), whereas on his Amendment we are discussing only subsection (1) paragraph (b). Therefore, that created some difficulty in my mind.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It depends how far out you set the Amend-
1514
ment in the Bill. I meant it to refer to the whole of subsection (1) of Clause 2. I am sorry if I misled the noble Lord in that way. It was certainly not my intention.
LORD STONHAM: We will look at it in the light of that explanation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
7.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble and learned Viscount said: This is again a case where I can find nothing in the Report dealing with this subsection, so I am not able to say for what reasons it was included. But in the notes on the draft Bill in Annex 2 there is the following passage, which is familiar:
"Without the subsection it might be argued that it would not be theft to take property and pay full value for it even if the taker knew that the owner was unwilling to sell."
I must say that I find it very difficult to conceive that there is any real likelihood of that being argued.
Here again we have a provision in the Bill not aimed at defining the offence, but at preventing what the draftsman thought to be a possible argument. He seeks to defeat that possible argument by stating what, with great respect to him, seems to me to be rather a statement of the obvious. Subsection (2) says:
"A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he pays for the property."
Surely, of course it may. If there is a dishonest appropriation it will not cease to be a dishonest appropriation if the taker pays for the property. I should have thought that was so obvious that it did not require stating. If I am right about that, then this provision is unnecessary, and I feel it should be left out of the Bill.
I should perhaps point out that there is a discrepancy between the note in the Annex and the subsection in the Bill. The subsection says, "pays for the property", whereas the note says "pay full value for it". I do not know whether in this context the words "full value" have any significance. I should have

1515
thought that paying for it would mean paying full value in this context. But it is unfortunate, if at the end of the day we are going to be able to look at these notes for the purpose of guidance in reference to this Bill, that there should be this patent discrepancy between the language of the note and the language used in the Bill. It seems to me that this is a statement of the obvious, and as there is nothing in the body of the Report signed by the Committee dealing with it, I doubt myself whether it is necessary to include it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not gather, from what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that he thinks any real harm will be done by this subsection, but that he feels it is unnecessary as it states the existing law. The purpose of the subsection is to clarify the meaning of "dishonestly"; simply to make it plain that a person who takes property, for example when the owner is unwilling to sell, may be dishonest even if he puts down the money for the property. This would apply, for example, to taking a rare and coveted object or paying the full price for something which is earmarked for somebody else; for instance, if a person goes into a shop and asks to buy something and is told that it is for somebody else, and he takes it away putting down the money in spite of the shopkeeper's protest.
The suggestion that a payment would be made only if the owner accepted the money seems to be based on a narrow and technical construction of the clause. The meaning of "pays for the property" should surely be understood in this context as covering sending, leaving or putting down money against the owner's will and not as implying his acceptance of the money offered. The subsection is included only as a signpost to indicate that the person appropriating the property is not excused from committing theft merely by leaving or sending the money for the property. The owner may not wish to part with it. There is no reason why it should not be theft to take something which an owner is unwilling to sell. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount really takes any diff-
1516
erent view. I think he is saying that this is the law, and that therefore it is unnecessary to put it in.
I think that to some extent there are two views about a Bill of this kind. The noble and learned Viscount spoke of what the draftsman had or had not done, but the 17 members of this Committee themselves had draft after draft—and, after all, they were at it for seven years—carefully considering every single word and the effect which it was likely to have, because this is intended to be a complete code of this section of the law. That is not an easy code to make, because we all know that this branch of the law has caused a great many difficulties, and to take theft, robbery, blackmail, fraudulent conversion, larceny by a trick and so on, and to codify the whole thing must be an extremely difficult thing to do.
The difference of opinion seems to be simply this. If you are trying to codify completely this whole branch of the law, ought you. to leave things out because the present law on that point is not in doubt? I submit to the Committee that where as here you are trying, in new words, in modern words, to codify a whole section of the law, it is a good thing to make it complete, and that it ought not to be regarded as any answer to say, "Well, you need not put that in because everybody knows that is the law." Of course, we shall carefully consider what the noble and learned Viscount has said, and what any other members of the Committee may say.
LORD WILBERFORCE: I am grateful for the statement that has just been made by the noble and learned Lord, because it highlights the difficulty which I felt about this clause, which I think is not the same as that felt by the noble and learned Viscount. He said that the clause stated the obvious and should not be in the Bill. To me it was obscure, and I could not understand it and still am not satisfied that it would normally he understood, as relating to the case which it is apparently meant to cover. To me the word "pays" involves an acceptance as well as a handing over of money—that is, a hand to receive and a pocket into which it goes. If what is meant is leaving money for the property, then I feel that some other expression might have been found. To say that a

1517
man who goes into a shop, helps himself to a valuable picture and leaves £100 or £5 on the counter, can say, "I paid for it", does not correspond to reality. That is not payment. That is leaving money and is completely irrelevant to the whole transaction. Sending a postal order through the post is not payment for the property. It is something quite different until it is accepted.
So that if what is intended, and I think it is right, is to say that merely leaving money for the property does not prevent the taking from being dishonest, I personally would prefer to see some other expression used if one can be found. To that extent, and only to that extent, I support the noble and learned Viscount in asking for some reconsideration of this subsection.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I, too, have listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. I hope that every time he speaks he will not remind us of the eminence of this Committee, which we take for granted, or the length of time they took over their deliberations, which we all recognise, or repeat the remarks about the complexity and difficulty of the task they were set.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Or remind us how many members of the Committee there were.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Yes, that, too. We all know that, and we have a great respect for them. The noble and learned Lord must realise that it is our function and our duty to look at these things and to raise questions which we are not happy about, and doing so is no disrespect to the Committee. We found several times, I think, during the noble and learned Lord's absence, that there is no difference of view between the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and those who sit on this side of the House as to what we want to achieve, but there have been doubts raised with some considerable substance as to the choice of language. I think that is all to the good. That is the only way in which we can seek to effect improvements to this Bill.
When I moved this Amendment I was not seeking to suggest that this was not a statement of the existing law—it is. I
1518
put my statement forward on the ground that it was also a statement of the obvious, and I think it is. I think even in codification it is not desirable usually to put in things which are really so obvious as to be unnecessary, because the mere fact that an obvious thing has been put into a Bill makes people wonder whether there really was not some ulterior motive for it. That is one reason why I am suggesting that what really is obvious —and I think this is—ought to be omitted from the Bill, because it has a counter-productive effect. The noble Lord may not agree with me about that, but certainly I think that the use of the word "pays" is wrong, and I support what my noble and learned friend has said about that. If the noble Lord is going to retain this subsection. I think some different word ought to be used—"sends" the money, or "gives" or "deposits" the money for the article would suffice, but "pays" does involve acceptance. Again, I entirely agree with the concept here, and as the noble Lord has said that he will look at it again I will, if the Committee will allow me to do so, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Appropriates]:
8.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD WILBERFORCE: I did not put down an Amendment to this clause because there are limits to the number of linguistic changes one can suggest, but I find considerable cause for stumbling in the phrase "come by". I do not know where this has been brought from, or what it is intended to mean, other than to give a sort of popular look to the clause. It seems to refer to having possession, or something of that sort. Without making any suggestion this time, I would, in a friendly way, invite the noble Lord to consider whether it is altogether an appropriate expression. To me it is unattractive and not clear.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should just like to say that I welcome this provision in Clause 3(1) if it means what I think it means, but I share my noble and

1519
learned friend's doubts as to the precise meaning to be given to the words "come by". In all the Bills I have read—and I have read a good many hundreds of them in my time—I cannot recollect Parliamentary counsel ever using this expression before. It is, I think, a novelty, and I hope this will not constitute a precedent. I should like to see it changed.
LORD STONHAM: We have not an Amendment down to consider it, but I will certainly consider what both the noble and learned Lord and the noble and learned Viscount have said.
Clause 3 agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: We have before us the entrancing prospect of a full day on Monday on the Committee stage of this Theft Bill, and I feel we might give ourselves a half-holiday to-night. I move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I say how much I welcome that Motion, because the next Amendment, dealing with the fragrant subject of wild flowers, is bound to take a considerable time, and I think it would be much better to deal with it on Monday.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

RE-EMPLOYMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONERS
8.4 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA LORD SWANSEA rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make any change in the regulations concerning persons receiving pensions from public funds, to enable such persons to be re-employed in the public service without loss of pension. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name. The hour is getting rather late, and I will try, to the best of my ability, to be brief. This Question covers a very wide field—the whole field of the public services, including the Civil Service, local government, the medical and dental professions, teachers and others. It is too wide
1520
a field to cover fully in the time I propose to allow myself, so I shall confine myself principally to the medical and dental professions, because it seems to me that here, in these professions, is the greatest need for a change.
The general principle applying to abatement of pensions on re-employment in the public service is that the salary on re-employment should not exceed the average remuneration over the last three years before retirement. If the new salary plus pension exceeds the old salary, the pension is abated to that extent; and if the difference between the salaries exceeds the pension, the pension will disappear altogether. There has for a long time been great discontent about this among general dental and medical practitioners. With the acute shortage of doctors and dentists, it is surely illogical to discourage or prevent re-employment of them after pensionable age. Unlike salaried officers, the earnings of general practitioners are not at their highest during the last few years before retirement. Indeed, in many cases the salaries at that time are at their lowest point. In 1966 the Ministry of Health and the Treasury recognised the need for revision of the abatements for general practitioners, and the criterion for determining whether an abatement of pension was necessary was changed to the average net earnings over the best three consecutive earning years. Thereby, general dental and medical practitioners were placed on roughly the same footing as salaried officers.
Now there is one aspect of this matter which is a considerable source of grievance among doctors and particularly among dentists; that is, that the assessment of the earnings is done on a quarterly basis. This was regarded by the Departments as a concession, because in theory the limit should not be exceeded at any time. But if this were carried to absurdity the result would be that the abatement could be assessed on a monthly, weekly or even an hourly basis, which is truly absurd. It is particularly hard on dentists, as they are paid by a scale of fees, and the patient demand is liable to fluctuate for reasons beyond the dentist's control—according to the season, the weather, illness or various other reasons. So there may be a substantial variation in the net earnings as between one quarter and another. If the limit on earnings

1521
is exceeded in one quarter, the pension is abated, and no account is taken of earnings in the rest of the year, which may be well below the limit. This, I think, is manifestly unfair, and I think that either the earnings should be assessed on an annual basis or one quarter should be set off against another.
The question of abatement of pensions is particularly acute in the public health service, in psychiatry and in the tuberculosis service. The reason is that prior to the start of the National Health Service these were the only services which were pensionable. The result was that doctors in other branches of medicine who retired under the age limit had relatively few years of service that counted for pension, and thus receive only a small pension. As a result, they can earn a considerable amount before their pension is subject to abatement. In psychiatry, the public health and the tuberculosis services, which were pensionable before the National Health Service started, most retired doctors have completed the maximum period of pensionable service. This applies particularly to mental hospital staff, in whose case every year of service in excess of 20 counts double for the purposes of pension.
I have a particular interest in this last class, because my wife is a member of a hospital management committee which is concerned with a group mental hospital in Mid-Wales. In that part of the country there is a serious shortage of properly qualified personnel in that branch of medicine. The mental hospitals often wish to call upon retired doctors to help out at holiday time, or because there is illness among their staff, but there is very little incentive to retired doctors to do so. Unless a doctor can live at home he has to pay his board and lodging at or near the hospital where he is working; he has to pay travel expenses to and from home, and he is lucky if he is left after that with £7 or £8 a week in his pocket.
Most doctors feel that as they have paid for their pensions—in other words, as they are on a contributory basis—they have earned them; and because they have earned them, they should be allowed after retirement to take on what employment they like, without abatement of their pensions. Anyone who has the will, stamina or initiative to wish to work after retire-
1522
ment should not be subjected to heavy financial disincentives but should be encouraged to do so because of the national shortage of medical manpower which threatens the very survival of the National Health Service. Successive Governments have never ceased to urge the need for greater national production if our country is to maintain its position in the world. Like many other pens loners, retired doctors and dentists may still have the capacity to make a useful contribution to the common good, and I feel that in so doing they should not have to forfeit some or all of their pension. This is all wrong.
My Lords, I have confined myself to those professions for the sake of brevity, and also because I think that theirs is the case of greatest need. But these principles apply also to the Civil Service, local government, teachers and the rest. The Royal Commission on the Civil Service in 1953–55 dealt with these points; and the argument was put to them by the Staff Side of the Civil Service that the effect of any increase in pay on a number of re-employed staff was simply to reduce their already abated pension. In particular they pointed out that within the Civil Service there are three types of re-employed persons.
First, there is the disestablished officer who continues in his old grade. He does not receive any pension because his pay is above it, and he gets the benefit of any increases in salary scales. At the other extreme there is the officer who, up to his retirement, has held a fairly high grade and who after retirement just wants to take on the little odd job and takes re-employment in a considerably lower grade. In that case his pension plus his pay are together less than the pay of the post from which he retired. He also gets any increases which the grade attracts.
But the person who is most penalised is the one who drops only a grade or two and whose pay plus full amount of pension takes him to, or beyond, the previous pay of his job. This situation strikes me as being unfair, and I think it should be put right. In such cases the individual should receive any new rate of pay for that grade, and he should not suffer any further abatement of his I pension. It has been suggested that if

1523
changes were made in these rules a number of anomalies would arise between officers in different grades. That may be so; but I do not think they would be nearly so numerous or so serious as those which exist under the present arrangements.
My Lords, our public services are a great institution. They set the pattern for public services throughout the world—and particularly our National Health Service, which was a very great social step Forward. But especially where the National Health Service is concerned there is grave danger of collapse due to lack of manpower. It would be the greatest pity if this should happen through disincentives which are as absurd as they are illogical. I trust that I have been as brief as your Lordships hoped. I should have liked more time to enlarge on some of the points, as this is a very big subject; but as the hour is late I will leave it there and hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will give me some encouragement.
8.18 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, for putting down this Question—more so because he was good enough to postpone it from last Thursday (or Friday morning) when although there would have been no pressure of time we should all have been too tired. It shows the interest he has in the subject that he should put down this Question, and I am glad to have the opportunity of dealing with this subject which, as he himself mentioned, is a general one.
May I remind the House that the present practice derives from the Superannuation Act 1834? Therefore it has stood the test of time and doubtless the scrutiny of many previous Administrations. Her Majesty's Government regard the principles upon which it is based as still valid and are not willing to propose changes. Although the practice is very long-standing, this does not mean necessarily that there is any reason for refusing to review it; but I hope that when noble Lords have considered what I have to say about the way in which the present arrangements work and the reasons for them, they will be convinced
1524
that there are insufficient grounds for making a change.
The arrangement is that the re-employed pensioner draws the full pay of the post in which he is re-employed. In addition, he gets so much of his pension as is needed to bring his total income, from his pay and pension combined, up to the level of the salary of the post from which he retired. Thus, in the normal case, when pay and pension combined are more than the pre-retirement salary, no re-employed pensioner suffers a drop in income; and, if the pay of the post-retirement job is more than this, the re-employed pensioner gets that amount in full. Furthermore, the re-employed pensioner will normally already have drawn in full that substantial proportion of his total pension benefits, about one quarter, that is represented by the lump sum payment which the noble Lord failed to mention. He also normally continues during his re-employment to add to his total pension entitlement, in respect both of his lump sum and his pension. In many cases too, that part of a pension that is actually being drawn may itself be increased under the Pensions (Increase) Acts. To recapitulate, therefore, the present arrangements are based on the principle that everyone gets the rate for the job when he is re-employed and draws his full pension to the extent that this will not give him more, when combined with his pay, than he had in his previous job.
To come now to the reason for this arrangement. I can well understand that many re-employed pensioners will take the view that, under the terms of their employment, they become entitled to a pension on reaching retiring age, whatever that might be—in the normal case 60 or 65—and that this pension should be paid at that age irrespective of whether they continue in work. This feeling will no doubt be stronger to the extent that the pensioner has himself in part contributed towards his pension. Moreover, if a public servant who has retired takes a job in private industry, he is fully entitled to draw his pension and the pay of that job. For all these reasons, therefore, it is very natural that some people should resent the present rule.
But, if I may say so, these attitudes, while very natural, fail to take account of

1525
the real purpose of a pension. This is simply to help maintain the pensioner when he leaves employment in the public services. Essentially, therefore, the payment of the pension is determined not by the retirement date specified in whatever scheme the pensioner may belong to but by the fact of retirement. Clearly, it is only right to say at what age public employees become entitled to a pension—in other words, the minimum age at which they can expect to leave their employment with a continuing income for their retirement. But, if those who reach pensionable age decide not to retire but to stay in public employment, then it seems to me that the public services should not be regarded as being bound to ignore this fact and to treat the person concerned as if he were no longer working for them. In this matter we surely have to compromise as between what the pensioner might regard as his rights and fairness as between him and the taxpayer or ratepayer who is paying his salary and all, or the greater part of, his pension.
The noble Lord asked me: Why should the income of the re-employed pensioner be limited to what he was earning when he formally retired, rather than to what he would now be able to earn in the same job? It is important to remember that no pensioner who is re-employed ever gets less than the proper rate for the job which he is doing. Let us look at two cases. First, imagine a man who retires and is subsequently re-employed in a similar job at the same salary level. He goes on drawing the full current rate of pay for the job, and he gets the benefit of any increases in the rate for the job as they come along. His pension is wholly abated, but he receives his lump sum on first retiring.
The second man retires from a job at the same level as the first, but is reemployed in a job with less responsibility and a lower rate of pay. He gets the full rate of pay for that job plus his lump sum, and in addition enough pension to bring his income up to the level it had reached at the time when he retired. This means that he is protected from any fall in income even though he is now doing a job which is less onerous or responsible. There is no good reason. however, why his income should increase in pace with increases in the pay of the
1526
job he held before retirement. The first man continues to carry the responsibilities of the more senior job and benefits from the pay increases; the second man takes a less arduous job, and therefore his income, although protected against a fall, does not keep pace with that of his colleague who continues to carry out the duties of the more senior and onerous job.
Finally, before I come to the more specialised points raised by the noble Lord, I think noble Lords will find that the practice which I have described compares favourably with that of employers outside the public sector, who do not commonly pay an employee any part of his pension so long as he continues in work. Generally speaking, such an employee receives only the rate for the job—but in fact it is far more usual for private employers to stop employing someone at all once he has reached pensionable age. In this respect again, therefore, I see no case for departing from our long established practice in a way which would not be justified by comparison with the general practice of employers outside the public sector.
The noble Lord concentrated the main part of his speech on the question of those people entitled to a pension before the National Health Service. He referred to the application of abatement by reference to quarterly earnings; but it would not necessarily be in the interest of a pensioner to apply the rules on an annual basis. A man's earnings may be at, or close to, his ceiling, when averaged over twelve months, but in a single quarter may fall well short of the ceiling. Quarterly assessment makes it possible to deal with this situation. As to the other points made by the noble Lord, they are, as he recognised, of general application, but I do not think they add up to a case for specially preferential treatment for National Health Service pensioners.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we have gone some way to wards clearing the air, because there is a good deal of misunderstanding about this. This practice has been in operation for 134 years, but we can look into these matters in the various reviews, such as the social security review, which are taking place at the present time, for

1527
example, on earnings related pensions and the like, on which, as the noble Lord knows, we hope to bring in a Bill in the lifetime of this Parliament. With these
1528
and my earlier remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will feel satisfied.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eight o'clock.