Sitting of 12 March 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.
    COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
    FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL

    National Coal Board (Price Structure)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power whether in view of the fact that the National Coal Board's offer to supply coal to Alcan contains undue or unreasonable preference or advantage, he will take proceedings in respect of this breach of their statutory duty.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Minister of Power what study he has made of the classes of users which may qualify for preferential prices for coal supplies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power, based on the revised estimates of coal demand for 1971 to 1975, and as result of the proposed reorgani-
    1154
    sation of the coalmining industry in mechanised cheap production collieries, at what price range per ton and per therm at pithead he estimates that coal will be available to the Central Electricity Generating Board, and selected industrial users requiring deliveries in bulk, with a view to implementing a cheap energy policy.
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Power what study he has made of the consequences, other than an increase in price to other consumers or a greater deficit to the National Coal Board, which will follow from coal being offered to some users at 3¼d. a therm or below, while the average price is 4·6d. a therm.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power what progress has been made towards the establishment of a pricing structure for the coal industry which would enable the National Coal Board to quote preferential prices to both public and private customers engaging in large and long-term contracts.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): I am in consultation with the Board about its price structure.
    Mr. Ridley: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if an offer 30 per cent. below the published price of coal was made, that would indeed be an undue advantage? If not, would he say what he would consider to be an unfair preference or advantage?
    Mr. Marsh: It is not really for me to say. The Act lays this responsibility on the Board. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has a specific example in mind, but I assure him that I have received no complaints about unfair advantage being given by the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Wilson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the aluminium smelting industry is being offered an advantage?
    Mr. Marsh: I will be answering a subsequent Question on the Alcan project.
    Mr. Osborn: Is it not essential in a fuel policy that there should be a correlation between the price of a fuel and the volume required? Will not the volume of coal consumed depend on the price of this fuel?
    Mr. Marsh: It depends on price and other factors.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend accept the soundness of the principle implied in Question No. 53?
    Mr. Marsh: This is perfectly normal commercial practice.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Minister's Answer—that he is in consultation with the industry—mean that no reported contracts can go ahead without his consent?
    Mr. Marsh: Bless my soul, no. The pricing policy of the N.C.B. is a complex matter. I said that we are carrying out a full examination, with the Board, of its pricing policy.

    National Coal Board (Trading Results)
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Minister of Power what is his latest estimate of the deficit of the National Coal Board in the current financial year.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Power if he will give an estimate of the National Coal Board's deficit for the current year.
    Mr. Marsh: The Chairman informs me that, on recent trends, the financial result for the year seems likely to be better than the possible deficit of £10 million envisaged when the Coal Industry Bill was debated last December.
    Mr. Wilson: While that Answer indicates that it is rather better than the deficit for the first half of the financial year, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the financial objective set out in the White Paper, of breaking even, will be reached?
    Mr. Marsh: I would hope so, or near to it.
    Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that with the remarkable increase in productivity achieved by the coal industry recently and with the capital reconstruction brought about as result of the Coal Industry Act, 1965, there will be a steady and continuous improvement in the results?
    Mr. Marsh: I would hope so.
    Sir C. Osborne: Would the Minister care to hazard a guess about how soon the National Coal Board will be working without a loss?
    Mr. Marsh: I cannot forecast the future position of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the output per man shift in the mining industry has gone up since September, 1967, to today by 11 per cent. and if this very hopeful trend can continue the first six months' deficit will be eliminated in the second six months of the current year?
    Mr. Marsh: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this position. If the increases in productivity gained by the miners in the last year applied throughout British industry we would have no problems at all.
    Mr. Ridley: Can the Minister say what other action the Coal Board is taking to reduce or to eliminate this loss?
    Mr. Marsh: The Coal Board is engaged in a constant process of modernisation and improvement in methods.

    Coal Mining Industry (Future)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement concerning his meetings with the chairman of the National Coal Board on the future of the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Marsh: The frequent meetings which I have with the chairmen of the boards of nationalised industries are confidential.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his whole costing of other fuels in relation to coal is falling about his ears? Does he realise that the miners are beginning to demand an independent investigation into the whole question of costing?
    Mr. Marsh: One comes back here to the original point. The bodies who have looked at this subject now include virtually everybody connected with nuclear costings. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has asked the question and I hope he will let me answer. I find it difficult to think of a body which would be both independent of all those involved in this and capable of doing the job.
    Mr. Emery: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, perhaps in order to clear up this point, it would be much more helpful if we could debate the Fuel Policy White Paper?
    Mr. Marsh: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why does my right hon. Friend always tell us that his conversations with the Chairman of the National Coal Board are confidential when every time he says so Lord Robens goes out, makes a speech and tells us all about them?

    Pits (Closure)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Power what criteria he employed in deciding to intervene in proposals by the National Coal Board to close certain pits.
    Mr. Marsh: The Government have regard to all the circumstances social and economic.
    Mr. Onslow: Has it ever occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he stopped interfering politically in the affairs of the National Coal Board, Lord Robens might stop interfering in politics?
    Mr. Marsh: I would never dare to intervene in the affairs of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Ridley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether one of the criteria is whether the Prime Minister has visited the area concerned in the immediate past?
    Mr. Marsh: I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman may regret that supplementary question. Very real and big social problems are involved in colliery closures. The decision to provide for postponement of some closures in certain circumstances was agreed by both sides of the House and there was no dispute.
    Mr. Swain: May I ask my right hon. Friend when he and the Government will be big enough to accept the responsibility of deciding the Government policy in which Lord Robens has to work? May I also ask him about the fuel policy White Paper? Does he recall that only a few months ago the Prime Minister withdrew the White Paper because 80 Members of this House said that they would vote against it?
    Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend has his point of view. The White Paper has never been withdrawn and there has never been any undertaking that it would be withdrawn. What was said was that, in the light of devaluation, the figures would be looked at to see how far things had changed.
    Mr. Swain: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    National Coal Board (Administration)
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Minister of Power what proposals have been made to him by the National Coal Board for his approval of the further reorganisation of the Board's national, regional and area administration; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): My right hon. Friend has not been informed of any further major reorganisation plans following the N.C.B.s scheme announced in December, 1965, and effective from March, 1967.
    Mr. Ogden: Will my hon. Friend ask the Coal Board for any available information so that it can be given directly to the House instead of through newspaper reports and other sources?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not clear what information my hon. Friend is asking for, but if he will contact us by correspondence we can perhaps pursue the matter.

    Coal-Fired Power Stations
    Mr. McGuireasked the Minister of Power what estimate his Department has made of the total coal which will be burnt annually in all coal-fired power stations when the last of the planned coal-fired power stations is commissioned.
    Mr. Marsh: The last of the coal-fired power stations at present on order (Drax) should be commissioned in 1973. The Fuel Policy White Paper gives estimates of power station coal consumption in 1970 and 1975 from which it can be seen that the 1973 figure is expected to be about 65 million tons.
    Mr. McGuire: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that what will happen

    1159
    is that, no matter how competitive coal becomes, there will be no places for it to burn? Would he not further agree, in view of the answers that he gave to my Question last week about the uncompetitiveness of nuclear energy as far as the 1970s, it is time that we recast the programme to give a better place to coal in the 1970s?
    Mr. Marsh: I do not see why my hon. Friend should see any difficulty in finding places to burn coal. At the moment we have 13 coal-fired stations, totalling 21,600 megawatts, under construction.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Transport Bill
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Power what estimates he has made of the increase in costs to the steel industry of the present proposals in the Transport Bill.
    Mr. Freeson: The British Steel Corporation expects its annual increase in costs to be rather less than £1 million on a total haulage bill of £76 million, and this may be reduced by the transfer of traffic from road to rail.
    Mr. Campbell: Has the Minister investigated the effects of delays and loss of flexibility arising from the quantity licensing proposals, together with the two new taxes?
    Mr. Freeson: I have no doubt that the British Steel Corporation is examining the implications of the Transport Bill on the industry.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware, in connection with quantity licensing, that if delay should occur, traffic will not be shifted from road to rail?
    Mr. Freeson: These questions are better directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I stated in my original Answer the position as we understand it.
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the total increase in costs of the electricity generating programme resulting from the Transport Bill.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the extra annual cost to the generation and supply of electricity and to the construction of power stations as a result of the measures contained in the Transport Bill.
    Mr. Brewisasked the Minister of Power what detailed estimates he has made of the increased cost to the Central Electricity Generating Board of power stations at present under construction, or for which contracts have already been placed, and for which contracts are not on a fixed basis, as a result of the abnormal load charges in the Transport Bill.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Power what estimates he has made of the increase in costs of the electricity generating programme and supply of electricity resulting from effects of the Transport Bill on the south-west of England.
    Mr. Freeson: Detailed estimates have not been made for individual stations under construction or for separate parts of the country. The C.E.G.B. estimates that the abnormal loads charge would add about £300,000 a year to construction costs and would increase its fuel transport charges by about £500,000 a year. The overall effect on the cost of electricity, including distribution, is unlikely to be more than 0·1 per cent.
    Mr. Campbell: Has the Minister examined, in particular, not only the effects of the abnormal load tax on the building of power stations, but also its effect on the movement of heavy objects connected with the supply of electricity?
    Mr. Freeson: These are matters which the industry must examine and take into account. I understand that the C.E.G.B. is in consultation with the Ministry of Transport on these issues, and I have stated the earliest possible assessment of the position that we are able to obtain.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the extra costs involved will bear very hard on the Scottish electricity supply part of the industry because of the extra distances involved? Can he give an assurance that this will not result in a further acceleration of the differential price in Scotland?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not accept that this will bear particularly hard on Scotland. These are questions for detailed examination by the industry; and we have had no evidence along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that regarding the abnormal loads charge the Minister of Transport on Second Reading and also in Committee has given a pledge to ask her Department to examine the position very fully in order to make sure that there is no undue price increase to traffic going out of the development areas?
    Mr. Freeson: Yes, we are aware of the undertakings given in Committee. As I have said, close consultation is going on, and this no doubt will continue until matters are clarified.
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Minister of Power what detailed estimates he has made of the increased cost to the Gas Council of terminals, pipelines and other facilities for the transmission of North Sea gas already under construction, or for which contracts have already been placed, and for which contracts are not on a fixed basis, as a result of the abnormal load charges in the Transport Bill.
    Mr. Freeson: I understand from the Gas Council that the increase in costs is expected to be negligible.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Can the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the forecast that costs in Scotland will rise considerably as a result of the Transport Bill? Will he stick to his pledge that Scotland will not be charged more for North Sea gas than England?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not sure what the latter part of that supplementary question has to do with the first. The Gas Council has given its advice and I have said that the increased costs arising from the Transport Bill will be negligible.

    Heavy Steel Products (Prices)
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Minister of Power what study he has made of the specific benefits or advantages which will be enjoyed by consumers of heavy steel products through the fixing of prices for such products by the British Steel Corporation and the publicly-owned companies; and if he will take steps to
    1162
    make those benefits available to consumers of similar products of the privately-owned steel companies.
    Mr. Marsh: I would refer the hon. Member to the Corporation's first report on organisation (Cmnd. 3362). I have no powers over the arrangements for the private sector.
    Mr. Shaw: Since the British Steel Corporation is now doing exactly what the Restrictive Practices Court said the steel industry should not do, why should the advantages of fixing prices not be extended to the 10 per cent. of the industry still left in private hands?
    Mr. Marsh: It is essential to have common pricing in an integrated corporation such as this. There is no price competition in the big United States steel companies which are of comparable size. The Corporation's report says that
    "true price corn petition has never operated successfully in the iron and steel industry in this or any other country."

    British Steel Corporation (Trading Results)
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to publish an interim statement of the profit or loss to date by the British Steel Corporation since nationalisation.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power when he first intends to present an interim statement of the profit or loss incurred by the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Marsh: The Corporation informs me that trading results for the first two months after vesting date will be shown with the group accounts of the nationalised steel companies for 1967, which the Corporation expects to publish in April. It will publish an interim statement giving a broad indication of earnings for the 26 weeks to 30th March, 1968, in about June.
    Mr. Shaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree that the company will be entirely in line with its requirements for publishing accounts with those of any private enterprise limited company?
    Mr. Marsh: It will be in line with the provisions of the Act.
    Mr. Ridley: May I thank the Minister for making this concession and getting

    1163
    the Steel Corporation to publish accounts earlier than was suggested? May I ask whether in his opinion the Steel Corporation is making a profit or a loss?
    Mr. Marsh: Of course, the Steel Corporation labours under an enormous adverse heritage from the past of private enterprise.

    Fuel Oils (Extraction of Food Concentrates)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Power what part his Department is taking in furthering the establishment in Great Britain of centres for the extraction of food concentrates from gas oils and other fuels; and what experiments are being carried out on the use of North Sea gas in this field.
    Mr. Freeson: The Department is in close touch with the major oil companies and with the Ministry of Technology on this subject. B.P. is building an experimental plant at its refinery at Lavera for the conversion of wax from distillate oils into edible protein. The "Shell" Research Company is experimenting in Kent with a process involving the growth of bacteria on the carbon of methane gas.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend agree that the French experiments show the value of fuel oils as a source of animal foodstuffs and also perhaps ultimately of helping the hungry millions of the world? Would he accept that the news of experiments with methane, and hence the possible use of North Sea gas, will be very welcome to the House?
    Mr. Freeson: I am sure it will be welcomed in the House. I certainly accept the first part of my hon. Friend's question. This discovery and development will be of great assistance eventually in the world situation with regard to food supplies and will eventually considerably help this country's economy.
    Mr. Tilney: Do not such developments depend on an adequate supply of gas, and is there not a danger if the price is not high enough that international companies will move to foreign waters?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not accept anything of what the hon. Member has said.

    Seaton Carew (Power Station)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a further statement on the proposed power station at Seaton Carew.
    Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Power whether he has now reached a decision on the building of a new power station at Seaton Carew; and on the fuel which will be used.
    Mr. Urwinasked the Minister of Power when he expects to announce the decision as to the type of fuel which will be required to fire the power station at Seaton Carew.
    Mr. Marsh: I have nothing to add at present to replies I have already given to hon. Members.
    Mr. Willey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of anxiety about this in the North-East? Can he allay it by saying, whether it is coal-or nuclear-powered, that there will be a power station at Seaton Carew?
    Mr. Marsh: A very complex series of studies is taking place, taking into account many factors, not least the Generating Board's load forecasts.
    Mr. Elliott: Does the Minister appreciate that ever since devaluation there have been constant suggestions that Seaton Carew would be a casualty of the cutback in nationalised industry investment? Will he take very seriously what his right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said? This is very important to the North-East of England.
    Mr. Marsh: I appreciate that this is obviously a very important issue to the area, and one which has attained very great significance. The fact is that one cannot build power stations without taking into account the load forecasts of future demand.
    Mr. Urwin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a very great deal of anxious speculation in the area surrounding Seaton Carew about the power station, and that it is high time a decision was reached? Bearing in mind the doubts about the costing of Dungeness B, which still has 2½ years to go and has already escalated by 25 per cent., will he decide

    1165
    strongly in favour of coal for Seaton Carew?
    Mr. Marsh: There are other questions on the Order Paper about nuclear costs. The position is that hon. Members on both sides of the House asked for a careful social cost benefit analysis to be done on this very complex issue. There is also the problem of load forecasts.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the recent announcements regarding the Furness shipyard and the ship conversion yard in Hartlepool, involving a large degree of unemployment, make it imperative for the Government to end this study as soon as possible? A decision should be made, both in fairness to the miners and to Tees-side.
    Mr. Marsh: I appreciate that, but the key point in building power stations is what the load is likely to be. Power stations cannot be built to provide employment; they must be built to provide electricity in connection with whatever demand is arising.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the decision for which we have been hoping for some time may have a beneficial or adverse effect on my constituency, can my right hon. Friend say what complexities trouble him? Are they economic or are they price-fixing in character?
    Mr. Marsh: For a start, one clearly wants the most up-to-date load forecasts, which are due fairly soon. In terms of cost benefit analysis, one must make assumptions about length of employment of people who might otherwise be unemployed, which leads in turn to a long-range economic analysis.

    Export Industries (Fuel Costs)
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power to what extent his Department, in its comparative study of fuel costs in the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States of America, is taking account of the fuel-cost element in export industries.
    Mr. Marsh: Fuel costs in different countries are kept under review as part of the continuing work on fuel policy, with particular regard to the effect of energy costs on our competitive strength in export markets.
    Mr. Lane: As fuel costs represent a higher proportion of total costs for export industry than for industry generally, will the right hon. Gentleman also keep under review the advantage to the export trade of eliminating or reducing the fuel oil tax at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. Marsh: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend's answer take into account the increase in the cost of gas caused by the recent moving of drills in the North Sea from British areas to Dutch areas?
    Mr. Marsh: No, Sir. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) asked me a Question about comparative fuel costs. There is no evidence that the price of natural gas is, or will be, adversely affected by those companies which decide to move to the Dutch part of the Continental Shelf.

    Power, Stations (Nuclear and Coal-Firing)
    Mr. David Howellasked the Minister of Power what is his latest estimate of the trend of the overall costs of nuclear and coal-fired power stations, respectively, during the next 10 years.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Power if he will give an estimate of the comparative costs of nuclear and coal-fired power stations during the next 10 years.
    Mr. Marsh: The latest estimates of the trend over the next 10 years were given in the Reports on Nuclear Power Costs published as Appendices 43 and 44 to the Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
    Mr. Howell: Does the Minister accept that those figures suggest that the economic advantages of nuclear stations are bound to be stronger and to increase in the future? Would he reassure the House that those advantages will be taken fully into account in the future fuel policy in both the medium and the long term?
    Mr. Marsh: I find myself in the embarrassing position of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend be aware that some of us have grave doubts about the figures available for nuclear power stations? Bearing in mind the already rapidly increasing capital and running costs of power stations, would not it be desirable at least to consider an independent inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. Marsh: I appreciate that there is a great deal of controversy on the subject. But the investigation which has taken place so far has involved the A.E.A., the C.E.G.B. and the Department's Chief Scientist's Division. The matter has also been to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I find it difficult to think of a body which would be independent of all those and be capable of doing the job.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the two Appendices to the Select Committee's Report which he mentioned contain the agreement of the Coal Board officials to the general calculations in them? Will he remind Lord Robens that the Coal Board officials agreed?
    Mr. Marsh: I am sure that Lord Robens will note what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his own figures showing that in the 1970s and onwards coal will be competitive with any other fuel, and bear in mind that unless the construction of three coal-fired stations is begun fairly quickly we shall be very short of places to burn that coal, no matter how competitive it is in the 1970s?
    Mr. Marsh: I would not go so far as to say that it would be competitive with any other fuel in terms of being cheaper than any other fuel in the 1970s. At the present rate, it will be able to hold a large share of the energy market.

    White Paper on Fuel Policy
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power if the White Paper on Fuel Policy, Command Paper No. 3438, still represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Marsh: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Palmer: In view of that reply, will my right hon. Friend do something
    1168
    to dispel the air of confusion which still exists around this matter? At the moment there appear to be as many fuel policies as there are separate chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries.
    Mr. Marsh: There is only one as far as the Government are concerned.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is an increasing need for himself and the Minister of Technology to come to some final conclusion about the Report of the Select Committee on this matter, and that, as long as their decision is pending, it is inevitable that everyone will go in different directions?
    Mr. Marsh: I do not think that the Select Committee's Report is in conflict with the White Paper on Fuel Policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and I are examining the Report, which is a very large and important document, and we hope to come to the House fairly soon with our conclusions.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time we debated the White Paper, which he has accepted as policy? Will he make representations to the Leader of the House to the effect that he thinks it urgent that the House should debate the White Paper soon?
    Mr. Marsh: We have debated the White Paper on a number of occasions both in relation to the Coal Industry Act and to the winter Supplementary Estimates. I am sure that it will be possible to make some arrangements through the usual channels.

  GAS

    North Sea Gas
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power when he expects that an announcement will be made about the price to be paid by the Gas Council for North Sea gas.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power whether he will now make a statement on the price to be paid by the Gas Council and other consumers for North Sea gas.
    Mr. Marsh: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement I made to the

    1169
    House on Wednesday, 6th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 458.]
    Mr. Lane: As to any future price fixing, will the Minister confirm, as he implied in his statement last week, that his view of a reasonable price is one which is low enough to ensure that the economy gets the full benefit of cheap indigenous fuel and at the same time high enough to encourage companies and consortia to explore new areas thoroughly?
    Mr. Marsh: Since I said it last week, I see no reason to disagree with it this week.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the fact that the settlement announced so far between Phillips and the Gas Council covers only a relatively very small part of the discoveries so far, can the Minister tell the House when he expects to reach a general settlement on the much larger area of discoveries not yet announced for pricing?
    Mr. Marsh: Yes, I think the hon. Member will agree that it is not a very small proportion of the total so far found, but a small proportion. The length of time in reaching agreement with the Gas Council and other companies is something which I cannot forecast.
    Mr. McGuire: Can my right hon. Friend now say what was the agreed devaluation price put on the price and to what were the companies asking him to agree?
    Mr. Marsh: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As the price agreement must have been reached before the loss of the latest rig, would the Minister assure the House that that particular price is not to be regarded as a ceiling for other price arrangements?
    Mr. Marsh: I cannot quite follow the hon. Lady about the significance of the loss of the rig, which was of course a tragedy.
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I perhaps elucidate my supplementary question and stress the increased risks of exploration in the North Sea and the fact that the price may not be higher?
    Mr. Marsh: We have always been aware that the risks of exploration in
    1170
    this particular area are very high indeed. This is the justification for the sort of levels of return that no other company would expect to get when operating in normal commercial circumstances.
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Power whether he will take steps to set up a free market in North Sea gas.
    Mr. Marsh: No. The supply of North Sea gas is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the Continental Shelf Act, 1964.
    Sir J. Eden: To what extent does the right hon. Gentleman expect to see variations in the next phase of the agreed contract prices? What will be the principal factors likely to govern these variations?
    Mr. Marsh: I presume that the hon. Gentleman means future agreements. The factors which affect the price will, of course, depend on the different situations in the different fields for the different companies.
    Mr. Concannon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that already 20 million tons of coal are being sold to the C.E.G.B. at this particular price?

    Gas Supplies, Golspie
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Minister of Power what proposals have been made to him regarding the supply of gas to Golspie, Sutherland, by the Scottish Gas Board; and if he has approved them.
    Mr. Freeson: None, Sir.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an astonishing reply, since almost a year ago my right hon. Friend admitted to me that the existing plant was incapable of supplying the needs of the area? Is my hon. Friend further aware that provision has been made in Caithness for the supply of liquified petroleum air-gas? Will he consider if there is a need for similar supplies in Golspie?
    Mr. Freeson: We have been in touch with the Scottish Gas Board and are advised that there is no supply problem at Golspie, the potential of the plant having been increased somewhat. If the developments referred to by my hon.

    1171
    Friend in Caithness are successful, no doubt the Board will consider introducing them where they are useful.

    Prices and Incomes Board (Report)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Power if he has now received the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the proposed increase in the price of gas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Power if he has received the report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes concerning the investigations into Scottish gas prices; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marsh: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and I have received the Board's report on gas prices, which is now being studied. A statement will be made to the House on the day of publication or as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that, in Scotland, the price of gas is 24 per cent. above the national average? Can he give an assurance that there will be no increase in the price of gas in Scotland?
    Mr. Marsh: Any assurance will have to await the statement to be made when the Government have studied the Board's proposals.
    Mr. Dempsey: In view of the strong feeling in Scotland about the high cost of gas, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the statement will be issued very soon?
    Mr. Marsh: Yes, Sir.

  ELECTRICITY

    Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of of Power whether the introduction by the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board of a second scale of 70 units at 2·35d., or an increase of 55 per cent. on the old rate of 1·5d., had his approval.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend considered the general proposals under the early warning arrangements, but the
    1172
    details were a matter for the Board in consultation with the Electricity Council and the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Consultative Council. I understand that the maximum increase for any domestic consumer in the area is 20 per cent., while the average for domestic consumers is about 16 per cent.
    Mr. Tilney: Even though the average may be 16½ per cent. for all domestic consumers, does not the Minister agree that people living on small fixed incomes are hit worse than any other section of the community?
    Mr. Freeson: That kind of question has been put many times before, both in the House and in correspondence with the Department, and we have always had to inform hon. Members that there are social security arrangements for assistance in such cases of need.
    Mr. Emery: Does the Minister realise that he just threw away the idea that an increase of 20 or 16½ per cent. was insignificant? To many people it is a major increase. Can he tell the House that he is very dissatisfied with that sort of increase?
    Mr. Freeson: In real cash terms it is not a major increase. I am as much, if not a little more, concerned about the conditions in which poor people live in this country and have been over a much longer period.

    Bulk Supplies (Price Range)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power, based on the revised estimate for electricity demand for 1971 to 1975, and as a result of new electricity generation capacity, at what price range per unit he estimates electricity will be available on a bulk tariff basis for selected industrial users, with a view to implementing a cheap energy policy.
    Mr. Freeson: I cannot give estimates for particular categories of consumer, but it would be reasonable to assume that electricity costs generally will tend to fall in real terms over the years.
    Mr. Osborn: Is it not essential to have such details in preparing forecasts? If offers of cheap coal to Alcan and other outside users of coal are implemented, will not this increase the cost of

    1173
    electricity to the consumer, because of the increase in the cost of coal to the C.E.G.B.?
    Mr. Freeson: The answer to both points is, "No, Sir".
    Mr. Emery: How can the Minister possibly suggest that if a million tons of cheap coal are not sold to the C.E.G.B., and it must replace them by a million tons of more expensive coal, this is not to be reflected in an increase of costs to the C.E.G.B.?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman's description of the position concerning coal supplies to the electricity industry is quite inaccurate.

    Nuclear Power Station, Heysham
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the Minister of Power, in the light of the Nuclear Safety Committee's report, what plans he has to approve the construction of a nuclear power station at Heysham; and when construction work will commence.
    Mr. Marsh: I am still considering the C.E.G.B.'s application for my consent to build this station. Although the site is acceptable in terms of safety, there are other factors be considered.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied not only with regard to the safety of the existing population but that there will be no need to impose restrictions which will affect the Lancashire County Council's plans for having a major population growth in the area?
    Mr. Marsh: The planning decision would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We are satisfied that these stations are safe: with the present restrictions about them.
    Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a warm welcome will be given in the area around this prospective power station if he decides to give approval to its construction? Is he further aware that a pool of labour is available which would be able to help in the building of the station?
    Mr. Marsh: I am aware of that, and it is pleasant to know that something I do has some support somewhere.

    High Temperature Reactors
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Power if he will issue a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board that they should seek tenders for high temperature reactors in respect of all future power stations.
    Mr. Freeson: This is not a matter for which a general direction would be appropriate.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tender submitted by the Nuclear Power Group for a high temperature reactor in respect of the Hartle-pools station is several million £s cheaper than the next lowest quote? Is he further aware that, in the United States, it is the custom of the electricity utilities to publish all the details of tenders they receive for power stations as soon as the envelopes are opened? Has he taken note of the plans of the Gulf General Atomic Company in the United States for building a 1,000 MW high temperature gas-cooled reactor as soon as possible and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be reasonably brief. Mr. Freeson.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Freeson.
    Mr. Freeson: The choice of reactor for nuclear power stations is a matter for the C.E.G.B. Most of the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

    Wales
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Minister of Power if he will state the total amount of electricity generated in Wales, the amount generated by nuclear, coal and hydro-electric plants, respectively, and the total amount consumed in Wales.
    Mr. Freeson: In 1967 the total generation, in million kilowatt hours, was 14,700 of which 2,600 was nuclear, 11,450 coal and 650 hydro. Total consumption was 10,800 million kilowatt hours.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that that amount could be substantially and profitably increased and the industry could be more efficiently administered in Wales if we had one electricity board, responsible for distribution and generation in Wales? Is he further aware that it would give additional employment inside the country?
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware that in 1967 there was a net export from Wales to the national grid in other parts of the country. Questions about the administrative structure of the industry are quite separate from the matter before us.

    Stewart Street Power Station, Manchester
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Minister of Power what capital investment he has approved at Stewart Street power station, Bradford, Manchester.
    Mr. Freeson: Under the Acts, my right hon. Friend's approval of capital investment is related to the C.E.G.B.'s general programmes of capital development and not to individual projects.
    Mr. Ogden: Does my hon. Friend recall that on a number of occasions he has been asked for suggestions about where more coal would be burned? Will he note that I informed the Minister four weeks ago that Stewart Street power station was working only on part load, 300 yards from the colliery? Will he have a look at the colliery and the power station to see what extra coal can be burned at the station?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend would accept that it is not the Minister's responsibility to administer individual power stations throughout the country. If there are queries of this kind, the best thing in the first instance would be to raise them with the C.E.G.B.

  PRIME MINISTER (ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS)
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake to answer Parliamentary Questions for a further 15 minutes on each Tuesday when the House is sitting.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer the hon. and
  1176
  learned Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by him on 10th November, 1966.—[Vol. 741, c. 253]
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people are eager to hear what he has to say about the Lord President's first giant stride towards Socialism, particularly since he himself called devaluation, in Washington, "a lunatic self-destroying operation"?
  The Prime Minister: I have answered a number of questions about my right hon. Friend's speech. The Question asks me if I will allocate more time to Questions. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be delighted to hear that, compared with the last year of my predecessor's efforts, I have answered 23 per cent. more Questions in the House. I hope that he will applaud this effort in national productivity.
  Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: In order that we may get through more Questions and Answers would the right hon. Gentleman shorten his replies, instead of giving us the usual long drivelling answers?
  The Prime Minister: I have given already the figures for the Questions that I have answered. I am sure that we would make more progress and get more representative Questions if the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) did not appear first on the Order Paper, and if the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) were in that high position. I am sure that the intellectual content of both Questions and Answers could be raised.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. I have only appeared 21 per cent. first on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, MUNICH (INQUIRY)
  Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning the need for a new British inquiry into the Munich air disaster; and whether he will now make a statement.
  Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Prime Minister whether he will institute a British inquiry into the air disaster to a British European Airways Elizabethan aircraft piloted by Captain Thain at Munich in 1958.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has invited Mr. E. S. Fay, Q.C., to reopen the inquiry conducted under his chairmanship in 1959–60, but with different terms of reference. I will, with permission, circulate the full terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT but they are, in brief, to consider in private and report to the Board of Trade whether, in its opinion, blame for the accident is to be imputed to Captain Thain. As the purpose of this inquiry is different from that of the German inquiry, which was to establish the cause of the accident, the Government of the Federal Republic have kindly agreed to make available German witnesses.
  Mr. Onslow: Is the Prime Minister aware that that progress will be warmly welcomed by many hon. Members on this side, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who has pressed for such an inquiry for several months? May I ask the Prime Minister whether he stands by his own statement at Manchester that Captain Thain has been unjustly treated?
  The Prime Minister: I said at Manchester that I felt that Captain Thain had been unjustly treated in that no further inquiry had been held following the very important report from Farnborough on the question of slush control and the effect of that on the accident. Now we must leave this to the inquiry, to decide exactly what its findings are in relation to the terms of reference it has been given. It does mean that the Farnborough report can be taken into account in the new inquiry.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how grateful many hon. Members on both sides of the House are for that statement? While quite understanding that it is not possible to prejudge the inquiry, will he make it clear that an opinion as to whether Captain Thain was to blame must require this inquiry to go fully into the causes of the accident?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that the hon. Gentleman, not only on constituency grounds but more widely, has been right in pursuing the matter as long as he has. I was glad to give the Answer that I have given.
  There have been difficulties about the inquiry raised under international law and aviation practice. This is a matter for the country in which the accident takes place. The German Government have been extremely co-operative in making their witnesses available on the basis of a private inquiry, on which they are right to insist, and obviously the terms of reference relating to the responsibility of Captain Thain must take into account all the circumstances relating to the accident and all the later information which we now have on the causes of this kind of accident.
  Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister's announcement is both important and welcome. Can he say whether there is any reason why the inquiry should be held in private and, if it must be held in private, will the evidence be published subsequently? I should have thought that the experience of recent inquiries was that, if it can be held in public, it will be better.
  The Prime Minister: There are difficulties about this. The German Government have the responsibility in such an inquiry, and it is no secret that there was some problem in persuading them to make available their expert witnesses to give evidence. Since the inquiry relates to the culpability or otherwise of the captain concerned, it is probably right that it should be in private. But no doubt those responsible for the inquiry—Mr. Fay himself and the assessors helping him—will take into account what the right hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members and I myself feel about this and make available to the public as much evidence as possible.
  Mr. Rankin: While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has just said on behalf of my hon. Friends, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that, while it is important that justice should now be done, it is even more important that justice should be seen to be done? Therefore, does that not add to the necessity of having some kind of public report?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, I accept what my hon. Friend has said. It is extremely important that the inquiry should be held. I see no difficulty about the fact that it will be held in private. I know that those concerned for it will themselves feel that their report must carry conviction, and, therefore, that they must make available as much information as possible.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the difficult circumstances in which Captain Thain may be placed, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will be given every facility to be represented, to call witnesses, and so on, quite apart from what the British Airline Pilots' Association may do for him?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. He has been informed of our proposals, and he is content that the inquiry should be conducted by Mr. Fay. He will of course be represented, quite apart from anything that the Airline Pilots' Association may want to do, and Her Majesty's Government will bear all the basic costs of the inquiry, including the costs of witnesses.
  The following are the terms of reference:
  "To consider in private such evidence as may be presented with regard to the accident to B.E.A. Elizabethan G-ALZU at Munich on 6th February, 1958, being evidence which was not considered by them when they reported to the Minister of Aviation on 18th August, 1960, and having regard to such evidence, to the matters considered by them in that Report, to the Report of the German Federal Office of Aviation relating to the re-opened Inquiry into the said accident and to the Memorandum of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough on the Application of the Results of Slush Drag Tests, to report to the Board of Trade whether, in their opinion, blame for the acccident is to be imputed to Captain Thain."

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister whether he will dissociate Her Majesty's Government from the recently resumed United States bombing of the North Vietnam area near Hanoi.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the many statements of Her Majesty's Government's view on these matters.
  Mr. Winnick: Would the Prime Minister state at what stage, apart from
  1180
  nuclear weapons, the Government would consider dissociating from American bombing of North Vietnam? Is he aware that many people seem to feel that, if we dissociated ourselves from American policies, certainly it would encourage many people like the excellent Senator McCarthy who want a policy of de-escalation?
  The Prime Minister: I do not intend to interfere in any other country's elections or even primaries. But my hon. Friend will realise that his question is hypothetical. I made clear in Washington what our attitude would be if there was any suggestion of using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. But, as far as dissociation is concerned, my hon. Friend could not be more wrong than to imagine that this will help.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: In order to save time during Questions to the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister consider giving an Answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) which, one day, will give that hon. Gentleman some satisfaction?
  The Prime Minister: I feel that a much higher proportion of my Answers give satisfaction to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) than do Answers that I give to the hon. Member for Croydon whatever-it-is who sits opposite.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May we take it from the Prime Minister's original Answer that, since he dissociated himself and Britain from the bombing of oil installations near Hanoi in 1965, he now dissociates himself from the Pentagon's attempt to bring Hanoi to the conference table by bombing the city itself?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend knows that we have always opposed the bombing of the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong. That was our position, and it is still our position. I feel that my right hon. Friend also could help in what we on the Government Front Bench are trying to do in the matter if he would dissociate himself from the refusal—not refusal, because I hope that it is not a refusal—the slowness of Hanoi to respond to the proposals which have been made. If they now say that they will come to the conference table for prompt and productive discussion, the bombing

  1181
  will stop tomorrow. That has been clearly stated to me by President Johnson. That is known in Hanoi, and it is known in Moscow. If my hon. Friends would lend their weight to that, we could get peace in Vietnam.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Prime Minister explain why so many of his supporters appear to regard American bombing as being so much more morally reprehensible than clandestine murder by the Viet Cong?
  The Prime Minister: I have made it clear—I have said it in the White House, I have said it in America and I have said it in Moscow—that while this war continues there will be the most horrible consequences. All of us were appalled by that brutal execution by a South Vietnamese policeman. We are equally affronted by the brutal murders by the Viet Cong of their prisoners. If horror pictures are to be shown on television at all, I wish that they were all shown. The consequence is that, until we get the two sides round the conference table—and even then the task of securing peace will be enormous—there will be no end to the carnage and brutality.
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will now state what further measures he will recommend to end the war in Vietnam.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on 27th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 1223.]
  Mr. Molloy: Would not the Prime Minister agree that, in the name of the suffering humanity in Vietnam, it is not too much to ask the mightiest nation in the world to cease their bombing unconditionally so as to make a contribution to getting people round the table? Further, would he agree that, before further escalation takes place, he ought to take the initiative and ask U Thant, Mr. Kosygin and President Johnson to come to an urgent meeting with a view to ending this war—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
  The Prime Minister: I have talked to all these statesmen to whom my hon. Friend has referred. The position is absolutely clear. As I have said, despite all
  1182
  the difficulties of the last three or four weeks the United States Government have made it clear that they are prepared to stop the bombing if they can have a clear sign—I do not mean Press interviews with French or Australian journalists or anyone like that—given to the Soviet, British or American Governments that they will come to the conference table with the idea of constructive talks towards a peace settlement on, as President Johnson has said, a free agenda. I do not think that there could be a more reasonable request. If they give that sign, the bombing will stop. He has made that clear. Obviously, following that, if there was a great military build-up and peace negotiations were rendered impossible, there would have to be second thoughts. I believe that that is the right road to peace, and I believe that we would all welcome a response which would make the transfer of this issue from the battlefield to the conference table a reality.
  Mr. Hastings: In view of our impending withdrawal from the Far East, does the Prime Minister think that his opinions, views or position on Vietnam will have the slightest effect?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had been in Washington or Moscow recently he would have found that the answer is yes.
  Mr. Mendelson: While accepting my right hon. Friend's assertion that he has now worked for a long time trying to get the two sides together, will he associate himself with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Governments of Canada, India, Sweden and others who say that the bombing should stop now and negotiations will follow? Why should he not associate himself with that move?
  The Prime Minister: I was fully appraised of all the moves of the Secretary-General, who was my guest at No. 10 to discuss these matters. Indeed, it was the result of the work of Her Majesty's Government—not least through the approach to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) which enabled me to put U Thant in touch with the North Vietnamese representatives in Paris—which led to the later stage. But nothing that U Thant discovered on his mission in any way invalidates what I have said.

  1183
  I have discussed this in detail with President Johnson, Mr. Kosygin, President Podgorny and Mr. Brezhnev.
  Mr. Peyton: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us sympathise with his difficulties in explaining to his hon. Friends how, due to hs own policies, this country no longer has any decisive influence in world affairs?
  The Prime Minister: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sympathy, which I accept in the spirit in which it is offered. If the hon. Gentleman will give the same degree of concern about ending this war in Vietnam as my hon. Friends, I would listen to him with some sympathy.
  Mr. Tinn: Can the Prime Minister say anything about Russian influence or pressure to help to modify Hanoi's intransigent attitude regarding negotiations?
  The Prime Minister: It would be very difficult and not helpful for me to speculate about that. Obviously the Russian co-Chairman corresponding to ourselves was appointed to that task because of their influence on the eastern side in the matter while we are connected and have close relations with the American side, and both of us have been working, so far as we can, to get peace there. But I think it would not be helpful for me to speculate about the internal situation in Hanoi.
  Mr. Onslow: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to say that riotous demonstrations against the war in Vietnam, such as that planned this weekend at the American Embassy in London, serve no purpose whatsoever in bringing the war to an end and merely bring disrepute on those who take part in them?
  The Prime Minister: I do not mind anyone demonstrating for peace in Vietnam. I do not always approve of the way they do it, though their aim, when they throw things at me, is singularly inefficient.
  Provided those who demonstrate genuinely want peace in Vietnam and not military victory in Vietnam, whether for one side or the other, and it makes them feel good to demonstrate, I have no objection. This is not the way to get peace, because the peace in Vietnam banner is being carried by a number of countries,
  1184
  by this country and by Commonwealth countries, and by U Thant. We shall only get peace on the terms which I have suggested. Those who carry the banner of peace and say that what they want is victory for the Viet Cong, or the hawks in North America who talk about peace and want a military victory on the other side, are not, in my view, helping to get peace.
  Mr. Heffer: As my right hon. Friend earlier said that dissociation would have absolutely no effect on American policy, may I ask him whether our present policy has had any effect on American policy? Is it not time that we carried out the policy of the Labour Party at its annual conference which urged dissociation from American policy?
  The Prime Minister: But that would not help to bring peace. I am in no doubt that the relations which we as the Western co-Chairman have had with the United States have had some considerable effect. At all times the aim of Her Majesty's Government has been to prevent escalation, whether caused by hawks in America or by very dangerous proposals on the other side—for example, the time I went to Moscow in July, 1966. We have been trying to prevent escalation in order that the voice of reason and the cool voice of those whom we want round the conference table can be heard. That is still our policy.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since on previous occasions when there have been bombing pauses there has been no disposition shown in Hanoi to come and talk peace or move towards negotiations, is not the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the reasonable American attitude to this question to be welcomed, and does he realise that it will be supported in many quarters on this side of the House, if not behind him?
  The Prime Minister: Obviously I welcome what I said. Concerning the previous bombing pauses—and we had something to do with the pressures which led to them; we are not alone in this, but we had something to do with it—it is true that there was no response. The North Vietnamese Government, of course, were aware of the change in American bombing policy last autumn which might have

  1185
  given a chance to come to the conference table. I do not underrate the difficulties either for the United States or North Vietnam. While I believe that the American Government have put forward proposals which anyone who wants peace in Vietnam should accept, I know that, in the present situation of the intensive fighting in South Vietnam, there are difficulties for both sides. I hope that it will not go on too long with all the blood and deaths and murder and everything else that is involved. After that is over, I hope there will be a realisation that reasonable terms for an adjournment to the conference table have been put forward. I hope that the sign—and it is a small sign—that is required for that to happen will be forthcoming.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1968–69

    Vote 1. Pay etc. of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £99,657,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.
    3.37 p.m.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: When one first addresses the House immediately at the end of Prime Minister's Questions, one sometimes feels a gigantic vacuum cleaner is operating at each door.
    It is a pleasure to be face to face with the Under-Secretary again after the passage of another year. However, it is unfortunately not equally pleasant to contemplate the result of his year's working, for one can only call it a year of steady erosion of the Navy's capability, and hence of Britain's influence in the world.
    For this we do not entirely blame the Under-Secretary. I blame the Secretary of State for Defence who is sitting on the hon. Gentleman's left, but not paying attention to the debate. I refer to the man who nudges the Under-Secretary in the ribs and tells him what to say—like last night.
    The Secretary of State inherited, in his own words, the "finest weapon", the famous phrase that he used when he first spoke from the Box as Secretary of State for Defence. But now the blade is bent, blunt and rusty, and the handle is heavier than ever.
    The size of the Ministry of Defence does not seem to diminish in step with the diminishment in the size of our forces. Indeed, at a time when our forces are being cut, the headquarters organisation seems to get larger and larger. The basic figure in the yellow paper for headquarters and outstations

    1187
    is £41 million in 1967–68, and it is £54 million this year—[Interruption.] We must put it into perspective and refer to the overall figure concerning the headquarters as a whole. Professor Parkinson has written a vivid article on this subject. It shows a man wearing a bowler hat and carrying a brief case, with two and a half sailors standing beside him, with the caption:
    "1967. Royal Navy fighting ships have dwindled to 114, and the officers and men manning them to 84,000. The chairborne Navy continues its steady progress to 33,574—one official to every 2½ serving men."
    Professor Parkinson says:
    "The headquarters of Government was never designed as the administrative hub of the British Isles, but as the centre of a spider's web which used to cover half the world."
    Perhaps I had better repeat that for the benefit of the Under-Secretary of State who was otherwise engaged. This was not designed as the hub just of the British Isles, but as the centre of a spider's web which used to cover half the world. He concludes:
    "With the larger function gone, the Whitehall of today is not merely cumbersome but ludicrous."
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I find it difficult to see how this arises out of Vote I, which relates merely to the pay of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: There are a large number of men drawing pay at the headquarters of the Ministry. Indeed, they largely comprise it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. and gallant Gentlemen refer me to the head of the Vote on which he thinks this arises?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Pay and allowances of officers and men. Perhaps I should make it clear that I am not knocking the civilians. There are a large number of uniformed officers at the headquarters instead of being at sea. Most of them hate it, and I can say that I did when I served a sentence there.
    I turn, now, to deal even more directly with the Vote concerning pay and allowances for officers. First, the arrangements in the Grey Paper for future reviews of forces pay are unsatisfactory. The first reason for this is the departure
    1188
    from the Grigg formula. A pay adjustment should have been due in about two weeks from now, but what the Services do not know—and indeed nobody knows—is when the Prices and Incomes Board will report. I remember during my service time what a relief it was when the Grigg formula was in force, because one knows that it is never the right time to increase the pay of the forces, and the fact that this was being done all along the line over the years, with the regularity of the spacing of railway sleepers, was a great satisfaction to all concerned.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman recall that his party abandoned the Grigg formula by giving only half the increase which was due?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: That has nothing to do with the point that I am making. Whatever the award, it was made. The fact was that the file was taken out and dusted regularly every two years, but now, like so many other matters connected with defence, it is to be left vague. I do not doubt that a great deal more will be said about this by subsequent speakers.
    Unfortunately, pay and allowances, and conditions generally, produce real difficulties for officer recruitment. This can be seen all too clearly in the depressing phrases on page 58 of the Grey Paper, where one reads:
    "A considerable increase is needed in the number of general list cadets entering the engineering specialisation; more seamen are also required."
    I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that the requirement for seamen officers entering Dartmouth has not been met in the long and distinguished history of that establishment. It goes on to say:
    "The number of applications was less than in previous years."
    In the next paragraph, dealing with university entrants, it says:
    "This is not as high as the number of awards in the previous year. It is hoped to do better in 1968. The Royal Navy needs many more graduate entrants…"
    This is the direct result not only of matters of pay and allowances. It cannot be too frequently said that officers, and ratings, too, have a real devotion to

    1189
    the Service and all that it stands for. This tribute is often paid, and I pay it again today, but the officers and ratings are accustomed to clear cut orders and regulations. They are accustomed to being told in clear terms where to go, and what to do. Uncertainties and vague threats of further cuts produce a great sag in morale.
    There is, however, something more important than the bald figures of pay and allowances set out in these tables. Last night the Under-Secretary of State showed that he did not know the answer to a fundamental question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell). My right hon. Friend asked:
    "Do the Government accept the concept of an all-out war at sea as expounded by the. United States Defence Secretary?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1009.]
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley): In case the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not read his copy Of HANSARD, perhaps I might tell him that I stated that we do not.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: It is difficult to read HANSARD when the debates are so compressed that it is not in the hands of hon. Members until the day after—
    Mr. Healey: Was not the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the House?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I was.
    Mr. Healey: Did not he hear it said?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I heard nothing but vagueness.
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend made this absolutely clear in his winding-up speech. I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is supposed to be interested in naval matters, paid no attention while my hon. Friend was speaking.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I was in the House, and what I saw was that after my right hon. Friend asked the question a bewildered look came on the Under-Secretary's face, he received a giant nudge in the ribs from the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, and then the Under-Secretary
    1190
    rose and said "No". Anyone who was in the House then must have seen what happened.
    This uncertainty, and this reply by the Under-Secretary, explain the officer recruiting difficulties more than any details or shortcomings of pay and allowances.
    "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"
    After all, the Government have had plenty of time, and plenty of Defence Reviews, to make up their minds about fundamental issues of the kind to which I have referred.
    I think the Under-Secretary of State said last night that there would be no redundancy in the Royal Navy, or very little—
    Mr. Foley: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves the point about creating alarm and despondency, will he explain why, last year, he was in favour of the Navy fighting in Vietnam? Does he still support that policy?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I think that I would be quickly ruled out of order if I were to start talking about Vietnam in the context of Vote I.
    On the question of redundancy, perhaps the Under-Secretary, if necessary with the guidance of the Secretary of State for Defence, will say what the point was when, last night, he talked about redundancy in the Royal Navy. Is there to be redundancy, or not?
    Mr. Foley: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is so fascinated by, and interested, in naval debates, he should have been here last evening when I was explaining this after Ten o'clock, when we were discussing Vote A.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I was here throughout. The hon. Gentleman made so many fascinating speeches that it is difficult to remember them all without referring to HANSARD. This again is my complaint, that no HANSARD is available for the Vote A debates because of the gross mismanagement of business by the Government. What the House is asking now, whatever was said last night, is: is there or is there not to be redundancy in the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Thomas Steele rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Steele.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: On a point of order. I was not giving way to anyone except the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: But the hon. and gallant Member had resumed his seat and I had called Mr. Steele.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I will resume my seat, Sir Eric, at the end of my speech.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order. Is it not the case that frequently in our debates an hon. Member who is speaking seeks to give way in case he can elicit the answer to a question which he is asking? That, I submit with respect, Sir Eric, is what my hon. and gallant Friend did. I respectfully submit that he still has the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The normal course is for an hon. and gallant Member who has the Floor to resume his seat when he has finished speaking and only to give way if he sees that some other hon. Member wishes to intervene. It is not the custom for an hon. Member to resume his seat in the hope that someone will intervene.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: It was not so much in the hope, Sir Eric, but in the expectation that the Under-Secretary, who is always so obliging to the House, would oblige us with the information which I wanted—
    Mr. Healey: On a point of order. Surely, if a Front Bench speaker sits down and then someone he does not like stands up to speak and he is allowed to get up and resume his speech, all our debates would be totally impossible. Is that not the case?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound to say that that has always been the practice since I have been a Member of the House—
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats when I am addressing the House. No one is
    1192
    allowed to speak in the House while I am on my feet. I was about to reply to the point of order put by the Secretary of State for Defence—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am replying to a point of order put to me by the Secretary of State. The practice of the House is that when any hon. Member is addressing the House he decides whether he will give way to some other hon. Member who seeks to intervene. It has never been the custom since I have been in the House for an hon. Member to resume his seat when no one else is getting up to intervene. It has always been the custom that if an hon. Member resumes his seat it is generally understood that he has concluded his speech.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles rose—
    Mr. Steele rose—
    Rear-Admiral Giles: Further to that point of order. I had not intended to suggest to you, Sir Eric, that I had concluded my speech and I was certainly not resuming my seat for that purpose. I had resumed my seat earlier in my speech for various replies from the Under-Secretary of State, and I shall continue that practice.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the circumstances of this case, it is clear that the hon. and gallant Member was under a misapprehension about the practice of the House. In the circumstances, it would be right, I think, to allow him to continue his speech.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I am very grateful, Sir Eric.
    I wanted to return to the subject of the recruiting and re-engagement of ratings. The recruiting literature which is issued gives full details of the pay and allowances which a young man joining the Forces may expect during his service, but unfortunately recruiting of ratings as well as of officers is also disappointing. This is apparent from page 59 of the White Paper:
    "Recruitment is running at the rate of 7,000 a year. This is lower than was desired: in particular, a shortage of recruits for the most highly skilled categories…"
    The notable exception, thank goodness, is the Royal Marines. But this fact has

    1193
    given rise to fathers of boys entering H.M.S. "Ganges", the new entry training establishment at Shotley, ringing up after 16th January and saying, "My boy was due to join Shotley. Do you still wish him to join?"
    Even more significant than the recruiting difficulties are the difficulties of re-engagement. After all, those already in the Service know what it is like there. On page 61, we are told that re-engagement figures have risen from 25 per cent. to 29 per cent. for nine-year men and from 45 per cent. to 48 per cent. for 12-year men. When I read those figures I thought that I remembered much better figures when I was last at sea myself, and I looked by chance at an old copy of the 1960–61 Navy Estimates, on page 16 of which I saw the following:
    "There has been a further increase to the region of 65 per cent. in R.N. ratings. There could hardly be more convincing evidence that those who join are satisfied that the Navy offers an attractive and interesting career."
    A few short years ago, the figure was 65 per cent. for ratings generally and now, under the machinations of his Government, it has risen from 25 per cent. to 29 per cent. for nine-year men.
    In these circumstances, one does not wish to say anything which could make a bad situation worse, so I will not dwell an it further, except to say that the Government should look at it closely to see what has gone wrong. It is not just a question of pay and allowances but a much deeper malaise, stemming from a lack of confidence in the Government's overall policies, and, I am sorry to say, a personal lack of confidence in the Secretary of State himself.
    I have one or two detailed points about pay and allowances. Assistance with house purchase is available for ratings and is very popular and helpful and an excellent scheme in every way, but it is not available for officers. May we be informed why this facility is not similarly available to officers? On local overseas allowances, it was announced at the time of devaluation that the position of Service men abroad would be looked into, that there would be an interim arrangement and that, afterwards, the local overseas allowances would be adjusted so that no man suffered any loss because of devaluation.
    1194
    But devaluation was on 16th November and I believe that the new rates were not published until Saturday, 2nd March. Why this tremendous delay? It is another case of uncertainty and shilly-shallying, which gives rise to doubt in the minds of serving men. Now the Minister of Defence for Administration says, "We have had many complaints". If he says that, we may be sure that they have had a great many complaints. Even as he skidded and slid about at high speed yesterday, we could gather that fact from him.
    A further point arises from a constituency matter but affects many Service people as well. A constituent of mine was recently married in Hong Kong and almost at once was ordered home long before the end of his normal expectation of tour because of the general rundown in the Far East—although not in Hong Kong, of course. When he arrived home, he had to pay the full Customs Duty on the household goods which he had collected and been given on his marriage, and which would otherwise have been largely immune had he stayed overseas for the normal tour.
    I do not like the word "victimisation", but this seems to be a failure to understand the difficulties of the Servicemen as they are moved around the world from place to place at the Government's behest and not of their own choice. Would the Minister investigate this, as it affects Service men as a whole? I will write to the appropriate Department about the detailed consideration of my constituent's case. To sum up, I believe that the Government are pursuing the wrong defence policies. I believe that the Secretary of State in his heart of hearts knows it, the forces know it and, as we see, the country knows it.
    4.1 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to make only one point on Vote A about one particular ship.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are dealing with Vote 1, not Vote A.
    Mr. Hughes: I mean Vote 1. I wish to raise only one short practical point about one particular ship, the ship which has sometimes been called the hospital ship "Britannia" but which is also the Royal Yacht. What is the future of the

    1195
    Royal Yacht and exactly what are the crew of the yacht doing for the pay which is outlined in this Vote. This has frequently been the source of discussion on this particular Vote over a number of years, and you may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that originally this ship was approved by this House as a hospital ship; and throughout the years there has been considerable criticism of the use to which it has been put.
    Recently, I have asked Questions of the Minister as to what services the crew of this particular ship have rendered during the time they were not engaged on Royal occasions. Of course, I am not wishing to discuss occasions on which they were used for Royal purposes, but I would like to know what this particular crew does in the interval, the eight or nine months of the year when they are not engaged on Royal enterprises. I understand that for eight or nine months of this year this crew do not go to sea. I do not know exactly what they do, but I suggest that it might be possible for the Minister to explain. I know that it is very difficult to decide what duties people do, but I would like to know what these officers and men do when the ship is not at sea. Some of my hon. Friends feel that there should be a time and motion study, but I believe that that would be very difficult to do.
    How many officers and men are there on this ship? I have been informed by the Minister that at the present time there are a rear admiral, five commanders, five lieutenant-commanders, six lieutenants, and a crew of 233 when the ship is in port. I would like to know whether something cannot be done to utilise the services of the crew, who have considerable experience.
    I have suggested to the Minister on various occasions that the ship could be utilised in other ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has on previous occasions suggested that the ship could be used for other purposes. I suggested that it might be used for public health services, as a hospital ship or for giving holidays to school children, or for trips for miners suffering from pneumoconiosis and so on. I do not wish to dwell on that. I want to know that the money which is paid to these officers and men is justifiable at the present time.
    1196
    When the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy he invited me to go to Portsmouth to see the "Britannia". I went and I was very impressed by the ship. I have no criticisms at all of these officers or men, but I feel that at a time when we are looking at the question of economy we are not justified in paying men for doing practically nothing. Therefore, I have suggested that the services of the crew should be utilised in other ways.
    As a result of one suggestion I made that the ship might be chartered out to carry passengers from New York to the Bahamas, I received an urgent letter from a gentleman who is the head of a Toronto tourist agency which I passed on to the Minister. That gentleman was prepared to pay 2 million dollars in order that this ship should be chartered at times when it was not necessarily in the service of the Admiralty. I did my duty and passed the letter to the Minister but I received a reply. I cannot say I was satisfied with it and I pursued the matter. As a result—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member can pursue this any further on Vote 1, which deals with the pay of the Royal Navy. We cannot decide on Vote 1 how ships of the Royal Navy should be used.
    Mr. Hughes: I want an assurance that the amount we are paying to the crew is justified. I have had from the Minister a reply which seems to be an attempt to conciliate me; and I am always prepared to be conciliated. The suggestion was made to me that the crew of the ship were to be utilised in the near future in the N.A.T.O. manoeuvres. That did not appeal to me very much. I want the crew of this ship to be used in a way which justifies the payment that is made to them. I believe the Minister genuinely thought that the fact that the "Britannia" was to go out on N.A.T.O. manoeuvres would in some way satisfy me; but I do not know what the crew will be doing in the N.A.T.O. manoeuvres. I would like to know what they are going to do except float about in the "Britannia", wasting the money of the taxpayers of this country. Therefore, I suggest that their services could be utilised in other ways.

    1197
    I believe that at the present time the crew could serve their country in a way which would redound to the benefit of the economy of the country if this ship were put at the disposal of, say, one big tourist agency, like Thomas Cooks'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member really must not pursue this. We cannot pursue on Vote 1 whether or not the "Britannia" should be used on tourist business. We must confine the debate to the pay of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.
    Mr. Hughes: I am arguing that the pay of these officers and men should be justified and that we are not entitled to pass this Vote until we are satisfied that they are earning their money.
    I do not wish to upset the N.A.T.O. manoeuvres. If arrangements have been made for the crew to take part in the N.A.T.O. manoeuvres, I do not want to upset that arrangement, and good luck to them. But after the manoeuvres an attempt should be made to utilise this ship and the services of these men for the benefit of the country.
    4.12 p.m.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I should like to refer to page 22 of the Estimates where certain figures are given for marriage allowances and lodgings and London allowances for officers and ratings. I notice that marriage allowances for both officers and ratings are down. I do not know whether that is because of the smaller numbers involved, but since people are getting married at a younger age I am astonished that this should be so.
    The figure for lodging and London allowances for ratings is up, but for officers it is down. Separation allowances for both categories are down. I should have thought that more men would be separated from their families than was the case in the past as we have closed down a number of overseas bases. I should like an explanation for this. I may be ignorant when I ask this question, but what is the purpose of the Long Service (Advances of Pay) Scheme?
    I hope that the Minister will look into these points. It may be purely an accountancy matter. Perhaps the Service did not spend so much money last year.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Frank Judd: I listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) with great interest because many of my constituents have been engaged in looking after the vessel to which he referred. There is a great deal of concern in Portsmouth about wasted Government expenditure. Since we are told that the Government have to cut their social service programme and other programmes, we want to see the fullest possible utilisation of resources. I am sure that all those in Portsmouth who are concerned with looking after the "Britannia" would want the ship and her crew to be properly utilised.
    I should like to raise a matter which is not altogether unrelated to this debate. In correspondence with the Ministry of Defence recently, I have been intrigued to learn that this year the crew of a helicopter in the Navy is to be put, to a large extent, at the disposal of the liaison services with private preparatory schools throughout the country. I am not sure what the purpose of this exercise is, but I gather that it is generally to promote good will among the pupils of such schools.
    Extreme economics are being urged in various aspects of Government expenditure. If the crew of such a helicopter is to be used in such a way, it would be appropriate to hear whether this is an isolated instance and, if so, how it is justified by the Government, because there must be considerable expense involved, and, if it is not an isolated instance, what the criteria are upon which the Government decide where and when policies of this kind should be followed.
    4.18 p.m.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I should be out of order if I were to take up in any detail the remarks of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). However, may I be allowed to say three sentences about the Royal Yacht? First, I should like to express my admiration for Mr. Attlee who, when he was Prime Minister, made the decision during the election campaign of 1951 to build this vessel as a hospital ship which could be converted for

    1199
    Royal Yacht duties. It was a courageous decision. He probably anticipated that it would be much more difficult for the Conservative Government likely to succeed his Administration to lay down such a ship. It was a great act of statesmanship that, in the middle of an election campaign, he should find time personally to approve the laying-down of the vessel to which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire objects. The hon. Member, who has spoken several times every day in our defence debates, does not want to see any ships afloat, or any aircraft flying, or any people dressed in uniform. This would be his idea of paradise. I hope that in due course he will go there and find no one in uniform.
    I should like to probe the headquarters costs. On page 85 of the Grey Paper there is a chart which shows that the cost of Whitehall organisation last year was £59 million. This year it has gone down to £49 million. On the face of it, that is healthy. I know the great problem which any Minister has in cutting down Naval, Army and Air Force staff. I remember giving a solemn promise to the House that I would cut the number by 100 each year for five years. I managed to do it for the first three years. After that, I left office and I do not know what has happened since.
    I suspect that these figures have been fudged. I notice that people who used to serve on the headquarters staff are shown as having been transferred to other Votes. May we have a few more details to show to which Votes they have gone and on what principle they have been moved? Is this an extension of Parkinson's Law, or is it a general principle of functional division and orientation?
    Page 55 of the Grey Paper shows that in the Whitehall organisation there are 3,500 Service personnel and 19,300 civilians, making a total of 22,800. On page 22, we are told that the Headquarters total will be 16,730–6,000 less. Paragraph 2 on that page states that:
    "…certain staffs, hitherto borne on the Headquarters Vote, are being reclassified."
    I wonder whether these are the Bath staff? Is it intended to move the Bath staff, or are they reclassified in some other Vote, or is it intended to move part of the Bath staff to Portland, which
    1200
    would be a sensible move? This might bring the design and research and development sections of the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment and the contracts section closer together. That would be logical. But the situation is very obscure and it is not easy to ascertain the facts.
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. George Willis: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) finds difficulty in following the moves made in defence each year which completely cloud many of the important points about where and how personnel are employed. I remember the duels which we had with the hon. Gentleman when he was in charge of naval affairs. I am not sure that he made the reduction which he claims to have made.
    Once again, I wish to raise the question of artificers. I do not make any apology for doing so this year, having done so over many years in the past, because this is the centenary year of the intoduction of the artificer branches into the Navy. I pay tribute to the work which they have done. We are told on page 59 of the Grey Paper that, in particular, there is
    "a shortage of recruits for the most highly-skilled categories, e.g. artificer and mechanician apprentices, and in the electrical mechanic, engineering mechanic and communication branches…"
    This has been a long story. I cannot remember a year when we have not been told of the shortage in these branches.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I have here a quotation from my speech of 1963 when I stated that there had been 1,430 satisfactory applicants for 510 available vacancies as artificer apprentices. That year, two-and-a-half times as many people applied as we were able to take.
    Mr. Willis: I do not wish to rehash the old debates which I had with the hon. Member, but I recall that at that time I raised the question of the quality of the applicants.
    We are faced with a shortage of recruits in the most highly skilled categories, a point which some of us raised on the introduction of the Polaris programme. Clearly, the provision of two crews for each of those submarines, most of them highly skilled men, would create greater

    1201
    difficulties. There is also a shortage of such men in civilian life.
    On Vote 1 last year I made one or two suggestions which had appeared in the then current number of the Naval Engineering Review—suggestions as to what might be done about the shortage. My hon. Friend did not reply to me personally at the end of that debate but I hope that those suggestions were considered. May I repeat some of them?
    The first suggestion concerns the re-engagement grant. That grant has been in operation for two or three years, and it was suggested that it might be increased for certain categories of men. What is the future of that grant? It costs us a considerable sum to train an artificer over a period of training of four-and-a-half or five years. The cost is about £5,000. If we could get men to sign on for another ten years by paying, let us say, £500, that would be cheaper. At the end of nine or twelve years he is a very skilled man, reaching the point at which he is of the greatest value to the Service. If an offer were made to him at that point of a payment of a considerable sum, either on re-engagement or later, that might save money. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to consider that suggestion. Here is an opportunity to use the grant in as flexible a manner as possible to meet these shortages in particular branches.
    Secondly, last year the Naval Engineering Review suggested the possibility of men signing on for rather shorter periods. Instead of a man signing on for a period of ten years at the end of twelve years, why should he not sign on for five years, possibly with a reduced re-engagement grant? We should at least get five years' additional service from such a man at a point when he was highly trained, highly qualified and could give good service to the Navy. Such a suggestion might well be given more consideration than in the past.
    I mention only in passing the question of the master or warrant rate for artificers, which I have raised previously. This discussion has been going on for many years. The Admiralty is very much opposed to it. The rate was abolished. But when we are considering incentives to men to stay on in the Service, which is an important point, undoubtedly this suggestion should be considered.
    1202
    Probably it is becoming a part of what ought to be a much wider consideration of the whole structure of these branches. The Admiralty has given thought to it in the past, and I had discussions on it years ago. We should consider the structure in all these branches and the possibility of creating a structure in which very highly skilled men would be separated from less-skilled men so that their time was not wasted on jobs which could be done by less-qualified men. This would help solve the fundamental problem in the Service of finding skilled men to do the work. It would require much greater alterations than in the past in the structure of these branches.
    This is an important problem, not peculiar to the Navy, for it exists in industry. How do we fit technical men into industry so that they may reach the highest ranks and not waste their energies? How do we separate them from the less expert so that they spend most of their time on work for which they have been trained? I hope that my hon. Friend will go on considering that point. If anything were done about it, it would probably solve that problem of the master rate, which would be absorbed into the much wider structural issue.
    The more I have thought about the Navy over the past few years the more I have been convinced that we must pay more attention to the question of structure. The present structure was created for conditions quite different from those of the Service today. It is not good enough simply to fit new branches into the same structure, which is what we have been doing. We started with the engine room artificer and now we have half-a-dozen different kinds of artificer. That is not the answer. We must have a different structure. I urge my hon. Friend to pursue the matter because I am convinced that it would lead to a much more efficient use of manpower, which would save money.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The House has been asked to pass Vote 1, which shows a notable increase of £2,200,000. One is struck immediately by the explanation of the increase. We read that phrase so dear to Whitehall about rates of pay—that they are under continuous review, a

    1203
    statement which for the ordinary sailor and the ordinary civilian conjures up a picture of not very much happening.
    On the previous page we see that we are spending more money on far fewer people. The number of officers and men has decreased by 2,620, although there is an increase in the Royal Marines of 50, an increase in the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service of 20 and an increase in the Women's Royal Naval Service of 50. The number of men in the Navy has decreased considerably for an increased cost and without any apparent spectacular rise in the rates of pay.
    The House must first ask where the money is going. My first question is whether a contracting Service, as, unfortunately, is the Navy, is tending to become top heavy. It is well known by any administrator that that tends to happen. We tend to get rid of the ratings and to keep too many officers. May I ask about the Admiral Superintendents? The number of flag officers remains the same, but the Admiral Superintendents are being abolished.
    I come back to my old hobby-horse about the officer-rating ratio and the tendency for it to go wrong. It is the Government's job in circumstances like these to be absolutely tough about it. The problem tends to arise in all the Services, and I have had cause to raise it before. In particular, one should not have too many senior officers. There are all kinds of arguments, of course, about how, on international bodies, one has to match exactly the admirals, captains and the rest from other countries. Indeed, I understand that the total of 73 flag officers does not include another eight or so who come into the Ministry of Defence central account.
    My preoccupation here is to ensure that the officer-rating ratio does not—as I regard it—continue to deteriorate. There is always a case for having done by an officer every job which could be done by a rating, but in the long run this does not lead to efficiency, and it is not good for a Service. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about it and explain why we are asked to spend more money, at the same rates of pay, on far fewer officers and men.
    1204
    Now, the question of the Admiral Superintendents. In the past, as we know, they have had their shortcomings, but equally I know of a great many instances where they have done a very good job. I have in mind particularly their relationship with the Whitley Councils at the yards. It was always a pleasure to me to go and address these Councils. On many occasions, I found that the Admiral Superintendent had an excellent and sympathetic relationship with the Council.
    Now, the Admiral Superintendents are to be abolished, or, rather, their duties are to be taken over by other officers. I wonder whether we shall have the same day-to-day liaison between the work-people in the yard and the new admiral, who will not, as I understand it, be resident there. Does it mean, on the other hand, that the head of one of the civilian departments will take over these duties and be chairman of the Whitley Council? I am sure that, in some cases, the civilian head would do the job very well, but in other cases he might not do it quite as well as some of the Admiral Superintendents did it in the past. Is the idea really an extension of the scheme which was tried out at Chatham for the reorganisation of the yard there? We all know what happens in practice in the civil technical branches. One or two people will always gain seniority. Almost automatically, they come from a certain branch which comes to my mind, and they will be in the chair.
    There is a danger in abolishing the post of Admiral Superintendent. Some of them, as I say, did an excellent job, and their relations with the workpeople in the yard were extremely good. We shall be going through a difficult time in the Royal Dockyards. As the Under-Secretary of State told us yesterday, there is to be a review and there will be some redundancies. Times will be difficult, and we shall need as chairman of the Whitley Council a man who has a real understanding of the problems of men working in the yard.
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Ogden: This debate on Vote 1 brings us to the last day of our six-day marathon on defence matters. We have talked of high policy, of individual Service policy, and now, on Vote 1—though £99 million

    1205
    is no small item by anyone's standards—we come to lesser items under the separate Service headings. This is the first time I have been able to listen closely to such a debate, and I have been surprised that we have been able to talk of so many matters of interest, in spite of our six-day programme.
    Now, we are discussing the pay and activities of our Royal Navy Service men and the Royal Marines. They will, perhaps, be as interested in our activities and our pay here, and the way in which we have tried to justify our six days of interest in their activities. It has been a form of inquiry. The Minister has certainly been under direct pressure. Nevertheless, I suggest—I think that the House will agree—that the only really efficient way to conduct an inquiry into Service and defence matters of policy and of individual interest is through a Select Committee on Defence. Only in that way can we go in more detail into Service matters.
    I do not expect that my hon. Friend will be able to say "Yea" or "Nay", or that his senior Minister would support the creation of such a Select Committee. But it does no harm to take this opportunity to put in the claim. The only way in which we can deal with these questions efficiently and fairly, to the just satisfaction of Ministers, the Opposition and individual Members, is through the creation, as soon as we can, of a Select Committee on defence matters.
    4.35 p.m.
    Captain Walter Elliot: I wish to draw attention to certain figures which reveal anomalies in the rates of pay and allowances of the Royal Navy. They appear on pages 42 and 43 of the Estimates.
    The rate of pay for an acting surgeon lieutenant at 44s. 6d. a day is 1s. more—not very much—than the rate for a lieutenant on the General List. However, it appears that, so soon as he becomes a surgeon lieutenant, his pay rises to 93s., whereas for a lieutenant on the General List, lieutenant R.M. and so on, it is only 52s. 6d. Why is this so? I understand the problem in recruiting doctors, but that disparity in pay between two people of just about equal calibre seems rather large.
    1206
    Following through the rates for the surgeon branch and the General List, one finds that, as officers become more senior, the rates of pay for both come closer together until, finally, at the rank of rear-admiral, they are the same. I suggest that it would be fairer to have the rates of pay the same at the rank of captain. I would do that, of course, by putting up the pay of the General List officers, not by bringing down the pay of the doctors.
    Another anomaly is shown on the same two pages. A nursing sister has the same rate of pay as a sub-lieutenant, and as a senior nursing sister she has a little more than a lieutenant. That seems fair. But I do not see why, when nursing sisters reach the more senior ranks as matron or principal matron, they should drop behind to such a great extent. They are then very responsible, valuable and scarce officers. If there were an argument for having their pay lower at any stage, it would, I suggest, be the usual one applying in their early days, when, perhaps, they might get married and leave the Service, rather as teachers do. Later on, however, when they are firmly established, responsible and highly trained, their pay should at least be equal to that for the equivalent men's rank.
    A matron-in-chief receives 172s. 6d., whereas the equivalent rank of commodore or brigadier R.M., paid as a captain, receives less. I do not complain about that, but it seems slightly anomalous.
    From the word "go", W.R.N.S. officers are paid less. This is so at the rank of acting sub-lieutenant, sub-lieutenant and lieutenant—considerably less, going right the way through, than their equivalent in the General List, until at the rank of commandant they receive more. As they become more senior, more trained in responsibility, more valuable, and more scarce at the same time, they should be more nearly level than they are. Why cannot that be done?
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: I have taken part in debates on the Navy Estimates for many years and, with the passage of time, I have become more and more amazed at the reduction in the number of ships afloat and the increase in the number of admirals ashore. Some of my amazement has been lessened

    1207
    by Ministerial remarks about the problems facing the Navy in this modern age and by the comments of some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby).
    In every Department of State, in the Royal Navy and throughout industry we are concerned to use skilled manpower to the best advantage. Nowadays we must look not only at manpower as a whole, but at the individual. Wherever a skilled man is stationed, we must ensure that his capabilities are used to the full.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) questioned the activities of the crew of the Royal Yacht "Britannia", which was built in my constituency. I understood my hon. Friend to say that the crew costs the nation £9,000 a week.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is the total weekly cost of the ship.
    Mr. Bence: In this debate I cannot talk about the cost of the ship but only about the pay of the crew. Let us assume that the crew is costing us £5,000 a week and the ship £4,000. I do not know the skills possessed by the crew, but presumably some of them are artificers and navigators. I do not suppose that any gunnery men are aboard. No doubt some of them are medical orderlies. If the ship is used for only a few months in the year, the Select Committee proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) might consider using the crew in another way while the ship is laid up. Alternatively, has the Minister considered the suggestion from Toronto that the ship would be a good tourist attraction—could provide cruises in the Caribbean and elsewhere—and could be hired out to earn us American dollars? I understand that £2 million has been offered to charter the vessel.
    Over the centuries men recruited into the Royal Navy have been taught skills and have acquired qualities which have not been associated with other sections of society. In the same way, coal miners acquired a skill which was of value only in mining. However, modern naval skills should make naval personnel useful to society and industry generally. In the past the skills of navigating, sailing and fighting at sea were attained by men
    1208
    and officers, but those abilities were of little value to them ashore.
    I understand that the majority of men recruited into the Navy today eventually acquire skills in electronic engineering—navigating these days is done by electronic equipment—and are trained in a similar way to men trained in industry. They therefore become craftsmen and their skills are similar to those required by engineering industry generally. This being so, I appreciate why there must be a disproportionate ratio between officers and men. To obtain good naval forces we must offer an attractive career structure. Whether in the defence forces or Civil Service, the parents of youngsters thinking of entering these walks of life want to be sure that a good career structure is in prospect.
    In industry a man's career structure may be spread over 100 or 200 institutions outside the one in which he learned his skill. However, when a man enters the Navy and learns a skill, we tend to think of that skill relating to only the career structure within that Service. Perhaps, because of this outlook, we are wasting manpower. I am sure that an O. & M. team would discover that the Admiralty could do its work more efficiently, in the same way that such teams have saved industry a great deal of manpower.
    The need for expertise is evident. I want us to get away from the concept of Nelson's Navy, when it was thought that once a man acquired the skill necessary for him to remain in the Service, he was of no value outside it. I recall a few years ago travelling from Portsmouth in an aircraft carrier. I talked to some of the ratings and asked them how they liked the life. While they enjoyed it, they said that the drawback was that it was more like serving in a factory than in a ship. Ships are now becoming defence factories and, for this reason, there should be an interchangeability among men skilled in electronics and electrical and mechanical engineering. I suppose that, with the use of oil fuel, the Service contains many chemical engineers as well. They would be vital in industry and, as a smaller Navy develops, it should be possible for these men to move into civil industry.
    With the limited experience that I have had of production engineering, I can

    1209
    assure the House that, judging from the skills possessed by men trained in the Army and Navy of which I became aware during the last war, their qualities are tremendous. Many of them were as well, if not better, trained than many engineers in civilian life. Many similarly skilled men in the Navy today would be invaluable in many British engineering enterprises.
    I appreciate that before attempting to redeploy skilled manpower of this sort out of the Navy and other Services it would be necessary to break down the concept of there being only one career structure for these men. I understand that a great deal of movement of skilled men goes on between the Navy and the shipyards. Indeed, some shipyards could not have competed successfully without the technical and scientific assistance they received from the technicians and shipwrights of the Royal Navy. Between shipbuilding and the Admiralty there is a great deal of interplay of skill, but does that occur in the electronics and electrical industries?
    I was very pleased to see in Vote A a proposition for helping ratings to buy their houses. To help a man serving in the Navy is most desirable. I had a shocking case in my constituency in which a young lady had a husband in the Navy. He was killed in Singapore and—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot see that this arises under Vote 1. No part of Vote 1 makes provision for helping members of the Royal Navy to buy their houses.
    Mr. Bence: I am sorry, but I understood that it was in one of the sections of Vote 1.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot find it, but perhaps the hon. Member can help me. I cannot see it under any of the subheads of Vote 1.
    Mr. Foley: It is under subhead D(5), Long Service (Advances of Pay) Scheme.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged. It apparently arises under sub-head D(5). The hon. Member will be in order if he can relate anything he says to subhead D(5).
    Mr. Bence: An hon. Member opposite mentioned loans to help people to buy their houses and expressed regret that the same facilities were not provided for officers. When I heard the hon. Member I thought I would rather see a service provided by the Navy available for everyone based on his position. I think that each case should be examined on its merits. I do not like selectivity in services provided either by the State or by the Admiralty. I therefore agree with the hon. Member.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Member reinforce his argument by pointing out that one-third of the commissioned officers are now ex-lower deck and by taking a commission they would deprive themselves of the exact facilities which he is recommending?
    Mr. Bence: I thank the hon. Member. This strengthens the point. At first I was inclined to reject the idea that there should be assistance given to officers, but then I saw that I would be supporting selectivity in welfare and social services, which I do not like. For the Navy and the rest of society we should have non-selectivity and where officers need help it would be a good thing if my hon. Friend could see that right across the board, based on financial conditions of the individuals concerned, he should spread the practice of helping naval men to acquire their homes.
    4.54 p.m.
    Dr. Reginald Bennett: One little point which has cropped up on this Vote captured my interest. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can enlighten me a little about it. It is the question of senior officers, the flag officers, who have so often been made sport of in partisan debates. I have observed that in the Estimates before us that Vote A has declined by 2,500. It is mentioned on page 51 that there are 73 admirals. On page 13 there are four admirals and on page 14, four admirals. I am open to correction as to whether they are in series or in parallel. If all these tables are supplementary to one another, it means that we have 81 admirals at the moment.
    I am very interested in this subject because, like everyone in the country who has had anything to do with naval ports,

    1211
    I was absolutely electrified by the wonderful speech made by the present Prime Minister in Devonport on Sunday, 27th September, 1964, when he gave rise to these among the many words he will never forget:
    "The Royal Navy is not adequate to our needs in the 'sixties. It has been run down to a dangerous extent. We have 101 ships in commission but we have plenty of admirals…"
    —in a characteristic sneer—
    "we have plenty of admirals-85. Our admiral-warship co-efficients 0·851."
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I do not know whether it has occurred to my hon. Friend that in that speech the Prime Minister allowed for the Duke of Windsor and also, I think, for the Duke of Edinburgh. He had to consider some who had retired in order to inflate the numbers.
    Dr. Bennett: Without wishing to infringe the prerogative, I should say that the Duke of Edinburgh is far from being retired, but I should like to know whether the number of admirals was calculated in these Estimates in the same way as the Prime Minister, when in Opposition, calculated it. I should like to know whether the number of ships and admirals can be calculated in the same way and whether on the same basis evidence can be given that we had 101 ships in commission then. I should like to know how the ratio may have changed. It may not be possible for even so distinguished a mathematician as the Under-Secretary to do these sums in his head, but we are interested to know whether, when Vote A has gone down by 2,500, the number of admirals remains the same, 73.
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Under-Secretary replies, may I draw attention to two points raised in the debate which I hope he may be able to cover? The first is the difficulty which I believe many hon. Members have found with regard to Headquarters personnel in reconciling the figures on page 22 and page 55 of what is now normally referred to, and conveniently so, as the Grey Paper.
    On page 22 we are told that at the end of this month, at the beginning of the new financial year, the numbers em-
    1212
    ployed within the Headquarters will total about 16,730. Credit is then taken for the fact that in spite of extra work further reductions are expected to be made during the year. If the Under-Secretary turns to page 55 he will see in paragraph 78, sub-paragraph (a) there is a heading, "Whitehall organisation" which may or may not be identical with what is called "Headquarters" on page 22. There we find the total of 22,800 persons, a reduction of 2,500 since the comparable figures in the White Paper of the year before.
    I am sure many hon. Members would like the Under-Secretary to reconcile these two figures and to show how, if at all, they are related and also to indicate whether the figure on page 55 takes any account of prospective reductions during the financial year 1968–69; for it is not clear whether the figures on page 55 are the commencing figures or the average figures for the year or if they bear some other relation to expected experience during the financial year 1968–69. There is a further difficulty relating to the other remarks on page 22 about Headquarters staff. In subsequent paragraphs to the one to which I have already referred there is mention of reclassification of staffs, as a result of which
    "about 5,220 staff hitherto shown on Headquarters Votes will be transferred…".
    It refers to the expectation that there will be further transfers during the coming year. We should like to know whether those transfers, the past and the future, are yet reflected in the breakdown on page 55 and, if not, how they will be shown. In other words, can the Under-Secretary help us with the way in which headquarters staff, both Service and civilian, are dealt with in the Grey Paper?
    The second point which I hope he will carefully cover is that of redundancy, which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles). I appreciate that in the debate on Vote A last night the Under-Secretary has already referred to this. But he knows that we are in difficulty in our debate today, not for the first time, in that we are returning to debate the same Service without the benefit of the HANSARD report of the previous night's debate on it. This

    1213
    happened last year in exactly the same way, when, in accordance with our normal rotational practice, the Air Votes were the first to which we came. This is the second time running we have been in this difficulty—[Interruption.] I appreciate that there is a copy of the text in the Library, but it will be recognised that this does not give all hon. Members the opportunity of having the words before them or of studying them in the meantime. I hope that between us this is a matter which we shall be able to avoid in the future conduct of these debates, because it is clearly not to the convenience of anyone, and is not to the benefit of our debates on the Services.
    I have in my hand the Naval News Summary of July, 1967 where it is stated:
    "Redundancy in the Navy will be small and it is virtually certain there will be none before 1970/71. Certain branches will not be affected at all."
    That was after the White Paper, the Supplementary Paper—perhaps better now called the Red Paper, for such was its colour—in July last year, but before any knowledge of the Prime Minister's statement in January. I am sure, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will do a service if he makes it perfectly clear whether those words which were spoken to the Navy last July hold good in spite of the new decisions and, if not, to what extent they have been modified.
    In reinforcement of another point made my my hon. and gallant Friend perhaps I might read one paragraph which went out to the Navy in Naval News Summary only eight months ago. It said:
    "But it is no good for Britain to trim the Forces simply on the basis of some financial figure; they must still be capable of doing what is needed. It would be ridiculous to say that we can only afford 'x' ships, 'y' battalions and 'z' aircraft when we have commitments that need twice that number."
    I mention that only to re-emphasise the undoubted and simple fact that sudden, rapid and repeated changes of policy and intention have an effect not only on the morale and outlook of those serving but naturally and necessarily on the attraction of the Services to recruits and re-engagement. My hon. and gallant Friend was therefore perfectly and undeniably right in commenting on the difficulty in recruitment. The disappointing recruitment figures to which he drew attention are
    1214
    in part the Government's own fault in failing, even within a period of 12 months, to give a stable outlook to the Forces. It is not amiss that this point, which has been basic to all the days of our debates this year, should be re-emphasised, because here not only the Government's greater responsibility to the country at large but their inner responsibility to the Forces are involved. They are not satisfactorily discharging it if they expose the Forces to changes of intention and policy three times in the same year.
    5.6 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley): I shall try to answer the points raised on Vote 1. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) spoke of the erosion of the Navy's influence and that point was taken up by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Clearly, as I said yesterday evening, the reviews and cuts have caused a great deal of alarm and despondency. This makes it more difficult to persist in a policy of recruitment and re-engagement. I have the feeling, however, that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite positively want to wallow in this, and they have done so. Yesterday we saw an instance of this when they gave a false prospectus and picture of the Navy, its task and rôle in the world.
    There have been complaints about our debating too long into the evening for the report to appear in HANSARD. This was of the Opposition's making. They put down the Motion yesterday, and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West who introduced the debate, did not even bother to speak to the Government Motion later. Those who stayed to the end yesterday evening know quite clearly what happened, while those who unfortunately went away could have seen the text of everything said in the Library, if they had wanted to. I have it before me now.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman will agree that under the previous system without a Motion, the winding-up speech, with which we are concerned in our discussion now, would still have occurred in the last half hour before midnight.
    Mr. Foley: That is absolutely correct, but the opening speeches would have reflected the review of the totality of the Navy, and the winding-up speeches at that late hour would have dealt with points made in the debate, so that the most important issues would have been dealt with earlier and would have been the guide-lines for the rest of the discussion. This was not so yesterday.
    I must apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester if I appeared to be discourteous and caused him embarrassment at the beginning, when it seemed that he was sitting down for me to intervene and I did not. I regret it if he felt embarrassed by this.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I am grateful to the Minister.
    Mr. Foley: The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised the question of pay, which was also mentioned by other hon. Members in the debate. I can only refer him to my remarks yesterday and to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration on 5th March, when he indicated precisely what had happened, why the whole question of pay and allowances had been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes and how important it was that we should get a quick response from it because of what this meant to the Forces. We recognise the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, and hope that we shall soon be able to make an announcement on this.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: The hon. Gentleman refers to a "quick response". He will recognise that, under the Grigg Formula, this would have been due in about two weeks.
    Mr. Foley: Yes. I am also aware of what the Opposition did to twist and distort the Grigg Formula for their own ends when they were in office.
    I want now to deal with the question of redundancy. I regret that HANSARD is a rather bulky thing at this moment, but I want to repeat what I said last night, because all of us attach a great deal of importance to this matter. I was referring to recruitment and re-engagement. I shall not go over that again now, but I went on to say,
    "I cannot leave this subject without referring to the question of redundancy. It will take
    1216
    some time to work out the detailed manpower implications of the accelerated rundown announced by the Prime Minister on 16th January. Work is proceeding as fast as possible and we hope to have a clear picture by July. There is, however, no fear at all of immediate redundancy in the Royal Navy. A large proportion of the reduction will be achieved by what is normally known as natural or normal wastage.
    Recruiting will also be adjusted. Only a small proportion of the reduction will be obtained by redundancies, and this small proportion is a tiny percentage of the existing total strength. The reduction will not be spread evenly between the different ranks and ratings. Regrettably, much of it will fall on the Fleet Air Arm when the carriers phase out. There is, I repeat, no immediate redundancy, and we are taking all steps possible to alleviate the hardship which will inevitably be caused by the small number of redundancies."
    That is the point I made last night in relation to the question of redundancies.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred today to the question of assistance for house purchase. When he raised this last year, I was unable to give him a great deal of satisfaction and I regret that I am in the same position this year. The matter is constantly being examined. The main purpose of introducing it in the first instance for ratings was to encourage re-engagement, but that does not apply to officers. Nevertheles, there is a question of justice, and as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), it would be unfortunate if there were to be selectivity in this respect. I recognise the justice of that argument and we are doing all we can.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Gentleman referred to the redundancy that would occur in the Fleet Air Arm. What about the position of the pilot or navigator who is, say, under 30 years of age? What does his career now hold for him? What sort of payment will he have? What will he be able to do? Some guidance must be given to these men who took up a professional career which now has nothing to give them.
    Mr. Foley: I recognise the position. Even after the 1966 announcement that carriers would be phased out in the mid-1970s, I was able to point out, in 1967, that recruitment for the Fleet Air Arm had gone up. There is still high morale and the will to fly. But since then, of course, the mid-seventies date has been brought forward to some time in 1972, when the evacuation from the Far East and the Gulf is completed.

    1217
    We have stopped recruiting pilots for fixed-wing aircraft. We have given an assurance that those in the pipeline will get their wings. What we have is a period of time in which to work out readjustment problems. It may be that some of the aircrew would like to transfer to another service. Some may want to change from fixed wing to rotary aircraft. Others may want to look at their prospects overseas or in civil airlines.
    We have time to do all this. I recognise the justice of what the hon. Gentleman has said and I assure him that I am fully exercised of it. It is a matter of concern. This scheme must be elaborated over the next year or two and clearly we must give an assurance to those giving such loyal service to the Crown and the country.
    The question of local overseas allowances has also been raised. I was asked what had happened following devaluation. When devaluation came about, there was no change in the allowance overseas because one recognised the immediate hardship. There was then a percentage reduction, calculated on the basis of the sterling content of the money the men would normally have acquired overseas, pending the negotiations with the Treasury.
    The House will find reflected in Vote 1 increased sums for local overseas allowances both for officers and other ranks. Under subhead B(3) there is the sum of £1,622,000 for officers' overseas allowance, and this includes a £435,000 increase because of devaluation. Under subhead D(3), showing the overseas allowances for ratings, there is the sum of £5,494,000, which includes £1,315,000 increase because of devaluation.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: A married officer under the age of 25 or a rating or other rank under the age of 21 is not entitled to any marriage allowance, and this also affects his local overseas allowance. He is thus doubly penalised as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. Foley: I believe that my hon. Friend has just entered our debate and he is quick to make his point. His question relates to when the Royal Navy officially recognises marriage—the age of 21 in the case of ratings and the age of 25 in the case of officers. There is
    1218
    clearly a case of hardship here. The matter has been under examination for the last year or so. This goes beyond the question of local overseas allowances into such questions as those relating to married quarters—indeed, a whole series of questions. But the matter is being fully examined.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: The hon. Gentleman says that there is clearly a case of hardship here, and then he proceeds to depart from it. Earlier, he said that there was clearly a case of justice in relation to Fleet Air Arm redundancy. But he says that the Government have been examining these matters for a year. What are they doing about hardship and injustice?
    Mr. Foley: It has taken a little longer than we wished, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the problem of officers marrying under the age of 25 is not new. It arose during the 13 years of the Conservative Government but they did nothing about it. I feel that this is an example of synthetic indignation by the Opposition.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that, over the 13 years, there was a marked and continuing fall in the normal age of marriage. The circumstances were changing during that period.
    Mr. Foley: It may well be that the circumstances have continued to change. But it is still a matter of comment that the studies of sociologists in relation to the age at which people marry show not much difference between now and five years ago. I do not think that the Opposition can pass all the blame on to us about this. I have recognised the problem and it is part of the process of consideration of negotiation or re-negotiation of contracts. But that is as far as I can go tonight on this subject.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised a constituency point. If a posting causes financial worry to an officer or rating, we are always willing to look at it. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would let me have details, I should be glad to look into the case.
    The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has raised, yet again, the subject of the Royal Yacht. He has

    1219
    put forward a number of arguments for its greater use. He will be aware from the Questions that he has put down, and the Replies that he has been given that this has been examined. I am pleased to inform him and the House that Her Majesty has been anxious for some time that the Royal Yacht should be used for purposes other than Royal occasions. The Royal Navy is taking advantage of this helpful and practical gesture by Her Majesty.
    It is therefore intended to extend its use, wherever practical, for naval purposes. This year, as I have announced, it has been planned that it should take part in N.A.T.O. exercises. We are also examining ways and means of using the skills and competency of the Royal Yacht Service personnel to wider naval advantage.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) raised the question of the separation and marriage allowance. She raised the subject of the allowance under D(5), the Advances of Pay scheme, asking particularly what it was for. This is the housing allowance, enabling people to purchase their own homes. As to the separation allowance, there is a decrease between 1968–69 and 1967–68 which is more apparent than real. The 1967–68 Estimates were made when we had little experience of the workings of this allowance, which began in April, 1966. The expenditure is likely to be less.
    The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) raised the question of the helicopter team visiting prep schools. He wrote to me about this, and I explained that from time to time in our recruiting campaign we use this team, visiting schools of all kinds. Last year it went to primary, secondary modern, comprehensive and grammar schools. It so happens that on this occasion, in a selected area, it visited exclusively prep schools. No inference is to be drawn from this in terms of our recruitment policy. It is an attempt to show the Navy in all its aspects and to give an interest in it at an early age to people whose desires might lead them to join the Service.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would include the biggest
    1220
    preparatory school, the Royal Navy School at Holbrook?
    Mr. Foley: The Royal Naval School at Holbrook is a source of great satisfaction to me, as the Chairman of its Governors. It is also a great source of recruitment to the Navy, with a tremendous naval history. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not neglected in this respect.
    The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised the question of the shortage of artificers in the Fleet. This is something that he has persistently raised and he has also recognised that with the growth of modern weapons and greater sophistication, there is a constant demand in terms of ratings and officers with more skills and a greater grasp and understanding of electronics, radar and sonar weaponry and so on. It is true that the deployment of four Polaris submarines will cream off considerable amounts of our skill. This is one of the reasons why we are constantly looking at what can be done.
    He will be aware that the introduction of the re-engagement grant scheme in 1965, initially for a two-year period, was designed to relieve the increasing shortage of senior and leading technical ratings. Under this scheme grants up to £750 are payable to those eligible ratings who re-engage for a first engagement of 9 or 12 years, to complete time for pension. The scheme was extended by a further year to March of this year and for a further six months to September of this year. These short extensions are designed only as temporary measures pending a reassessment of our future requirements. I totally agree with him about the need to look again at our structures and skills and competences. We have to make sure that they are being used to the full.
    We have been looking at alterations in the structure of various branches. On 1st April there will be the amalgamation of the regulating branch and the coxswain branch. One is short of sea time and is drawing on the other. By amalgamating them we hope that we will be relieved in this respect.
    The master rate was abolished in 1949. From time to time the attention of Ministers has been drawn to the strength of feeling in the Navy about having a rank equivalent to senior ranks of the other

    1221
    Services. This problem is part and parcel of the review.
    The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) talked about the difference in figures in Vote 1. I have explained this partially by saying that since devaluation the overseas allowance in terms of ratings and officers has contributed to £1,500,000 of this increase. The rest is due not to any fee increases but rather to an attempt to simplify procedures in paying officers. Instead of having a system whereby ratings disperse every fortnight we are now doing it twice a month. This means that there is an extra 10 days of pay and it makes for a greater degree of efficiency.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Can the Minister say whether the officer-rating ratio has increased? If he has not got the figures available, perhaps he could write.
    Mr. Foley: I am coming to that. In any reduction we must bear in mind this question of the officer-rating ratio. What I can give, and these are my own figures which I have worked out, is that whereas in 1938 with a Vote A of £117,000 there were 86 flag officers, 11 admirals, 22 vice-admirals and 53 rear-admirals. In 1950, when the Vote A was £146,000, there were 104 flag officers; in 1958 with a Vote A of £106,000 there were 100 flag officers, and today with a Vote A of £95,000 there are 73 flag officers.
    Turing to the Admiral Superintendents, we have announced the reorganisation of the Home Command structure, and Admiral Superintendents will be phased out over the next three years. I explained in some detail what this would mean in each of the command structures. I pay tribute to the work of the Admiral Superintendents, for the way in which they have contributed to better industrial relations in the dockyards. Clearly, there is a danger that if someone is withdrawn with whom the work force enjoys confidence, care must be taken with the administrative machinery put in his place. I take that point, and I promise to write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the officer/rating ratio over a series of years up to the present time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) raised the possibility of a Select Committee on Defence. At present, of course, the Select Committee on Science and Technology is
    1222
    looking into defence research establishments, and already it has visited a number of the naval establishments. In the light of its experience, one can hope to see how far it might be extended. Clearly a number of problems arise in relation to classified information, but certainly the suggestion can be looked at.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) raised a series of points about the comparability of the medical branches with the General List in terms of pay. I cannot give the exact answer, but I can give him my own hunch, which is that a young doctor who has just qualified will probably start off in the Service at a lower rate of pay. In the light of his experience over two or three years, he will catch up very quickly and soon be on a par with the General List Officer. The same will apply to nurses coming in with an S.R.N. or S.C.N. qualification. She, too, will start off at a low rate compared with the General List but will very soon catch up. The hon. Gentleman will know that the rate of pay indicated is a broad range, and clearly there will be adjustments, with some people moving quicker than others depending on their competence.
    In this respect, one must comment that there is and has been a problem of recruitment of doctors into the Armed Forces. We are all aware of the difficulties. I am sure that this must be a matter which will exercise the National Board for Prices and Incomes. It may be a question of paying the rate for the job and making sure that there is sufficient encouragement for people to join the Service. The recruitment potentiality is of considerable importance in this respect.
    The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to the Whitehall organisation and to possible reductions. I cannot give him an answer now; indeed, it would be out of order, because this is a matter for Vote 3 rather than Vote 1. However, I have made a note of his points, and I promise to give him the fullest possible details within a few days.
    I end on this note. While this has been a difficult time for the Navy in the sense of maintaining morale, encouraging re-engagement and achieving its recruiting targets, nevertheless I want the message to go out from this House, which

    1223
    I am sure will be echoed on both sides, that we have the greatest trust and respect for the officers, men and women who give their service to the Crown and serve to defend their country.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £99,657,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay. etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969.

    Vote 4. Research and Development and other Scientific Services
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £34,042,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969.
    5.34 p.m.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: We now come to Naval Research and Development. Vote 4 A gives the pay and allowances of those engaged in such research and development, and Vote 4 B details the other expenditure associated with it.
    When we come to look at the explanation of the proposed expenditure totalling some £34 million, we find that only about 34- pages are devoted to it in the White Paper, and the burden of my song today will be to ask if we can have more information about a number of detailed topics which I will outline. In addition, I wonder whether £34 million out of a total of approximately £250 million for defence research and development is a fair and equitable share to allocate to Naval research and development.
    Under the heading "Ships, hulls and machinery", which is Vote 4 B(1), can we be told what research has been done on the Harrier carrier hull design? Has research been done? If not, why not, and, if so, with what result? I would emphasise the importance which I attach to the Harrier carrier, the "cheap" carrier, the "Healey" carrier, or whatever it is called. Incidentally, let us not call it the "mini" carrier. I wonder if the Minister has seen a copy of The Naval Review for October, 1967, which carries an article entitled,
    1224
    "Woolworth Carrier—V.T.O.L. version." There is a diagram of how such a hull could be devised, and the author's estimated cost is between £10 million and £20 million, according to the equipment, on the basic hull built as a tanker with an estimated building cost of between £2½ and £3 million.
    I do not pin my faith on the details of this ship, but we would like to be assured that the Minister has looked at this basic concept without prejudice and that he will let us know what the results of those investigations were. It is a subject which has been raised more than once in these debates, and I do not feel that the Opposition have had a satisfactory answer on a matter about which they feel very strongly.
    Next I come to the hunter/killer submarine programme. We have been told only one fact, and that is that it will be cut. Can the Minister say whether there were any research and development factors concerned with it? We want to know why it has been cut and why the Government do not go ahead with the type of ship which they themselves declare will now form the main striking power of the Royal Navy. Under the heading of research and development, we seek to know whether there may be some R. & D. factor or snag which has arisen causing the Government to take this astonishing action.
    Are the present hulls and machinery giving cause for concern? If not, why do not the Government press on with this project? In addition, would it be possible to get on faster with the hunter/ killer submarines, for which we understand there is a new basic design under consideration or development? Would it be possible to avoid delay if a bigger proportion of the R. & D. effort was applied to this submarine?
    Arising from that, can the Minister say something about nuclear propulsion for surface vessels? It seems to be a matter of growing importance, as the number of bases available for refuelling round the world become fewer in number. I am aware that nuclear propulsion for surface vessels is a subject which often appears in these naval money Votes.
    My third subject, which is of terrific importance, relates to anti-submarine

    1225
    warfare and the research and development which is being devoted to it. Page 85 of the Grey Paper has some schematic diagrams showing the block allocations of money to the various defence items. Opposite "Research and Development" there is a big block of £254 million. Of that very considerable total, we see only a little block of £15 million for ship and underwater warfare. At first blush this seems an extraordinarily small allocation of research and development funds for a subject of such importance to this country, as was clearly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) last night when he reminded the House that this nation has been brought near to starvation on two occasions in the last 50 years.
    The Royal Navy, by common consent, is, or has been, in the forefront of the world both technically and operationally in the deployment of all the various forces, weapons and equipment which comprise the subject of anti-submarine warfare. Can the Minister say whether there has been any significant breakthrough in technique? Can he convince the House that enough emphasis has been placed on this subject at Portland, where the research work is concentrated, because the total expenditure appears to be marginally down? Will he also be a little more forthcoming than has been the case in the past, because many people feel that, although obviously there are security classifications, there has been over much security and over much secrecy on this important subject? For instance, there are only six words about it in the Grey Paper. At page 38, it states,
    "… sonar equipments and their associated trainers…"
    We feel that he can do better than that, or we hope so.
    The next subject is hovercraft, where, again, we have very bald statements. The Navy apparently is to be responsible for the base repair, spare provision and so on for all the Services. Not only has the hovercraft tremendous significance in anti-submarine warfare, which we were talking about a few minutes ago, but we know that the Army is interested in it. If the Navy is to be responsible on an
    1226
    inter-Service basis, it must put its best foot forward.
    I refer next to torpedoes. I was a torpedo specialist, and I am well aware of the history of torpedo development. It has not been particularly brilliant. However, we should like to be brought up to date about torpedo research and development. I have heard it said that a hunter/killer nuclear submarine of the most modern type armed with only a mark VIII torpedo from the 1930s, based on a World War One concept, is like going into action in a Chieftain tank waving a spear out of the front.
    I now turn to the amount of effort which is being put into the whole sweep of oceanography and hydrography. There are much wider issues involved here. There are not only anti-submarine considerations, but pro-submarine considerations. In other words, increased knowledge of the sea—conditions in the sea, under the sea and on the bottom of the sea—is necessary if one is to operate this altogether new concept of nuclear submarines darting about. It used to be said—if I might have the Minister's attention—that a submarine is a slightly intelligent mine, but this is no longer true of nuclear submarines, which go faster than any surface vessel. I should like the Minister to explain how much research and development effort is devoted here, because there are wide issues involved. There is the whole question of minerals and proteins growing under water and diamond mining and fish farming. What help are the Government giving to the oil companies and our fishing fleet whose troubles have been ventilated in the House very recently?
    It is important that the Defence Department should take a very wide outlook and not confine its attention to the pure defence aspects of this type of research. There is a great deal of fall out or spin off, or whatever one likes to call it, which can help the economic situation of this country.
    Arising directly from this and from Vote 4 C, Hydrographic Services, I should like the Minister to say something about the Falkland Islands. They are of obvious strategic importance, besides being the access point to the Antarctic with its untapped reserves by way of mineral geophysical exploration and so

    1227
    on. A circular letter has been sent from the Falkland Islands headed with the impeccable sentiment "Desire the right". It says
    "Are you aware that negotiations are now proceeding between the British and Argentine Governments which may result at any moment in the handing over of the Falkland Islands to The Argentine?
    Take note that the inhabitants of the Islands have never yet been consulted regarding their future. They do not want to become Argentines. They are as British as you are, mostly of English and Scottish ancestry, even to the 6th generation. Five out of six were born in the Islands. Many elderly people have never been elsewhere. There is no racial problem, no unemployment, no poverty and we are not in debt."
    This is directly linked with Vote 4 C. It continues, and this is the question I ask the Minister:
    "Are you aware that the people of these Islands do not wish to submit to a Foreign Language, Law, Customs and Culture, because for 135 years they have happily pursued their own peaceful way of life "—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member may be relating this to the Vote, but it is not apparent at the moment. I wonder whether the hon. Member can help us?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I agree that it is difficult to see where this might be related to this Vote, but it is directly related to it under Hydrographic Services. We see from the Grey Paper that H.M.S. "Protector" has been engaged on hydro-graphic services in the Falkland Islands Survey.
    I was asking the Minister whether he was aware that the people of these islands do not wish to submit to a foreign language and so on. They do not wish to be placed under the Argentine.
    The letter continues:
    "Lord Caradon said to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1965, ' The people of this territory are not to be betrayed or bartered. Their wishes and their interests are paramount and we shall do our duty in protecting them'."
    Can we he assured that that is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
    "British Ministers have said the same until 1967 since when there has been silence."
    Therefore, not unnaturally, the people of these dependencies are worried.
    My last question is the question that they ask:
    1228
    "Is our tiny community to be used as a pawn in Power Politics? Do you not feel ashamed that this wicked thing may suddenly be foisted on us? What can you do to prevent it? What are you doing?"
    Will the Minister please say what the Government are doing?
    5.50 p.m.
    Dr. Bennett: My hon. and gallant Friend and neighbour, the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles), in one of the many important and germane points which he touched on his speech, referred to Vote 4 B(1), ships, hulls and machinery, and referred to the cutting of hunter/killer submarine programme, the one which was itself so much magnified in prospect by the future Prime Minister in that famous speech long ago. This programme, the darling it would seem of the Labour Party when in opposition, is now being cut, and the interesting thing is that it may well be that it is under this Vote that the real trouble comes
    I should like to know a great deal more about H.M.S. "Dreadnought", which I imagine to be the prototype of these submarines. I believe that all is not well. It is all very well for the Government to say that she is going in. It has been trumpeted during every debate with any relevance to the Navy throughout this marathon of defence debates in the last week, that she is going in for this greatest of all refits next May, or whenever it may be. I see from the Annex to this grizzly Grey Paper, on page 93, that she is listed under the heading,
    "Reserve or undergoing long refit, conversion, etc."
    If she is going from one refit to another, this may give some substance to what I have been hearing about her not being a particularly effective ship. There is, of course, no criticism of the men aboard her, but is she fully seaworthy? Is she capable of proper operational use? Is she capable of the deep diving for which she is designed?
    I should like specific answers, and I should, in the fullness of time, like to know how many days she has spent at sea outside harbour during the last 12 months. I believe that things are not as they should be, and this perhaps gives substance to the grounds for cutting back the programme. I hope that what I have heard is not true, but this is

    1229
    something which must be stilled formally, or it will have to be assumed to be true.
    5.53 p.m.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am glad to be able to take part in this short debate on the research and development Vote for the Navy. I regret that, owing to a commitment, I have to leave at 6.20, so I hope the House will excuse me if I appear to be discourteous.
    Obviously this Vote has been under discussion, and presumably this explains the fact that, compared with last year, we have no detailed break-down of the programme as between the different heads. Last year we were told quite clearly that so much would be spent on aircraft, so much on guided weapons, and so much on electronics. This year it is all left in the melting pot. I hope that following their considerations, all three Armed Services, and particularly the Navy, will, in their next White Paper in June, give us a detailed break-down of these research and development programmes.
    Perhaps the Minister could also tell us what proportion of research and development is inter-mural, undertaken at the Navy's own research establishment, and how much is extra-mural, undertaken in industry by industrial firms. This information will be of interest to the House, and if one can compare it with the other Services, it will be an even more useful yardstick.
    I propose now, to say a word about the contract procedures for work—it is sometimes development, and sometimes production—which is undertaken for the Navy by industrial firms. It was recently announced by the Government that firms would be rewarded to the extent of 14 per cent. when there was an element of risk in the contract. This compares with 15 per cent. in the United States, but it is better than some of the rumours, which we heard were coming from the Treasury, that 8¾ per cent. was the maximum return likely to be given to firms for the work they did. I wonder whether the general directive given by the Treasury has been passed down, and is getting down into industry, about how this 14 per cent. profit margin is likely to be achieved. Obviously a code of conduct will have to be worked out, but as far
    1230
    as I know this has not yet reached the lower echelons of the Civil Service and into industry.
    I cannot help feeling that one of the weaknesses in controlling research and development programmes in the Navy, and in the other Services, lies in the shortage of fully qualified accountants. It is a rather strange fact that there are only 300 qualified chartered accountants in the whole of the Government's Whitehall machine. This means that there are a limited number of qualified people who can control research and development programmes, and this may explain why errors sometimes occur in the Ministry of Technology, and sometimes in the defence establishments.
    I hope that, progressively, contracts will be placed with a considerable incentive for those firms which are trying to improve on prices, and that extra profits will be shared between the Government and the firms which show that initiative.
    I should like to see a more widespread use of value engineering which is coming in, and I commend the Government for it, because this is widely following the United States on research and development and production contracts. It is the right way to get the best value for money in our defence services.
    In the 1966 White Paper we were told:
    "We shall develop a small surface-to-surface guided weapon for use against missile-firing ships."
    Since then we have been probing to discover what progress has been made on that stated objective. Only last week we had a statement from the Minister of Defence for Equipment that this has apparently been postponed, and that we are to rely on helicopter-borne missiles to perform this function.
    I do not object to that, but I should like to know how much has been spent so far. I hope that the new weapon will be truly effective. I recognise that from a helicopter one gets a further horizon, that one lifts the horizon to a much greater extent than from a ship, and therefore there is some advantage in using the helicopter, but, up to date, despite innumerable inquiries, and I think even one Adjournment debate, we have had no information about any firm programme to follow up the promise that was made only two years ago.

    1231
    Every Government—and I touched on this in a speech last week—have to cancel research and development contracts. Much was made of this in the election campaigns, and in the Labour Party election literature, which I study carefully, in 1964 and 1966. I hope that we can call a truce in this contest, because in two and a half years, in money terms, the Government have cancelled as much as we did in 13 years. I hope it can be made clear that if the Government undertake projects, in relation to which technology is advancing rapidly, if they do their duty, in the early stages there will inevitably have to be cancellations. If there are no cancellations, they will not be doing their job. Someone wisely said, "If you make no mistakes, you make nothing".
    My fear is that because of mistakes made in various respects, of which much political capital has been made, the Government may be slow to initiate new projects, and that in a few years' time we shall find ourselves bereft of advanced technological weapons in all three services. The Government must not fall for this error. I hope that they will be robust in standing up to the Treasury, and starting projects which they believe to be in the interests of our defence Services, even if at a later stage some have to be set aside. This is only natural. It happens in commercial industry in our efforts to export, and it is natural that it should happen in our defence industries as well. If mistakes are not made, we shall get none of the weapons we need but shall be forced to buy them with valuable foreign exchange, which would de disastrous for our balance of payments.
    Everyone who has served in the Admiralty respects the Hydrographic Department, which has a deservedly marvellous reputation throughout the world for the quality, accuracy and printing standard of its charts. While I was there, we initiated the miniature chart, which was to be suitable for the smaller yachtsman. How are they going?
    I notice that there is to be an expansion of the sale of charts this year, which is agreeable. As a result, it comes on Vote 4 Z, Appropriations in Aid, and, over the last three years, the proceeds from sales have risen from £480,000 to £526,000 to £640,000. This is worth while
    1232
    and I hope that we will consider whether we have enough retail outlets. They should not be concentrated in the hands of the Admiralty or the Hydrographer. I hope that we can use the places where young people increasingly use small boats and yachts in this expanding industry and that the Admiralty realises the potential. The charts might also indoctrinate young people with the advantages of the Royal Navy and thus attract recruits.
    It is agreeable that the cost of production has risen from £320,000 to £340,000 to £402,000. Since the Admiralty is getting £640,000 I am glad that it is not keeping to the niggling 4 per cent. profit margin which the rest of industry has to exercise. More power to its elbow: it is making a unique profit which is a good thing so long as it is in the face of overseas competition.
    6.2 p.m.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am sorry that this Vote has decreased by £500,000, but it is difficult to delve too deeply, and nor would it be in the public interest in the case of certain projects. But it would be all right to ask whether there is likely to be any reduction or concentration of research establishments, as one might expect in present circumstances.
    I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Hydrographic Department in the past. One does not grudge it the expenditure, but one wonders what is the total cost. The sum of £1,400,000 is obviously only part, for its ships. Page 54 of the Grey Paper tells us that H.M.S. "Vidal" has been in the Indian Ocean most of the year, that H.M.S. "Dampier" has also spent her time in the Far East and has now been paid off. Will she be replaced? It strikes one, at a time when our withdrawal east of Suez has been announced, that there must have been a great deal of work going on there, and that some of this oceanographic work was perhaps paid for by the National Institute of Oceanography or its successor, which comes under the Department of Education and Science.
    I should like to know how far this work, which must have been expensive, was on a repayment basis and whether it is intended to continue hydrographic work east of Suez, even though we now contemplate withdrawing our own ships from the area.
    6.4 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Wall: Vote 47 concerns £7 million for research and development on ships, hulls and machinery and over £10½ million for weapons systems. I want to discuss surface-to-surface missiles and ships' hulls. In February, 1966, in the White Paper, the Government said:
    "We shall develop a small surface-to-surface missile for use against missile-firing ships."
    They referred to the same weapon again on the following page. Nothing was said about this in the 1967 White Paper, but in an Adjournment debate on 13th November last year, the Minister of Defence for Equipment said:
    "Since last year we have been examining—and this is what the Defence Review White Paper said—the development of a small surface-to-surface guided weapon for use against missile-firing ships."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 186.]
    Nothing is said about this weapon in the Grey Paper this year.
    This is the story up to date, except for last night, when, in winding up, the Minister of Defence for Administration said:
    "We are providing surface protection helicopters and so on and not planning to supply the Fleet with any surface-to-surface guided weapon in the sense of a missile fired directly from a ship."
    In other words, it is now clear—I should like the Under-Secretary to confirm this—that the Government have dropped the development of any surface-to-surface missile, leaving aside, of course, the surface-to-surface capability of existing missiles. They have now said clearly that, for ship strike, they will depend on helicopters carrying certain air-to-surface weapons.
    I have already suggested that helicopters have several disadvantages. The first is vulnerability. If any fixed-wing enemy aircraft were in the vicinity, a helicopter pilot would not be happy. Then there are the questions of bad weather, visibility and night flying. I understand that the weapon which will arm the helicopter is the AS12, which is wire-guided, which means that the target must be visible. What happens at night?
    Even more fundamental is the question of range, In the Adjournment debate which I mentioned, the Minister said that the range of this weapon, the AS12, is 7,500 yards, and that this outranges the
    1234
    cannon and small guns of the Russian fast patrol boats, but that was not the point. We were asking how the Government would deal with the Russian-built fast patrol boats in the Ossa class which are in the hands of many other satellite navies and which have a range of 17 to 20 miles. That is certainly given in many reference books, but, if the range is not accepted, I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what the Admiralty considers the range to be.
    Therefore, the Government said clearly in an Adjournment debate that the range of the British weapon was 7,500 yards and the range of the Russian 17 or 20 miles. Last night, the Minister said that they were not planning to provide surface-to-surface missiles but would provide more helicopters, and, referring to the missiles on the helicopters, he said:
    "These missiles have a range far exceeding that of the Styx missile or any other missile likely to be developed for fast patrol boats of the Komar type."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 11th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1108, 1109.]
    That seems a complete inconsistency. One Minister of Defence says that the British weapon's range is 7,500 yards and the other that it has a bigger range than the equivalent Russian weapon, which we know to be approximately 17 miles.
    Also, of course, we were not necsssarily talking about the Styx missile. I referred, both last night and in that Adjournment debate, to the new Russian surface-to-surface missiles carried in their Kresta class and later destroyers which are said to have a range of up to 300 miles. This may be in excess but I believe everyone will agree that the likely range of the weapons is well over 200 miles.
    On a number of occasions in this House I have asked the Government Front Bench to tell me how the Royal Navy is to deal with these Russian destroyers. If we have fixed-wing aircraft we know how to deal with them but if we have not is it really expected that a helicopter is to go up and to get within 8,000 yards of a Russian destroyer and then fire these wire-guided missiles, to discharge them at a ship which is equipped with a missile with a range of 200 to 300 miles? To me that is absolute nonsense. That is why I asked the Under-Secretary, as I have asked on many occasions in this House, how, without fixed-wing aircraft, the Royal Navy are to be expected

    1235
    to deal with modern long-range Russian surface-to-surface missiles with which all the new destroyers are equipped.
    The Minister said last night that, of course, the missiles will be shot down—or that is the implication—by the surface-to-air missiles with which our ships are equipped and I agree that the Sea Dart and the more modern surface-to-air missiles have a very effective antimissile capability. As I understand the Minister he said last year, and repeated last night, that we are developing further new surface-to-air missiles. I am delighted to hear it, but that is not the point of the basic question which I want answered.
    My other point is the question of ship hulls. Last night, I asked the Minister of Defence whether it was cheaper to develop a long-range surface-to-surface missile system than to develop flat-tops. We have discussed during a number of our naval debates whether a converted oiler or ore-carrier hull, to carry helicopters or short take-off aircraft is cheaper than developing a long-range surface-to-surface missile system. He dismissed the suggestion in two or three words, saying that a flat-top would not be cheaper. I understand that to mean that the development of a whole long-range missile system will be cheaper than developing a number of hulls for flat-tops. I cannot understand this; for the facts do not seem to fit and I should like the Government to explain how they reach that conclusion.
    On a number of occasions, various right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on these benches have put forward suggestions for what we jokingly called the Healey carrier, a large ship, a converted oiler or a ship built with an oiler hull or ore-carrier hull—a large hull or "flat-top" should be comparatively cheap. I have pointed out on a number of occasions that a standard hull could be used for anti-submarine work, if that should be needed in the Atlantic, for air strike in the Indian Ocean should that be necessary to replace the Commando carriers which are ageing rapidly and will have to be replaced at some time, and also for headquarter ship functions. Thus, there could be four different naval functions embodied in one hull.
    1236
    The Parliamentary Secretary discussed the new cruisers to follow "Tiger". One assumes these will cost £30 million to £40 million. What is to be their function? We are trying to find out what will be the rôle of the ships and therefore how they will be designed. Taking the "Tiger" as the starting point, one takes it that instead of 6-inch guns these will have Sea Dart and that instead of four Sea Kings they will have, say, six. Would it not be cheaper to put research and development into developing the suggested form of flat-top instead of going on with cruisers costing large sums of money for which I cannot see a real rôle?
    I suggest that it is the responsibility of the Government to explain to those on this side what the rôle of these cruisers will be, and I feel that it is putting forward a perfectly reasonable case to suggest that spending research and development on a standard hull for a "flat-top" might be cheaper than spend research and development on the new Commando carriers when they become necessary and on the new cruisers already referred to in the Estimates. If we are wrong we should like to be told why. It is no good the Minister, in winding up, dismissing this whole question in two or three words. I and a number of hon. Gentlemen on this side believe that the Government will eventually have to provide some form of air strike or surface-to-surface missile for the protection of ships of the Royal Navy. I believe that on the whole the "flat-top" concept is more likely to be cheaper than the surface-to-surface missile, and that any Opposition is entirely justified in asking the Government to explain their views and to be annoyed when they merely try to slap us down by saying, "We do not agree". We want to know why they do not agree, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will this time reply in some detail.
    6.17 p.m.
    Miss J. M. Quennell: I intervene very briefly to ask the Secretary of State a question which arises from pure ignorance on my part. Every time I hear my hon. Friends putting a stream of questions to the Government Front Bench I am impressed by the amount they seem to know on so many subjects. I notice that Vote 4, which we are considering, includes a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau. I

    1237
    am neither an hydrographer nor a bureaucrat but on looking at Subhead D I see that there is a note saying:
    "Expenditure out of this subscription will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Any unexpended balance of the sum issued will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer."
    From this it looks as though the Minister and his right hon. Friend can spend a night or two of rum and riot on any unexpended portion of this Vote. In the preceding year, 1967–68, the sum entered into was £3,930. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) referred to certain items on which it would not be in the public interest for us to be informed about. I do not know whether one could get very much secret activity going for £3,930, but I notice that the sum entered for the current financial year is £7,835. We are seeking to put in almost twice the amount for this international subscription. I know we have devalued but we have not devalued by that much. I would ask the Government, therefore, if they can tell me why this subscription has been nearly doubled, whether the sum has been fully expended and what value the country gets from this international subscription.
    6.19 p.m.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for not being here earlier, but I had to be present at another Committee. I should like to follow the point of my hon. Friend on the question of hydrographic services. I believe that at present there is a great need to develop the food resources of the sea to meet the needs of the expanding population and I feel that under this Vote there is a need to co-ordinate the efforts being made by so many small independent organisations.
    I gather that there are three major faculties, art, science and marine engineering, and we need to develop this side far more. I was glad to see that the amount of the Vote was slightly increased. I gather that the marine services, hydrography, oceanography, marine biology and ocean bed geology could all be tackled under this Vote and coordinated far more than at present.
    Then there is the question of the human factors incorporating the psychology of diving and medical problems of men under water, as well as survival and
    1238
    rescue. We have seen recently in the episode concerning the fishermen in Icelandic waters how necessary it is to have knowledge on how one can survive and to understand the psychology of the people who undertake these jobs. The Faculty of Marine Engineering would, in addition, be concerned with the development of underwater chambers, diving equipment and submarine design.
    At Plymouth we have an excellent marine biology laboratory which we can say leads the world. Much more should be done in co-ordinating these services. Perhaps there could be a central headquarters at Plymouth rather than keen all these small organisations going, which is probably a considerable waste of money. The Royal Navy has played a major part in underwater training of research, but now the expansion beyond the limits of defence requirements demands the coordination of naval expertise with civilian development.
    Will the Under-Secretary of State consider working in with civilians in these matters? Many ships are working in tropical oceans and therefore we might have a joint project with Commonwealth countries and perhaps eventually a student degree course and develop more aquatic sports and training in sea rescue and survival techniques.
    This is not a novel idea. We discussed at the Council of Europe the provision of more knowledge of the sea, particularly from the point of view of feeding the expanding population. The Navy could perform a considerable peace-time rôle which would be intensely interesting and which would add to our knowledge of the sea. There are some great experts in this country, including Surgeon Rear-Admiral Miles, of the Royal Naval Hospital at Stonehouse, who understands the techniques of this subject. It is a question, not of having to train more people, but of using their knowledge in the best possible way. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will consider these points, because they could be of great advantage not only to the Navy but to many people in the world.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish that the Leader of the Opposition had been present to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). If he had been

    1239
    here, he might not have poured ridicule on the conference organised by my right hon. Friend on precisely this subject. If I am late for the debate, it is simply because I have been attending that conference since 10 o'clock.
    The Ministry of Defence deserves the maximum credit for the initiative which it has taken. It ill behoves the Leader of the Opposition, in his ignorance, to make the silly remarks which he made. I hope that he will read what the hon. Lady has said.
    6.24 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: We are all glad that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has surfaced from his deep dive.
    I should like to make two points. First, I emphasise that I hope that we shall get substantive and sensible replies to the clear and definite questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) addressed to the Government. The manner in which the Minister of Defence for Administration reacted last night after my hon. Friend had spoken was, in my view, insulting to the House and therefore to the country. I do not think that the crucially important matters which my hon. Friend raised can be swept aside in sentences of half a dozen words, as unfortunately happened last night.
    Secondly, I wish to reinforce a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), who referred to the research and development programme described in Chapter VI of the Defence Statement. There is a significant difference between this chapter and chapters in preceding White Papers. We have always had in preceding White Papers the costing of the individual programmes, and the total has been the sum of the individual programmes. In other words, it has been a total arrived at rationally. Even when we were told of the £30 million cut as at 1970–71 in the White Paper of last July, the Government said that it had emerged from a study of the research and development programme. On page 9 of last July's Red Paper, they said:
    "We have also reviewed the defence research and development programme. A cut of about £30 million is to be made in the planned level of expenditure for 1970–71."
    Significantly, it happens the other way round this year. We are told this year
    1240
    what is to be the total figure for research and development for 1968–69. It is £6 million less in money terms than the corresponding figure for last year, but it must be considerably less than the planned figure would otherwise have been for the financial year 1968–69. We are told that the figure "takes into account the reduction announced immediately following devaluation in November and the further cut announced by the Prime Minister in January". But we discover later that the Government have no idea how that cut is to be absorbed.
    Here we have the proof of what we have been saying throughout these debates—that the Government have been proceeding on the principle of "cut first and think afterwards". We were told that there was to be such-and-such a cut; we know the figure that it results in for 1968–69. But we do not know the implications of the cut. We do not know the reduction on the otherwise planned programme which the Prime Minister's statement involved. Now we are told that the Government propose to settle down and see what the consequences of that will be. Therefore, instead of building up to a lower total through a careful review and whittling of the programme, the opposite is happening. They have thought of the figure and propose to set about seeing how it can be fitted in. Therefore, we have an irrational outturn and an irrational Vote.
    We see very clearly the process on page 36 of the White Paper, the Government say:
    "Work is now in hand to establish what further adjustments to the programme will be necessary in the light of the Prime Minister's statement."
    This is no little matter in itself. The impact of this thoughtless, unplanned cut, the consequences of which are not yet known, on the research and development programme is no light matter. What is more serious is that it is typical of the way in which defence policy and defence expenditure generally have been affected by the decisions announced on 16th January.
    We must record under this Vote that this gives evidence of how justified our criticism has been and how well founded our fears are about the slapdash manner in which the January decisions were taken and of the fact that the Government,

    1241
    when they took and announced those decisions, had no idea at all of their practical effect on the Services and our defence.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Foley: Before commenting on the points that have been made on Vote 4, it might be helpful if I refer to the presentation of the heads in the Vote and wonder if this has added anything to what has been the previous practice of presenting these matters. I assure hon. Members that I am willing to consider this matter again to see if it is possible to present the items to the House in a more adequate way.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) mentioned the figure of £34 million and asked F we were satisfied that the Navy was gating a fair and equitable share. He will have seen in the Grey Paper on pages 84 and 85 a functional analysis of defence expenditure. Under the head "Research and Development" is the figure £254 million. I assure him that many of the other heads are of direct benefit to the Navy. Although I do not want to go into too much detail, I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the figure is much more than £34 million. It so happens that we are carrying that share of the load in these Votes.
    The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) wondered what work was being done at establishments and outside them. The answer to that question must depend on the nature of the work. It is our policy to make the fullest practical use of the research of industry. However, in some spheres, such as in under-water matters, industrial interest up to now has been limited and that has restricted our ability to work with industry. In recent times, however, there has been a noticeable change in the attitude of industry in this matter.
    This brings me to the question of how we should develop contacts with industry. It is our intention to try to do this because we prefer to see a joint partnership in the development of schemes. This is particularly so when we wish to pay our share of the investment in R. & D. projects, if we can show that sales and an export potential exist. In such instances we and industry share the costs and personnel in carry-
    1242
    ing out a task if we can see a military and civilian application.
    The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) asked about the "Dreadnought". To my knowledge, she is going in for her first major refit, and this will be a nuclear refit. There have been, and always will be, teething troubles with the first of a new class, particularly when one is pioneering something. However, I have no grounds for thinking that anything fundamental is involved or that anything so profound arises as to set back this whole development of nuclear propulsion in submarines and surface vessels.
    Exhaustive tests are taking place at Dounreay into the nuclear propulsion of vessels and this work will prove useful when we assess the cost involved. I think that, in the last analysis, it will be a question of cost, and in this respect private industry has not so far shown a great deal of interest. One might have expected to see greater and accelerated progress in this sphere if there had been a sharing of the load. This is an example of how we are carrying the whole burden in these Votes in developing something which will be of tremendous benefit to the whole nation.
    In considering the hunter/killers, I cannot add anything to what was said yesterday. We have ordered the O 7. which is the improved class of "Valiant". We already have an improved nuclear reactor and this will give far greater power, greater diving capacity and the ability to withstand greater pressures, in addition to enabling faster speeds to be achieved.
    When we talk about research and development we must remember that not always do the big things matter. Not necessarily the dramatic but the small advances are often the most important in the long run, such as eliminating noise and the achievement of more effective lubrication. All these things add to the effectiveness of the present and future generation of ships.
    In the same way, when we speak about new weapons and so on, there is really not a beginning or an end in terms of research analyses and studies. I agree that, with regard to a surface-to-surface missile, things have changed. The change

    1243
    has occurred because of the evolution of the project, because of reconsidering the requirement of the Fleet—what it will be up against, what we can produce in the time-scale and in terms of the quantity and quality required—and similar considerations. These things are not immutable and it would be foolish for us to stick rigidly to any preconceived idea in matters of this kind.
    I assure the hon. Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall), particularly to answer his questions about carriers, that a rethinking is taking place all the time. I fully understand his concern, and the concern of those who serve in the Fleet, about the nakedness of being at sea without air cover. I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's desire to have us guarantee that this will never happen. However, it is equally difficult to spell out in detail, for obvious reasons, precisely where we are going, what we have achieved in terms of research and development and what we have in mind in this respect. Hon. Members who are serving on the Select Committee on Science and Technology have had a chance to visit a number of defence establishments and will have found points of great interest to them.
    It may be that to try to define what is classified, and what is not under that heading, should be further considered. I would be willing to do this to see what further information can be given. After all, if, when we think in terms of modern weaponry, we say that we have torpedoes which are inadequate, what is the reason for that? I ask that question without apportioning blame. I merely pose the question without making further comment. If we try to apportion blame, does that help us? Of course it does not. It has already been announced that we are developing the Mark 24 torpedo and—
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I gather, since the hon. Gentleman is talking about torpedoes, that he has concluded his remarks about a surface-to-surface missile and carriers. We appreciate the difficulty of the Government, of any Government, from the security point of view in giving details of weapons and advanced technologies. However, this is much more than an R. & D. matter. The surface-to-surface missile, about which the hon. Gentleman is saying that things have
    1244
    changed and with which we will not be proceeding, was given as the primary excuse for doing away with the aircraft carrier. We were told that the carrier would be replaced by an alternative means. Now the alternative means has gone, which makes this far beyond an R. & D. security matter. Indeed, it makes it a fundamental watershed in British naval history.
    Mr. Foley: I have no intention of straying too far from the R. & D. aspects of the matter. In terms of broad thinking, within the R. & D. framework, as we lose our commitments east of Suez, we of course arrive at a watershed, particularly in terms of decisions about carriers. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is no question of our going back on that. It was announced in 1966 that the carriers would be phased out in the mid-seventies. In so far as we have accelerated the process, the carriers will be phased out some time in 1972.
    It is difficult, when planning for new ships, weaponry and so on, to look five to 10 years ahead and say precisely what we will need and where we will be in a given situation. As I have said, I accept that those who have served in the Fleet appreciate the importance of air cover. This was a great argument for the carriers. The party opposite made a great point of it, but hon. Gentlemen opposite must admit that they fluffed it.
    The second thing which has accelerated this notion of surface-to-surface missiles was the "Eilat" incident last year. This has been answered in Adjournment debates. The Styx missile was dealt with yesterday in the winding-up speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration. This missile will be used from a helicopter. We have said that it will have a stand-off range and we have given its range. One cannot develop this too far, but we have stated in the White Paper the studies that are being made for an anti-ship missile fired from a submarine. This is all part of the research which is going on. When we evaluate something and it is going into production we can talk about it, but there is very little I can say about it now. This is why that is as far as I can go this evening on this subject.
    Mr. Powell: We appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulties and we appreciate the considerations of security which are, or may be, involved, but my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) put to the House two apparent and apparently glaring contradictions. One related to the range of the anti-ship missile in relation to the range of the Styx or the F.P.B. missile. The other related to the range and capability of missiles of the new Russian missile-firing destroyers. I am seeking to help the hon. Gentleman, and recognising that there is something here which is very worrying to hon Members. I wonder if he can communicate with my hon. Friend after further consideration and see if this apparent contradiction can be cleared up without any prejudice to the national interest.
    Mr. Foley: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member. I think that is a helpful suggestion. I was tempted to visualise an occasion when we could have a forum or seminar in which these things could be discussed more rationally. This may well be within the confines of what is possibly a worth-while exercise, not necessarily to be undertaken by the Ministry of Defence but for the Institute of Strategic Studies. There is, however, a danger of projecting this as if we were thinking of something separate from anything else. When one talks of the Fleet, its shape and composition, all these things come together and cannot be considered in isolation from the rest. I shall pursue the situation and write to the hon. Member.
    The question of hovercraft was raised. The Navy has the task of evaluating this further. There is considerable interest in sales potential in a number of countries. I have seen hovercraft operating in the Gulf and off the coast of Libya in evaluation trials. The hon. Member will be delighted to know of the exercise in R. & D. in the Falkland Islands. There is a hovercraft with a group of marines and a control ship in the area. This leads me to deal with questions raised about the Hydrographer. Anyone who has met our Hydrographer is aware of what a great chap he is, what a tremendous enthusiasm he has, and what he has been able to achieve on the limited budget available to him.
    1246
    Reference was made to the ocean survey ships which are phasing out. The "Dampier" is coming out and in 1965–66 three new survey ships came into operation, the "Hecla", the "Hecuba" and the "Hecate". H.M.S. "Protector", which has done sterling service around the Cape, is coming back on its last journey and will be replaced by "Anita Dam", which is now "Endurance". We are not limiting our research to the cause of oceanography. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) said. The suggestion she has made is one which I have studied. I will write to her about it. As she rightly said, this is a field where there is enormous expertise. This is something which is rather precious which we should like to keep for ourselves.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Before the Under-Secretary returns to London from the Falkland Islands—will he undertake to bring to the notice of the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary the other aspect of the problem which arises in connection with the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Foley: The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to put down a Question. I received the same kind of circular as that to which he referred and I have read it. Each of us can assess it at face value and determine what should be done. If the hon. and gallant Member wants to make representations about it, he knows how to do so.
    On the question of oceanography, I stand to be corrected by those who served in my place years ago, but I believe there was a time when this resided exclusively with the Navy. Then there was the time when it became the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science. I think one should say that oceanography is basically a matter for the Science Research Council. Although the Navy Department, through the Hydrographer, has a close liaison, the results of research undertaken by the Navy Department are made generally available for wider use by the Council. It is more the initiative of the Science Research Council than that of hydrographers in the Navy to take the lead in these matters. I am willing to see whether one can stimulate further

    1247
    efforts in co-ordination. I shall write to those who raised this matter.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) raised the question of the increase. I also was a little baffled. I have been advised that the explanation is that the subscription was put up in 1967–68, but this is a grant-in-aid under which we are not able to spend a penny more than is provided in the Estimates. In the next year's Estimates we provide, not only for next year's increase, but for the balance from this year. In, addition, the subscription is higher in sterling terms because of devaluation.
    I believe that I have answered all the questions that have been raised.
    Dr. Bennett: What about the "Dreadnought"?
    Mr. Foley: I dealt with the question of the "Dreadnought". I said that in the refit there would clearly be teething troubles and we have learned a great deal from it. This has been used in the "Valiant" class and even further in the improved "Valiant" class. I have no ground for believing that this is in any way a cause for harming the programme of further development in the hunter killers.
    Dr. Bennett: I apologise to the Under-Secretary. I was out of the Chamber when he started his speech.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £34,042,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expenses of scientific services, including a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.

    Vote 5. Medical Services, Education and Civilians on Fleet Services
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £19,386,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expenses of medical services, education and civilians on Fleet services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.
    6.49 p.m.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I have three small queries for the Under-Secretary under this Vote. The first is about
    1248
    Service colleges. I have been concerned for some time about the move of the Royal Naval Staff College from Greenwich to Camberley. This was done because of the argument that it was advisable to move all three Services staff colleges to within roughly the same neighbourhood, so that they could work together on joint schemes.
    In the context of closer co-operation between the Services, it seems at first sight a reasonable move. But there are very strong arguments against moving the Royal Naval Staff College. The first and important point is that at the level of the staff college in all three Services one is trying to produce not a fully integrated staff officer of the higher level but an officer who can speak with authority and really wide knowledge for all branches of his own Service. The services are very specialised these days. In the Royal Navy, for instance, a man may spend most of his time minesweeping and will not know much about the Fleet Air Arm, or he may spend all his time flying helicopters and will not know much about service in destroyers or antisubmarine work.
    To forward the idea of service integration, there is the Joint Services Staff College at Latimer. It is there, at the next step up in a staff officer's career, that integration between the three Services is the very vital thing to achieve. There is a further subsidiary point that the naval officers at the Royal Naval Staff College live and work in a naval environment at Greenwich, which is perhaps unique in the world and cannot be replaced by spending money on converting a country house on the outskirts of Camberley. A wrong turning has been taken here. I would be grateful if the Minister could see whether there is the possibility of leaving the three basic staff colleges where they are now. It is not impossible to get enough cross-pollenation by various expedients. As the staff courses last for one year now, it might be possible to have the first two terms devoted to the single Service subject and the third cross-pollenated, with officers spending it in the staff colleges of other Services.
    I now turn to the question of civilians employed on Fleet services. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which has supported the

    1249
    Navy for many years. Its activities have been becoming more and more important to our naval forces as time has gone by. Anybody who has served in the Fleet will know what a very good job the R.F.A.s do in the way of fuel, transfer of stores and so on, not just around the harbour, as was the case in bygone years, but very much at sea with the Fleet these days.
    This is also an opportunity to pay tribute to the locally-enlisted crews from Malta, Singapore, and, particularly, Hong Kong for the work they do. Could the Minister say something about the future plans for the R.F.A.? Is it intended to increase the size and capability of the ships and aircraft it operates, including the ability to operate east of Suez? This will be absolutely essential if the Government are to carry out the effective deployment of their general capability.
    On page 43 of the Grey Paper there is a reference to the
    "350 courses within the United Kingdom for Commonwealth and foreign officers and ratings"
    In the Vote we have an appropriation in in aid of about £257,000 very usefully earned by training those pupils. Was any calculation made when the basic decision was taken as to what that appropriation in aid would be if the ships and equipment had been provided for the South African Navy, instead of those ratings and officers being sent to France?
    6.55 p.m.
    Mr. Dalyell: I visited the Royal Naval College at Greenwich for the first time in my life today, so I had better not make a speech on it, but I can say that the Ministry deserves considerable credit for the way in which the buildings are maintained.
    What are the plans for the transfer of the educational facilities in Singapore when we leave? I have visited the schools at the Singapore base and it is legitimate to ask what the Government's thinking is on the handover of those magnificent facilities, which are not only educational but include swimming baths, to the Government of Singapore in the 1970s. What are the financial arrangements to be? Is this being done in a fairly organised manner, both for our benefit and that of the people of Singapore?
    1250
    On 21st February I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence what he has done to encourage the training of junior technician staff in defence research establishments. The reply was:
    "Both the Navy and Army Departments operate apprenticeship schemes at their Establishments and there is scope, as appropriate, for both further education and external training, the latter including assistance with external courses in approved subjects leading to recognised educational or professional qualifications. For outstanding Assistant Experimental Officers, Scientific Assistants and Draughtsmen there are opportunities for full-time study at a university up to the standard of Honours degree or diploma in Technology, or, where appropriate, for post-graduate work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 143.]
    Those of us who have been round the Atomic Energy Authority establishments know that a great deal of work is going on to provide skilled apprenticeships not only for those who will work for the A.E.A. but for those who will work for British industry. What is the Ministry's basic philosophy on training, with often unrivalled facilities in any area, not only for its own future use but that of British industry in general?
    I should like to make a slightly adverse comment on roughly the same subject, arising from a Question I put to my right hon. Friend on 4th March. I asked for details of the potential research fellowships available at defence research establishments and approximately how many vacant places there are. The Answer was:
    "Up to 20 a year for the Naval establishments; up to 12 a year for the Army establishments."—[OFF[a AL REPORT, 4th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 30.]
    When there is so much complaint in the universities against both the present and previous Government for not providing the highly expensive, sophisticated scientific facilities required, I should have thought that the defence research establishments could do far more along those lines.
    6.59 p.m.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I should like to pay tribute to the medical services and the excellent co-ordination between the Royal Navy and civilians. I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing the use of hospitals for civilians. That is particularly valuable not only in making shorter lists in the civilian hospitals but in gaining knowledge for the doctors and surgeons concerned. I notice that there is

    1251
    to be £73,000 for medical research. Will that be completely for naval medical research, or is it co-ordinated with the other civilian hospitals? I do not think that it is a very good idea to do this in isolation.
    I join my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) in paying particular tribute to the civilians employed in the Fleet services. They have had a particularly difficult time recently, and were called upon to do a great deal of overtime and so on. Is it correct that they will be entirely civilianised now and will not have any Navy personnel attached to them at all? Recently one of the heads has been retired at Devon-port. Will they be entirely under civilian personnel in the future?
    I want to turn now to education. I am always glad to see money spent on this. It is very necessary. First, there are the overseas cadets. This was a fairly new service and by now we should know whether it is working satisfactorily. It started off in difficult circumstances. The continuation of the overseas cadets is very valuable, although I understand that quite a number of countries will not send them, for diplomatic or internal difficulties. I do not know how the allocations are made to different Governments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look into this point. Malaysia wants to send cadets here and perhaps she could have a bigger allocation since some other countries are not sending cadets at present.
    My other point concerns apprentices in dockyards. What are the numbers? Are they being maintained? Does the hon. Gentleman intend to keep on training apprentices even while there is uncertainty about the future of the dockyards? If they cannot be employed in the dockyards they will be of great value to industry in general. It would be a disservice to the dockyards and the country if these apprentices were not encouraged to continue their training. It is a very valuable training.
    What is happening to the training in Singapore? This is a means of giving aid to Singapore in future. There is always great demand for apprentices. One of the past troubles has been that people trained by the Royal Navy have so often been snapped up, particularly m
    1252
    Singapore, for civilian employment. Will that process continue?
    It is interesting to note that we still have naval schools in Malta and Mauritius, which are on an inter-Service basis. Are we to continue the one in Mauritius in view of its independence?
    I have frequently called attention to the pre-release vocational training course. We are told that this is for personnel who have completed nine years' service or more if they can be spared or attend on release leave. This is not very generous. Surely they should be given time for this training so that they can go back to civilian life with some occupation. Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman told us that he was aware of the difficulties of these people being accepted by many of the trade unions.
    I notice that training of interpreters required for the Navy is also done. This is a very valuable course. I hope that many more people, as they can be spared, will be sent for training in this, because it will become more and more important to talk other languages, and not just for use in the Navy. I would like to see people encouraged to take any courses which are for our mutual benefit in future.
    I am glad that there has been no cut in the education service because money on it is never wasted. Whatever the Government decide to do about the Navy or the dockyards this money will have been well spent.
    7.5 p.m.
    Dr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I confine myself to the naval medical service. What I myself am surprised about is that the consideration of these Estimates has gone through so far without any reference to the disquieting observation at the bottom of page 57 of the White Paper:
    "The manning situation in the medical services gives cause for concern. Recruitment is not keeping pace with requirements nor compensating for the outflow."
    On page 58, dealing with the Royal Navy, it says that
    "… more qualified medical officers are wanted."
    That compares with the remark on the Army: on page 59:
    "Unfortunately, the recruitment both of cadets and of qualified and registered doctors

    1253
    has declined, and the number of voluntary retirements has risen."
    Dealing with the position in the Royal Air Force, the White Paper says, also on page 59,
    "… the number leaving the Service short of a full career has risen sharply."
    That is no surprise to any of us who had occasion last year to debate the famous double-cross done to the Service medical officers by the Government. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was at the receiving end of it. I believe that it was the Minister of Defence for Administration who was. It was the most appalling piece of double-crossing I have ever known perpetrated on Servicemen and we said, not just as a whim of our own ill nature but based on the firm resolves we had heard from people wearing Her Majesty's uniform at the time, that they would not stay in the Service if treated like this.
    They got neither the scale of increase of emolument that was supposed to be in parallel with those officers who were not doctors. Nor did they get the upgrading which was accorded to civilian doctors. They were told on each occasion that they could wait for the other and then in the end they got some puny and derisory addition to their pay. So they are off. What are the Government going to do about it? This is a serious matter. The Government stand impaled on this weapon of their own devising. They cannot allow the Services to go on without medical attention. They have to do something about it. What are they going to do?
    My second point is a little less polemical. I have raised before now the subject of the resuscitation potential of H.M.S. "Glamorgan", in which many reserve doctors do their training. I have heard that it is primitive. I believe that H.M.S. "Ark" had something of the sort but nothing new since the days of Noah has been brought into the Service. This ship generates an unholy amount of electricity, as do many others, and there is a strong possibility of people being electrocuted, at least in part, and it is really important that an inexpensive collection of resuscitation and other such gear should be provided in the "Glamorgan" and other ships in which it might be appropriate.
    1254
    The requirements are simple—a few airways of appropriate kinds and a certain kind of resuscitator—not a too-heavy cylinder which cannot be moved and which will run out in matter of minutes. Again, so that the doctors concerned can find out about it, they need instruments such as an electrocardiograph to find out whether the heart has stopped or is just fibrillating, and, if it is defibrillating, a defibrillator to stop it doing so. I seriously commend these to the hon. Gentleman's attention as matters of concern in this ship and others where electricity is flying about in such indecent quantities.
    Finally, I should draw attention to the fact that on page 29 of the Estimates under Vote 5A, the number of staff provided for is 2,075 at 1st April, 1968, reducing to 2,074 by 31st March, 1969. This is followed by the words in brackets:
    "2,099 reducing to 2,031 in 1967–68)".
    In other words on 31st March, 1968, there are 2,031 but at one minute past midnight, on 1st April, 1968, there are 2,035. I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman does it.
    7.10 p.m.
    Captain W. Elliot: I want to refer briefly to the civilians employed in the Fleet services, with particular reference to the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. As we know, the Government have decided to withdraw from large areas of the world in which we were previously interested. That means fewer bases for the Fleet. In that context the importance of the R.F.A.s becomes greater. I hope that the Government will not confuse this withdrawal from an area, and at the same time reduce the mobility of the Fleet. The two are not connected. The Fleet's supreme advantage is its mobility, and provided that it has the auxiliary vessels to fuel and provision it, the serious results of the Government's decision might be mitigated.
    I note that the number of staff provided for it is to rise this year. It may not all be for manning the R.F.A. I notice that in the Statement on the Estimates, paragraph 25 Chapter IV, says that the Government are:
    "…examining the future rôle of support ships in the light of our reduced commitments overseas."
    That is the point that I am trying to bring out. I hope that the Government will not

    1255
    automatically assume, because our commitments should be reduced, so they think, that simultaneously the R.F.A.s have to be reduced. If we have to cut our overseas shore bases, then the backing for the Fleet, given by the Auxiliaries ought to be at least sustained if not increased.
    I note that the Navy has chartered three large tankers and is building a new class of small fleet tankers. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that the fewer shore bases there are the more important the bigger tankers will be because of the long distances they can travel before refuelling.
    7.12 p.m.
    Mr. Foley: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) raised the question of Greenwich and the move of the Staff College to Camberley. The question in his mind, which he did not ask and which I could perhaps put for him was: what is to happen to Greenwich? This matter is exercising the mind of the Government, because of the historic traditions and the contribution that Greenwich has made to the life and history of our country. I do not believe that we will go back on our decision to put the three Staff Colleges together. The examination of how we can preserve the naval character of Greenwich, and at the same time make the fullest possible use of its facilities, is going on. I do not know what the answer will be, but it is actively engaging the minds of many people.
    As to the R.F.A.s, I agree with what has been said about the importance of the quality of the management of the R.F.A.s and the vital rôle that they have played and will continue to play. As I said yesterday, if one wants to fulfil a rôle outside Europe without any bases, then clearly this places a far greater dependence upon them.
    As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), this is a very expensive exercise. The R.F.A. gives one the degree of flexibility required. Consider the events of the last 12 months—the closure of the Suez Canal, the mounting of the operation off Aden. It was the R.F.A.s who did the job for us. One can pay tribute to the Marines, the Commandos and the Fleet Air Arm, but what would they have done without the support?
    1256
    This is where the question of flexibility comes in. It has been said that we chartered three large tankers and placed an order for three smaller R.F.A.s earlier this year. This gives us the degree of flexibility that we need. The question of the size of a future R.F.A., the kinds and number of ships, will be dealt with in the review now being undertaken. As to whether there has been any assessment of the contribution that may come from South Africa, all I can say is that some time last year, in response to a Question, I said that there were still training activities going on with the South African Navy, and this is still so.
    The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of Government schools in Singapore. I saw these last summer and they are absolutely first-rate. A mission headed by Sir Alan Dudley from the Ministry of Overseas Development has just returned from Singapore and Malaysia. We have not seen the conclusions of this, but the object of the visit was plainly to determine with the Singapore and Malaysian Governments the run-down and the kind of support that could be given. In this context, the question of the facilities that we enjoy, and what would be handed over and on what terms, must have been among the issues discussed, but it is too early to comment finally on this.
    My hon. Friend also referred to training for industry in general. He will recall that yesterday evening I said that in my 12 months with the Navy the emphasis on training had come over again and again. I had been impressed with the way in which one found ordinary ratings, with not much of an educational background, ending up by taking "O" levels and even "A" levels while in the Navy. A number of them acquire skills recognised in "civvy street". While one may look at the Services as a drain on resources, they are as much a scheme of further education and real quality training as anything one can find in civilian life. We must never ignore this or look upon them as an unnecessary drain upon resources. We are giving people the opportunity to serve their country, and in the process to develop their own personality and character and enhance their status in our society.
    Apart from a brief reference in the White Paper there has been no reference

    1257
    to the future of the R.D.C. I look forward to the day when officers and many N.C.O.s will have the chance to take a university degree. It may be that in years to come, in order to attract the right kind of person, we shall have to offer this sort of opportunity. The problem of preserving the balance between academic attainment and preserving the qualities of personality and character that go to make a leader is a difficult equation, but I am sure that in future years someone will be standing at this Box saying that the Government of the day are intending to introduce just such a scheme.
    In this context the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) referred to the Upper Yardmen scheme for recruitment of officers. Parallel with this is the S.D. scheme. I believe that they are both going quite well. It is highly significant—and I do not say this in any boastful way—that one-third of the serving officers in the Navy have come from the lower deck, through the ranks. This reflects the value of the Navy as a school of training and character formation, and the way in which people can be encouraged to study and learn, a id advance themselves. I am delighted to see it, and this scheme makes a valuable contribution.
    A further point was raised about the dockyard apprentice schools. The four at home and the one at Singapore make a considerable contribution and are a source of valuable labour for the dockyards. It is equally true that about half of the apprentices move elsewhere once they are trained, which represents a tremendous contribution to the nation carried on Navy Votes.
    I am anxious to see that the rôle of apprentice schools is not exclusively concerned with training people for dockyard work and that they also help in training people for other work in the area. To that end and to look at the whole nature of training and its financial implications, we have set up a committee. I can assure the hon. Lady that that committee will solicit the views of hon. Members representing constituencies in which there are dockyards, the trade unions, employers and other bodies and institutions.
    She then referred to those who come to be trained from overseas. Clearly, as
    1258
    a result of our political relationships with other nations, there comes a degree of trade and sales and, with it, the question of who is to train their personnel. Up until now, it has been done successfully. However, it means that an extra burden falls on Dartmouth and the other colleges. There are language difficulties and then there is the question of the educational background of people coming from overseas. All this adds an extra load on to the backs of people who are already overworked. It is a matter which has to be kept in perspective. Possibly because of the quality of our training, there is a tremendous demand from people who want to come here. In fact, if we are not careful we shall find ourselves asking for a few places at Dartmouth. As I say, one has to keep a proper perspective about this.
    The hon. Lady asked about pre-release vocational training. I quite agree with her that if someone has given the nine or 12 best years of his life, the least that we can do is to make sure that he is given adequate preparation for "civvy street". If there is one thing that I intend to do, it is to make sure that that happens.
    As I expected, the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) referred to the medical personnel. I can only say that their pay is one of the issues being looked at at the moment by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. He will be aware of our concern about the problems of recruitment and morale in the medical service. As regards his point about Glamorgan, I think that the best suggestion that I can make is to arrange for one of my senior medical officers to have a word with him. Between them, it may be that they can sort out this one. As for the figures that he quoted, I am not sure whether one talks about the number of staff provided for, or whether this is a target or an actual achievement of a target. However, I will look at this and write to him.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £19,386,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of medical services, education and civilians on Fleet services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.

    Vote 8. Miscellaneous Effective Services
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £12,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas Steele: I wish to detain the House for a few moments in connection with this Vote dealing with miscellaneous payments, and I shall refer particularly to the welfare services.
    Obviously such naval establishments as Plymouth, Portsmouth and Chatham have existed for a considerable time and, over the years, there has been an opportunity to build up various welfare and recreational facilities there. A very different state of affairs exists in the new Faslane base in my constituency. It is completely new. I will not say that my constituents wanted it, but it is there. It has been built very rapidly, and the numbers coming into it have grown equally rapidly.
    The new base naturally has provided many problems for the local authorities and inhabitants of the area. I should like to think that the Navy would help in the provision of the necessary recreational and welfare facilities because, while the main object is to have an efficient working base, it is true to say that the numbers of naval personnel coming into the area bring certain problems to the district.
    My hon. Friend will be able to tell us that the local authority in the town of Helensburgh and the Dunbartonshire County Council have co-operated fully in the provision of water, housing and all the other facilities essential for the creation of the base. But I should like to know what has happened about the provision of recreational facilities for the many naval personnel who are now there.
    Before it was decided to put the Faslane base for nuclear submarines in Gareloch, we already had the Third Submarine Squadron. The Church of Scotland was extremely helpful in pro-
    1260 viding a hostel in Helensburgh to give personnel on leave and visiting Helens-burgh somewhere to go. Clearly, however, the limited facilities at the hostel are not capable of dealing with the problems of the greatly enlarged base.
    A new factor which does not apply at existing naval establishments is that we are to have four Polaris submarines. Each of them will have two separate crews. While one crew is on station, the second crew which has been away for a considerable time will be stationed at Gareloch, or Helensburgh, or with their families in the area.
    There is some special need in the new circumstances concerning naval personnel. The Committee which has been formed in Helensburgh, which is chaired by the Lord Lieutenant of the county and has many important people serving on it, is hoping to provide a suitable building where naval personnel can meet and where their families will find accommodation if they visit them. I feel that this is something outwith the scone of public contribution. Other hon. Members representing naval ports know that their facilities have grown up over the years, but this establishment has come to this area suddenly and these provisions are necessary.
    We all appreciate that naval personnel can be well behaved, but it is essential that we have some facilities in the area—not merely on the base—where they can enjoy decent relaxation. We have problems already, but it should not be left to the local authorities or to this committee to find the money for the necessary facilities. This local committee is anxious to help and assist. It has a very ambitious scheme, but it cannot be carried into effect unless the committee Bets financial assistance from the Government.
    I make this plea because of the special circumstances in the creation of this base so quickly. It is right and proper that this responsibility should be borne by the Government.
    Another point I wish to touch upon concerns the conveyance of personnel. Gareloch Head cannot have sufficient housing accommodation for all the personnel, and the Admiralty has rightly decided that there should be various housing estates in different parts of the country. This will enable personnel from the

    1261
    base to mix with the other sections of the community. However, this also involves expense in the conveyance of these personnel from those areas to the base. Unfortunately, the road from Helens-burgh to the base, the A814, is very narrow and dangerous. The local authorities are anxious that something should be done about it. With the increase in the number of school children who have to come to Helensburgh for their secondary education, there have already been some accidents. It would be a tragedy if, because of the likely increase in traffic on this road, more serious accidents should take place. I hope and trust that in the discussions which are taking place with the local authorities regarding improvements on this road, my hon. Friend will bring pressure to bear. I have a feeling, having some experience in these matters, that I have a sympathetic listener and perhaps my voice should be reaching other corridors in another department. No doubt the Treasury will make the decision at the end of the day, but I assure my hon. Friend, irrespective of his sympathy, that I intend to press for assistance for the local authorities and this committee who are anxious to help and assist the Navy in the area concerned.
    7.35 p.m.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: I wish to refer briefly to Subhead H concerning the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts to clear up one point. At first sight, this item seems easy to understand—a slight increase to £1·6 million. However, what I find difficult is the statement at the beginning of the Grey Paper on page 1:
    "First, in 1968–69, for the first time since 1949–50 the cost of armed forces housing will be met entirely from voted monies …"
    As I understood the old system, the money was voted for married quarters overseas, but married quarters at home were met under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts. Does that statement mean that it is now to be met from the voted moneys? If so, where in the Votes is the money to build the married quarters, because it is well known that with more personnel at home more married quarters will be required.
    7.36 p.m.
    Mr. Dalyell: I wish to refer to item E. I have had long correspondence on the
    1262
    question of canteen prices at the Royal Elizabeth Yard in West Lothian resulting in an interview with my hon. Friend's predecessor and subsequent correspondence with my hon. Friend. Canteen prices at some of the yards have gone up unnecessarily quickly. Perhaps the Ministry of Defence could set more of an example in restraining canteen prices. I think that this is a fair point to make.
    Concerning item H, it seems that the Government are asking for more cooperation from certain local authorities. Some local authorities are very good, but certain local authorities could do far more for returning Servicemen either on demobilisation or when they are posted.
    Finally, is the Ministry of Defence giving serious thought to the problems that will arise in South Queensferry should the Port Edgar base close down? There would be a good deal of surplus housing in that event. Will there be early discussion with the local authority in this situation?
    Another question upon which I should like some comment concerns correspondence with Mr. John Finnigan and others representing the Royal Elizabeth Yard.
    7.38 p.m.
    Dr. Bennett: I have one local point under Vote 8 G(1), Naval Aviation. In the light of the phasing out in the near future of carriers, the problem of the utilisation of Lee-on-Solent, which has always been the headquarters of the Fleet Air Arm, obviously arises, and it is now reaching a somewhat controversial degree of discussion within the locality.
    What is to be done and how? This has so far been on a shared basis with civilian maintenance and some civilian work. Can the Under-Secretary tell me anything that is decided about the future for sharing or other disposal of parts of this base? In any case, what is the long-term proposition?
    7.40 p.m.
    Miss Quennell: I should like to refer to the Royal United Service Institution, which is mentioned in Chapter III, on page 23, of the Grey Paper. I assume that the appropriate Vote under which to mention this is Vote 8 J(3).
    The point that I wish to raise concerns the establishment and development

    1263
    of this Institution. The Grey Paper says on page 23:
    "The need has long been felt for an independent national institute, which would examine defence and overseas problems from a U.K. standpoint. Encouragement and support have been given to plans for developing the Royal United Service Institution …"
    If an institution of this nature is to be at all valuable, its board of governors, or similar managers, must be sufficiently independent at times to be able to advance views which are contrary to those popularly held in the Department. Secondly, their terms of reference must be sufficiently wide to enable them to do so. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Institution will retain a degree of independence, and can he give us some more information about its governors and its work?
    7.42 p.m.
    Mr. Foley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) raised the question of Faslane and the implications of it for the community in the area. I should, first, say how appreciative the Navy is of the way in which the local authority, the churches, and the voluntary bodies there have given a welcome to those who, through no choice of their own, have found themselves in the area. I am referring to the thousands of people, both uniformed and civilian, who work there in support of the Faslane base and the activities in connection with the Polaris and conventional submarine training programmes.
    Difficulties have arisen for people in the area, but, having visited it, I must say that I greatly appreciate the understanding which has been shown, and the willingness to help the Navy in terms of getting land, in terms of house building, and so on. There are, however, many problems which remain to be resolved, and one of these rests with the Navy. We are not quite sure whether, in respect of married quarters, we want a community on its own, whether we want the naval community to be part of something much larger, whether we want to provide the amenities, facilities, and services ourselves, or whether we should assume that these will be provided by the local authority, either the town, the burgh, or the country. I think that in this respect we have to recognise that unless we are
    1264
    careful we may make a big mistake. I believe that we have to do much more to weld the links between the civilian and uniformed personnel and the local authority. We all believe that people must belong to a wider community, but this does not absolve us from our responsibilities.
    In the area there are facilities for ratings, petty officers, chief petty officers, and officers, as well as accommodation for them. There are also considerable estates for both military and civilian families. This places a great strain on local services. This is one reason why I believe that, by having a relationship with the local authority, we can start to identify problems before they grow and get thrown up in one's face. They can be tackled in their infancy.
    The new community for the Navy, which will shortly be opened, will be of enormous help. Sports facilities, an indoor sports arena, and other facilities are already there for those on and off duty, but there remains to be provided the whole range of welfare services which are necessary. To this end we will be appointing a full-time community officer, a number of wardens to each estate, who will live on the estates to help maintain the premises, a W.R.N.S. welfare officer, and a qualified social welfare worker. They will comprise the team to effect liaison with the local authorities to help develop the wider community. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West about the road. I have travelled on it many times. I undertake to see what help we can give.
    My hon. Friend made a special plea for the hostel at Helensburgh. This matter is being considered within my Department. As yet, no firm decision has been taken, but I assure my hon. Friend that we understand what this means to the people who are trying to make it a success.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) talked about collaboration with the local authorities. He will be aware, as everyone is, that it is like the curate's egg, good in parts. Some are good, and others are not so good. It may be that our public relations are not as good as they should be, or that we have not paid enough attention to

    1265
    detail in dealing with the local authorities, or perhaps even, that we have been dealing with the wrong person. I think that in he light of experience we can improve our public relations, because it is of vital importance that those coming back are assisted to settle into a new community without any great difficulty.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the Royal Elizabeth Yard in connection with the question of rundown. I assure him that there will be discussions about this matter. This will be phased, and we can consider the use by other people of facilities which the Navy might relinquish. In this context I can tell the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) that Lee-on-Solent comes into this category. A review is taking place about the future requirements of the Fleet Air Arm, both in the period up to the phase-out of the fixed-wing, and after. We will be considering what might be relinquished, whether the Royal Air Force should take it over, whether there is a further Service use for it, and, following that, whether any further use can be made of the base. This is part of the exercise which must go on, and I regret that at this moment I cannot say much more about it.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) referred to the Royal United Service Institution. I do not know its terms of reference, nor the members of its board of management. I take note of what she said, and I shall write to her. If there is some anxiety about this, I shall be happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Lady to see what can be done to give the Institution the degree of independence and objectivity that it should have.
    I am not aware of the problem of canteen prices, but, if my hon. Friend would like to furnish me with details, I shall consider them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £12,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.

    VOTE 9. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £27,006,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.

  DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1968–69

    Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £186,790,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969.
    7.50 p.m.
    Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: It is important to bear in mind that all three Services are in a state of uncertainty, bewildered by contradictions and reversals in the Government's defence policy. There is much anxiety about disrupted careers and widespread feeling that the men and women have neither a credible rôle nor a dependable political champion. This debate gives the Under-Secretary an opportunity to dispel some of these doubts and uncertainties and to take a step towards restoring the confidence which is badly needed.
    I propose to talk about the future pay and allowances of the Army, particularly the Government's reference to the Prices and Incomes Board, the disquieting figures for recruiting and outfall in the Army medical services, the effect of devaluation on the real incomes of men serving overseas and recruiting policy and general prospects, since the Vote must of course, be considered in the context of Government policy on the future size and structure of the Army. I have given the hon. Gentleman a note of some of my most important questions, since the object of these debates is not to catch Ministers out but to elucidate information. I hope that he will be able to give us the assurances which I seek.
    First, the future pay and allowances. In view of the sorry state of recruiting and the need to restore confidence in the

    1267
    Services as a rewarding career, It is inconceivable that the Government should have chosen this of all times to upset the Grigg formula concept, which has been the root of good recruiting ever since first applied in 1960 by a Conservative Government, following Parliament's acceptance of the Grigg Report in 1958.
    Under the Grigg formula, the Government are committed to biennial reviews of the pay and allowances and to relating changes to comparable sectors of civilian life. For officers, the yardstick was the relative changes in pay of executive and administrative grades of the Home Civil Service, and for other ranks the changes in average earnings in manufacturing and certain other industries, as notified by the Ministry of Labour. These yardsticks were chosen by the Treasury in consultation with the Service Departments, as the Grigg Committee recommended.
    We see no reason why any Government should be precisely wedded to them. They were chosen presumably as the fairest yardsticks. The distortion of the economy in the past few years surely shows the need to consider the precise Grigg formula while retaining its admirable basic principle. There is nothing sacrosanct, either in the habit of reviewing Service pay every two years, but it is essential that the Grigg system should not be replaced by anything less fair and dependable and that the Services should have implicit and justifiable faith in getting a square deal.
    Probably 80 per cent., perhaps more, of men now serving joined the Army on the clear and unequivocal understanding that this formula would apply to them. It was a contract of service—no more and no less. Some men who have joined since December, when the reference to the N.B.P.I. was made, presumably had only a tacit understanding that such a formula would be applied. The most recent copy of recruiting literature which I have contains this sentence:
    "… and Army pay is automatically reviewed every two years to ensure it keeps in line with the wage of industry."
    I do not know how recent that is, but it was published certainly during the last year or two, and possibly even more recently.
    It is well known that the Conservatives, when in power, twice applied the formula
    1268
    in full, but that, in 1962, when the economy was suffering some strain, the Government gave the Grigg increases in two halves. When that happened, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) severely castigated us, saying that we had
    "…unilaterally broken what I regard as an honourable agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 317.]
    He went so far as to say that we were cheating, having previously said that he chose this strong word deliberately.
    None the less, in November, 1965, the Government referred to the N.B.P.I. the question of whether the application of the Grigg formula to revised rates of pay due in April, 1966, was consistent with Part 1 of the White Paper on prices and incomes. This was, of course, quite contrary to their position in opposition and in power. We objected and prayed against this proposal, taking the view that it was not consistent with the view of the present Foreign Secretary, who, when Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, recognised the importance of the Grigg formula for encouraging recruiting and re-engagement, but making it clear to the Services that
    "… they will not be left out when changes in the remuneration of the community as a whole "—
    I emphasise those last three words—
    "are taking place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1965; Vol. 721, c. 771.]
    Not surprisingly, the Board's Report confirmed what the Government already knew. The Services, they were told, faced formidable recruiting problems which were likely to grow worse and any departure from the Grigg formula would increase recruiting difficulties. Lastly:
    "Unless and until the Government duly notifies the members of the Armed Services that a new system of review of their emoluments is to be adopted, we consider that there is a commitment."
    "There is a commitment" and there was a commitment.
    Therefore, the Board recommended the application of the Grigg formula in full and the Services heaved a sigh of relief.
    When the formula was introduced, we welcomed its underlying principle

    1269
    because it removed Service pay from the whim of the Treasury and offered the men continuity and the confidence which they deserved. But we never suggested that the formula was perfect, and, after 10 years' experience, it would be strange if it could not be improved. In practice, of course, the Services lag far behind their civilian counterparts. The review takes place only every two years and changes in pay and allowances come into effect on 1st April, but are based on civilian rates in the previous July. This means that the Services are sometimes two years and nine months behind and never less than nine months behind. Some people may not have fully realised this.
    Last December, the Government instructed the Board to keep under continuous review the pay, allowances, pensions and gratuities of the Services, although we were told at the time—strangely enough, although I was glad to hear it—that pensions and gratuities would not be considered by the Board, although they were in the reference. We thought that this was an unnecessary extension of the work of the Board, which is already heavily overloaded, and we said so. We felt that the Government were passing the buck to the Board and were wrong to do so.
    We feel the Government should have taken the advice previously given by the Board that it was their job to give a lead. Revised rates of pay and allowances are due on 1st April, now less than three weeks away. On 5th March the Minister of Defence for Administration told the House that as the Prices and Incomes Board was a statutory body no Minister could instruct it to make its Report by any given date, but that he had every confidence that the Board would report as soon as possible. The White Paper tells us that the Board will report on this question early this year. I find those words on page 65. But is this good enough? I do not think it is. The prolonged doubts about Service pay and allowances are extremely damaging in the present state of recruiting and I hope we can have more information on this question today, particularly since it is now admitted that, in spite of the Government's attempts to curb them, by statutory control, first with the "freeze" and then through the period of so-called
    1270
    "severe restraint", wages during the two-year period in question rose at a rate bearing no relation to increased productivity, which was practically stagnant, and ran far ahead of the cost of living.
    How much they rose in that period I do not know; perhaps I should. But I warrant a guess that it was at least 10 per cent. To award other ranks increases in pay and allowances lower than the Grigg formula would justify today would be bound to seem to them like victimisation.
    As for officers, anything that may be done that makes it even harder to get and keep enough men of the right calibre would be a false economy at this time, and so I want to ask the Under-Secretary to tell the House upon what criteria the Prices and Incomes Board is supposed to advise on changes in pay and allowances and how these criteria differ from the Grigg criteria. We were quite unable to elicit this information in praying against the earlier reference to the Prices and Incomes Board. It was a most unsatisfactory debate, but we are entitled to have an answer to this question.
    Secondly, when is the Report expected and when will the revised rates of pay and allowances come into force? Will they come in by 1st April, when they should; and if they do not will the Under-Secretary give an absolute assurance that in every case the revised rates will apply retrospectively, with no exception whatsoever? I very much hope that we can have assurances on these questions. I look forward to having full and clear answers, so that other ranks in the Army can have their anxieties either set at rest or confirmed. I very much hope it will be the former.
    May I turn next to the very disquieting position in recruitment, and outfall in the Army Medical Services. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) referred to this so far as the Royal Navy was concerned. Certainly, I did not think much of the answer he got. Let us hope the Army can do better. I was not at all surprised to read in the Defence White Paper that the manning situation in the Services generally—and of course this refers to all the Services although in relation to this Vote I am concentrating on

    1271
    the Army—gives cause for concern. To quote page 57:
    "Recruitment is not keeping pace with requirements nor compensating for the outflow."
    This, as I have said, applies to all three Services. In the case of the Army it is stated on page 59 that:
    "The recruitment both of cadets and of qualified and registered doctors has declined, and the number of voluntary retirements has risen."
    This is a pretty bad state of affairs, as I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree. But a year ago the House debated the failure of the Government to honour its pledge to Service doctors and dentists by making revised rates of pay and allowances retrospective to 1st April, 1966, in line with the rest of the Services. The pledge given on that occasion in Cmnd. 2903 referred to Service medical and dental officers:
    "Revised rates of pay which will be effective from 1st April, 1966, will be published separately."
    There is no doubt whatsoever what that means. That was a clear promise which was quite cynically broken. The Government not only broke that pledge, but also departed from the sensible policy of giving Service doctors a financial advantage over their civilian counterparts. For many years this had been regarded as the only way to attract enough doctors of the right quality into the Services and my right hon. Friend sitting beside me, as a former Secretary of State for War, will remember that this was a most important principle established over a long period. During the debate to which I have referred, I warned the Minister that a decision to remove that important differential would bring dire results. I know that hon. Gentlemen are always aggravated when someone says, "I told you so", but I said:
    "The present state of recruitment of Service doctors … is already grave, and the British Medical Association has warned the Government that they must now expect it to be even worse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 56.]
    The Minister of Defence for Administration, in replying to the debate, showed remarkable complacency and even gave the impression that it was a matter of indifference whether or not recruiting in this field declined—or that was the impression he gave me. He said:
    1272
    "A captain, in many cases, will get roughly the same money as a general practitioner of a similar age—about £2,400 per year in total emoluments. A major aged 34 will in future get in total emoluments, £2,909 a year, which is about 12·6 per cent. less than a general practitioner of roughly the same age."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 69.]
    I understand that recently registered doctors embarking on general practice in civilian life, young men or young women in their middle twenties are being offered anything upwards of £2,500 a year to a figure that can be as high as £4,500 a year; but the total pay and emoluments of a doctor of comparable age and experience in the Services is under £1,800 a year. I hope I have got the figures right. It is not always easy to get such figures exactly right, but I believe these are accurate, and I have taken the figure for Service doctors from page 100 of the Defence White Paper.
    The results of the Government's frugal, ill-advised policy are now clear. There has been, as we warned there would be, a slump in recruiting Army doctors. There has been, as we warned there would be, a rise in voluntary retirements. Doctors, often unable to use their specialised training because of shortages in other fields, are thoroughly disgruntled; and senior medical administration officers of the future will not be there if things continue at the present rate. Attractive terms have been offered to students to attract them as medical cadets, but they are disillusioned with the conditions of service once they have qualified, and this is leading to serious wastage. The scheme was not devised to help the Minister of Health by training doctors at the expense of the Service Vote, but that is what it seems to be doing.
    The Services must have enough doctors of the right quality to retain a structure which allows specialists to exercise their skills and makes a Service medical career compare well with conditions in civil life. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to say something to encourage both serving and prospective Service doctors, and I would ask him, in particular, whether it is proposed to restore the differential where it has ceased to exist or narrowed, or even gone into reverse, in order to make a Service career for doctors more attractive in financial terms.

    1273
    A brig word about devaluation. The whole House will recognise the difficulty of being scrupulously fair to all members of the forces serving overseas where, devaluation has affected incomes. I know that the problem is not easy. The Minister of Defence for Administration said on 5th March that the only method of dealing with the problem was
    "this rather blunt instrument of local overseas allowance, which was never designed to deal with a matter of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th Mara, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 264.]
    Can the Minister tell us when it is expected that the full review of local overseas allowances which is now being undertaken will be completed? I hope that it will not take long. On 1st March, the Minister of Defence for Administration recognised the size of the problem and spoke of many complaints, some of which he regarded as justified, which he had received. Letters which some of us on this side of the House have had confirm that there are many complaints and that they seem to be justified. However, I have no wish to exaggerate the problem. I simply ask the Under-Secretary of State to make a further statement to set our minds at rest.
    Lastly, I turn to the question of recruiting. It is; impossible for the House to consider and approve Vote 1 without more basic information about the size and structure of the Army envisaged by the Government. It has always been the practice under this Vote to discuss recruiting when the Opposition wish to do so. What size is the Army eventually to be? In using the word "eventually", I am thinking of the middle 1970s. Decisions must have been made, and it is time that we were told what they are. How long is the run-doyn to the figure which has been decided to take? The House cannot judge whether the Government's proposals in Vote 1 make sense if we are not told more about recruiting prospects and targets and their policy on new rates of pay.
    Those two matters—recruiting and pay—are inextricably bound up. It is time to put an end to the rumours, contradictions and confusion which bedevil the recruiting question. They are extremely harmful. On 5th March, the Minister of Defence for Administration—I am sorry that he is not here—said that the
    "rundown in the total of forces"
    1274
    would be
    "something over 75,000."
    Later he said:
    "… the total rundown will be of 75,000 men."
    Then he said that the rundown would be:
    "… rather more than the 75,000 actually announced in July."
    Later he said:
    "It will be more than 75,000 men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 264–7.]
    How many more? Is it not time that we and the Army were told?
    It was also perplexing to hear the Minister of Defence for Administration say in the same debate:
    "If we have two battalions of troops in the Persian Gulf on unaccompanied tours of 9 or 12 months, we must have three or four or five more battalions sitting here at home to rotate with them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 253.]
    He therefore claimed that the saving resulting from the withdrawal of two battalion groups from the Persian Gulf—there are about 5,000 men there now—could be four or five times the number at home. In other words, 25,000 to 30,000 men would be saved by withdrawing a couple of battalion groups from the Persian Gulf.
    Applying that remarkable method to the Far East, where, excluding Hong Kong and the Gurkhas, we have between 15,000 and 20,000 men still serving in the Army, withdrawal would save four or five times that number at home, too. It must do; if it applies to the Persian Gulf, it must apply to the Far East. These sums add up to well over 100,000 men in the Army saved by pulling out of the Persian Gulf and the Far East. Perhaps it amounts to 120,000 men, which would leave practically no Army at all. At any rate, the figure is substantially higher than the cuts so far announced.
    Is it any wonder that we are perplexed as to what is in the Government's mind? Either my mathematics are awry or the Minister's computer has gone haywire. This sort of confusion and doubts of this kind about the Government's intentions towards the size of the Army, and rumours about even more cuts which may be made, lead to the misconception that recruits are not needed. They are needed, and very badly needed. The

    1275
    Minister can do much to improve the recruiting position, about which he is clearly worried, by clearing up these doubts and frankly explaining the position.
    The Minister of Defence for Administration said on 5th March that it was necessary
    "to continue recruiting at roughly the present rate in order to maintain the balanced Forces required in the next ten years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 266.]
    But in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) he indicated in col. 267 that the Army would need "slightly under 20,000" recruits a year. How many under 20,000–19,000, 18,000, 17,000 or perhaps 16,000? But in 1967 only 15,440 male adult soldiers were enlisted compared with 19,511 in 1966. We get that information from paragraph 23 on page 60 of the Defence White Paper. According to an Answer to a Question which I asked on 7th February, Army recruiting figures in 1967 fell short of the figures in 1966 by 32,724 man years. To look at the position in terms of man years is a very good way of considering it. Lord Wigg, a great expert on these affairs, always used to do that, sometimes to our embarrassment.
    What price 20,000 recruits if the nosedive trend continues? No wonder the Minister of Defence for Administration said very recently in the House:
    "We know we shall want a very large number of men What I am afraid of is that we shall want more than we in fact can get."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 267.]
    How does that tie up with what he said previously? It seems to me that without doubt the recruiting picture is thoroughly unsatisfactory, and it is not helped by the confusion caused by the Government's many different statements. For example, paragraph 24 on page 60 of the Defence White Paper states:
    "The increase in the number of adults and young soldiers who elected to serve for nine years (as opposed to six years) on enlistment has been maintained."
    I looked up the figures for nine-year engagements for November and December last year, and they reflected the general slump in recruiting. They were significantly bad in the nine-year category. Only half the number of men were taken on in
    1276
    November, 1967, on nine-year engagements—349—as were taken on in November, 1966, when the figure was 763. Roughly the same applies to December, 1967, when 192 men were recruited on nine-year engagements, under half the figure of 410 in December, 1966. That does not bear out what the White Paper complacently says about these very important nine-year engagements.
    I was surprised to read in the White Paper that the aim is to push up the present rates of re-engagement
    "in order to cut the demand for new recruits from civil life".
    If the Minister of Defence for Administration is worried that he may not get the recruits he wants, how can it be sensible to say in the White Paper that the intention is
    "to cut the demand for new recruits from civil life"?
    What are we to understand from that?
    The Government's recruiting policy is a policy of despair. Such a policy, carried too far, must lead to ill-balanced forces relying too heavily on re-engagements, a distorted promotion structure, a higher proportion of married men and a smaller pool of trained reserves. We need sufficient men of the right quality, ability and enthusiasm as recruits each year. The Army offers diverse opportunities and a wonderful career, and I hope that every opportunity will be taken to get this message across.
    I hope that, in the light of these remarks, the Minister will answer a number of questions of which I have given him notice. What size of future Army are the Government planning and what is the timing of the run-down? Rumours are circulating that the Government have already made up their mind to cut the Army to 150,000 or even fewer. If that is so, it is time that we were told the true position so that uncertainty can be removed. What is the target for recruiting this year and what is the target for the next few years? Do the Government expect to reach those targets?
    I had intended to ask a number of other questions, but I do not wish to detain the House. I had intended to speak about the disappointing entry figures for Sandhurst and Welbeck, but several of my hon. Friends have important contributions to make. I am informed that the

    1277
    number of applicants coming forward to the Regular Commission Board has been extremely disappointing in recent months. I have also been told that there are shortages in special categories—in addition to the medical services about which I have spoken—such as R.E.M.E. and the Signals. I trust that the Minister will go into these matters. What is the position about trained soldiers buying themselves out? The 1966 figure was very high indeed compared with the figure for 1964. Can the Minister give the figure for 1967, and is this trend causing him concern?
    The Service offers, and I am sure will continue to offer, a most rewarding career and way of life and a satisfying career to young men, and women too, who look for variety, travel, adventure and comradeship, and especially to those with scientific or technical leanings. I entirely agree with a recent Army recruiting advertisement which said that recruits would be joining the finest Army in the world. That is still so, even if we are going through a rather bad patch. I trust that the Minister will answer these questions and give the assurances which I have sought.
    8.23 p.m.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: The attendance in the House tonight—six back benchers opposite and four on this side—does not exhibit wild or feverish interest in the £189 million which we are asked to authorise in this Vote.
    It is not generally realised that married Servicemen under the age of 21 do not qualify for married quarters. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy indicated earlier that the matter was being looked into, but the time has come when this position must be regularised. In saying this, I have no desire to make recriminations or to blame one or other of the parties.
    Thousands of men in the Services are denied, by the regulations at present in force, the opportunity of a reasonable married life. Although I do not have official figures to support my case, a recent Press report indicated that in the Army there are about 2,350 men not entitled to married quarters because of the age limit, that there are about 1,240 such men in the Navy and about 850
    1278
    such men in the R.A.F., giving a total of nearly 4,500 men. These soldiers, sailors and airmen are banned from marriage quarters because of their ages.
    When I put a Question to the Minister of Defence some time ago asking him to review this regulation I received a curt "No" in a Written Reply. Today some of these men, with their wives and young children, are living in deplorable conditions. A recent report in the News of the World set out some of the conditions in which they are living on a site in Colchester. Apparently the site is owned by the Army and 36 wives are living there in privately-owned caravans. The site, the report stated, is at Reid Hall, Colchester, and the caravans belong to a private firm. The unlucky occupants pay £3 5s. a week, plus 7s. for what is called ground rent and hot water.
    On the other side of a wire fence are the Army's married quarters, in which couples are living and paying only £2 4s. a week, and they have central heating. At the caravan site there is a communal washroom with two antiquated boilers, a few large sinks and a rickety old hand wringer which the wives use on a rota system.
    I have particulars of a case of a young soldier's wife whose husband is serving in Germany. She is getting £6 6s. a week and, after paying for rent and extras for her caravan, is left with £2 14s. with which to feed and clothe herself and baby. I am told that the conditions in the caravan are very poor; that it is damp, that mould forms on the furniture and that the children suffer from colds and bronchitis. These conditions represent a scandalous state of affairs and I am told that they are causing much resentment and bitterness.
    The age limit to qualify for married quarters for officers is 25. People are marrying younger these days but despite this fact of life, the Government, perhaps for reasons of economy, appear to be doing everything they can to discourage young married men from serving in the Forces. If the Government want an Army consisting of only single men, they should say so and, in the process, they might save a lot of money, but it would not be possible to get the recruits we need if we attempted to restrict recruitment to single men.

    1279
    I will give a few examples of the difficulties under which officers labour. In the R.A.F.—and possibly the same applies to the Army, although I do not have the figures for that Service—the majority of officers enter between the ages of 18 and 23, and about 70 per cent. of them marry before they are 25. No married quarters or hirings are provided before an officer reaches 25. Because no married quarters or hirings are available near their duty stations, some of them must live 12 or more miles away from their stations. Wives of officers cannot take part in the day-to-day social activities of the stations because they live so far away, and if the family has a car, the husband must use it to reach his station. This means that his wife is cut off from all Service social life.
    A case has been brought to my attention of a Royal Air Force pilot who was found medically unfit to fly because, through financial worries, his work suffered. Private accommodation is virtually unobtainable near the duty station at an economic rent, but the Service authorities naturally take up, by means of hirings, all the suitable accommodation which is fairly near the duty station, which means that the younger officers are pushed further and further out, and are then subject to even greater difficulties because of the distance they have to travel.
    There is a double handicap here. A man under 25 years of age receives 16s. a day marriage allowance instead of 27s. As soon as he reaches the age of 25 his daily marriage allowance jumps to 27s. He is not paid any disturbance allowance when posted away on a course. A husband away from home, living in the mess, loses his ration allowance of 7s. 5d. a day. If he goes home at weekends he receives no ration allowance for Saturday and Sunday, so he pays double the amount for his food on those two days. These irritations and deprivations are a serious cause of anxiety and unrest.
    One officer's wife wrote to me drawing to my notice Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations, which stipulates equal pay for equal work. Why handicap a 24-year-old officer and give him less pay than a 25-year-old officer is getting for doing exactly the same kind of work? Overseas, there is an additional
    1280
    handicap. Devaluation has made life more difficult. The single element has apparently not yet increased, and even more irritating is the fact that at duty stations like Singapore, Australian troops, irrespective of rank or age, are entitled to full privileges and allowances when married, no matter what their age when they marry.
    The point is rightly made by some wives that if husbands are old enough to fight for their country they are old enough to have decent houses for their wives and children, and should not be living like gipsies, as so many unfortunately have to.
    That is the only point that I want to make. This is a real grievance and is something which the Service authorities must consider quickly if they want a young Army, Navy or Air Force. If they want young men who are happily married and are bringing up their wives and families, they must alter the present antiquated regulations which govern the allocation of married quarters and other forms of allowance to which a man becomes entitled only after he reaches a certain age. I hope that even if my hon. Friend cannot give a specific assurance tonight he will be able to say that this matter will be considered urgently and not allowed to drift for years to come.
    8.34 p.m.
    Sir Eric Errington: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words on Vote 1 of the Army Estimates. I wish that I could agree with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir. T. Beamish), but I am very worried about a combination of circumstances that seem to me materially to affect Army personnel and their morale.
    I feel that there is complete uncertainty about what is going to happen. There is uncertainty among the officers as to how long they will be able to remain in the Service; there is uncertainty amongst the other ranks about what will happen to them and what their rôle will be in 1968 and after. Many of them came into the Service with the idea that they would have a rather exciting and attractive life, including overseas visits, and so on, but it is not working out that way.
    The trouble is that they are not given a sufficient number of exercises. I do

    1281
    not refer entirely to military exercises; there is a tendency for there to be an absence of full occupation, which is very bad. These men would far rather have something to do continually than have some military training and then a period of doing nothing. There is little to go for, and because of this I blame the Government for not saying what they are going to do.
    Let me give an example of what I mean in respect of the effect on manpower of the rundown. Page 65 of the White Paper says in Paragraph 21:
    "The detailed plans that had been worked out following the reductions announced in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy, 1967, are now being revised to take account of the accelerated rundown announced on 16th January 1968. It is not yet possible to be precise about the numbers of those who will be declared redundant in 1968."
    Paragraph 22 says:
    "The redundancies will, as far as possible, be met by voluntary applications from officers and men in the prescribed age and rank zones, but some compulsory selection will be necessary where there are not sufficient suitable voluntary applications."
    I remember that when, some time ago, there was a previous cut in the Services, officers thought that it was proper to resign. They did not see much future in the Services, and they voluntarily resigned and found themselves without the terminal grant to which they would have been entitled if they had remained in the Service and had been declared redundant. What temptation is there for an officer, remembering that situation, to resign before he knows what will be the conditions of his being declared redundant?
    That is an illustration of the way in which matters are dealt with. I have the privilege to be a member of the Officers' Association, which privilege I honour very much. This Association works for the benefit of all ex-Service officer personnel. It does all that it can—and does it very well—in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour to deal with the redundant or the voluntarily retired officer and this could be a way of reentry into civilian life. I would certainly not advise any officer to retire voluntarily, either finding employment through the Association or otherwise, until he receives a definite promise from the Government as to what they are going to do for him.
    1282
    Another source of worry to me is this. I ask the question because the other day somebody told me he understood that one of the parachute battalions in Aldershot, where we value them very much because the regiment holds the freedom of our town, was to be turned into a line regiment. I hope it will be denied and denied as clearly as can be, because it is the very negation of what we want. We want more of these exciting things like parachuting for the Services, to get the right sort of officers and men into them.
    Once again, it is only rumours we hear, but these rumours could be set at ease and brought to an end if only the Government could make up their mind what it is they want to do and say what it is they want to do. There are rumours now about the dispersal of drums and bands. Is it true that there is to be some contraction of drums and bands in any of the regiments? If that is so, let us be quite certain and know about it. My own personal view is that bands are very fine and very often encourage recruiting and are a great joy to the people who listen to them. But that is neither here nor there: the thing which is so important is that the Government should say as much as they can as clearly as they can and without any delay so as not to leave people uncertain, because uncertainty is absolutely fatal to the Services. I recognise that nobody could have been more steadfast and backed their country as thoroughly as the Services have done, and it is a shame to unsettle them by this failure to give them the information they want.
    There is only one other thing I want to refer to and it is a constituency case. Once again, it comes under subhead Z, Appropriations in Aid, Receipts in respect of personnel lent to Government Departments. I thank the Under-Secretary of State very much for some of the help he gives me in personnel matters, and he has been most helpful, but I have an officer whose wife has written to me and said,
    "We were turned out of Ghana at a day's notice and the cost to my husband was £581."
    Normally I would leave this communication in writing with the Under-Secretary but it is important I should say something about this, because the last case which I had in connection with somebody who had been turned out of Ghana

    1283
    took me three years to settle, and the only way it came finally to a decision was that the Treasury was willing to pay half of the loss. That is absolutely shocking to an officer. After all, the officer in that case as in this one was a member of our Army Service, and he ought to have been backed and his position underwritten by the Service, but apparently the hand of the Treasury first of all withdrew altogether, and finally came forward with only half of what ought to have been paid to him.
    I hope that not only the Under-Secretary but the Secretary of State himself will be prepared to do something about this case. After all, the right hon. Gentleman did say—did he not?—on the television that the only reason why he did not resign was that the forces needed him. Well, if they need him they need him to pay what it costs a man to be seconded to Ghana and to be turned out without notice. I hope that something will be done. The first matter is, however, vitally important because the feeling of the Army is of depression, and they should know exactly what is to happen, when they will face up to anything, as is typical of our Services.
    8.46 p.m.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: Devaluation has meant a cut in the value of Service pay in B.A.O.R. I asked the Minister a Question about this on 5th March and the reply, which I do not suppose was calculated to do most damage to the Government, showed that a married captain on a certain date would have taken an effective cut of £9 6s. a month and a married corporal one of £5 a month. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's intentions, because Servicemen in B.A.O.R., like many other people, know that the pound in their pocket has been devalued. Do the Government intend to restore the value of pay lost to these men?
    My first point on allowances concerns the travel allowance payable to Servicemen moving from this country to B.A.O.R. under their own arrangements because they want to take their motor cars. In answer to a Question of mine on 23rd February, the Under-Secretary told me that a Serviceman travelling from the United Kingdom to B.A.O.R. in
    1284
    his own car instead of by official transport
    "… is allowed motor mileage allowance at the rate of 3½d. a mile for the distance from the last place of duty in the United Kingdom to the airport in the United Kingdom which would have been used had the journey been made under official arrangements. No other refund is allowed, because there is a regular air trooping service between the United Kingdom and B.A.O.R. on which seats are available for all personnel posted to Germany and to allow a refund of expenses for journeys arranged privately would mean that public funds would pay twice for the same journey."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 200.]
    If that is accurate, it shows a curious state of affairs in arranging the Army's movement control, because it implies that aeroplanes wait on airfields to fly to Germany people who never come.
    A high proportion of officers, as well as of men and N.C.O.s, travel to B.A.O.R. in their own cars, and to imply that there is over-capacity of means to move them implies a waste of public funds. Examining this situation could lead to an economy and to the recognition that Service men in Germany need motor cars and that their morale would benefit if they had greater assistance to get them there. It is better also that they should take their own cars than that they should buy them there.
    I am also concerned about the baggage allowance for children left at boarding school here when their parents have moved to B.A.O.R. In reply to another Question on 23rd February, the Under-Secretary told me that children at boarding school are allowed only the normal accompanied baggage entitlement of 66 lb. weight on chanter flights for temporary visits in the holidays. If so, that also shows that whoever drew up this regulation must be very mean-minded. It ignores the fact that the family's residence has been transferred from this country to B.A.O.R. and that the children will need to take there many things which weigh in total much more than 66 lb., which they should have at their home to enjoy for the holidays—such as books, bicycles and so on. If the Under-Secretary is to defend this arrangement on the ground that no children should have more than 66 lb. of personal belongings, he will not be able to make a very strong case. I hope he will look at this matter again. It seems a stupid point of niggling pseudo-economy which is

    1285
    calculated to disturb the morale of the Service.
    Finally, I ask about the disturbance allowance. This, I understand, is £40 per disturbance, and has remained at that figure for 10 years. I do not think it adequate to meet the expenses entailed in disturbances which it is designed to meet. It is very much below the disturbance allowance payable to civil servants in the Foreign Office or the Commonwealth Relations Office when they move from this country overseas. I ask the Under-Secretary to examine this and see whether there is not a need for some revision.
    I endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friends about the state of morale in the Army and the prospects for recruiting in future. These are very worrying. Earlier we heard the Under-Secretary who speaks for the Navy accusing hon. Members on this side of the House of wallowing in an atmosphere of gloom. That is not what we are doing. We know that a certain situation exists, and we find it worrying now and particularly worrying for the future. The Government ought to be a great deal more worried about it than they appear to be.
    8.52 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Goodhart: Like my hon. Friends, I turn to the question of allowances. As this is the 50th anniversary of votes for women, I point out to the Under-Secretary an anomaly in the treatment of the sexes which I am sure he will be anxious soon to iron out. Male other ranks receive an allowance of 1s. 6d. while undertaking Arctic and tropical experiments, but female members of the Services who undertake those experiments receive only 1s. 3d. On this 50th anniversary, I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be anxious to see this gross anomaly removed.
    I also notice a case of gross discrimination between the Services. Those who play the harmonium at Divine Service for the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy receive an allowance of 4s. a day when they carry out those duties, but there is no similar allowance for men in the Army. This anomaly should be looked into.
    The list of allowances is almost as full of quaint anomalies as the Purchase Tax and Selective Employment Tax pro-
    1286
    visions. Many of the anomalies to which I have referred are trivial, but others are not trivial. For example, there has been a considerable sense of grievance among soldiers who have had to serve abroad unaccompanied in stations where other units have Servicemen who are fortunate enough to be accompanied by their wives and families. Because of the differences in the allowance system, those who are deprived of the presence of their families have often found that they are much worse off than those who are accompanied. This has produced a considerable degree of hard feeling, as I have found in the past in both the Far East and in Aden.
    If these were normal times, I should look forward to the early publication of the review of local overseas allowances, and I should be pressing for still further investigations into the whole allowance system. But at this moment, when axes are swinging in every direction, I fear the publication of any review because it seems to me that it is likely only to include a scaling down.
    I turn briefly to subhead E of Vote 1. Much has already been said about the folly of slashing the Brigade of Gurkhas, whose distinguished service to the Crown has so often been praised in the House. This evening I shall merely repeat the hope that no final decision on the future of the Brigade will be taken before the General Election and, naturally, our return to office.
    Less has been said about the Malays and Chinese enlisted in the British forces abroad. Presumably, the great majority of them are to be thrown away in the next two years. What compensation terms will they receive? So far as I can recall, the House has not yet been told anything about this. Are there plans for an orderly transfer of those who wish to be transferred to the forces of Singapore and Malaysia?
    There is also the case of the Trucial Oman Scouts. When and to whom is control of this important force to be handed over? Will British Servicemen continue to serve in the force, or would those who continue to do so be considered white slaves?
    I now turn back to this country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) has referred to

    1287
    the disastrous fall in recruitment of other ranks for the Army. I am also worried about a possible fall in the quality of recruiting. We all like to think that everybody who volunteers for the Army is an adventurous, gallant individual, eager for excitement and anxious to defend Queen and country. That is certainly true of many who come forward. But many also join the Army because they want a quiet, secure life, sitting comfortably in a garrison town so far as they can. I am afraid that one of the effects of the shake-up in the Army will be not only to reduce the numbers but also to scare off those who are anxious for an adventurous career, and will encourage those who merely wish to sit in garrison towns.
    While other rank recruiting has fallen sharply, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, recruiting for the officer corps gives cause for alarm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said, so many people are perplexed about their future in the Army. They have seen their career structure shattered. They are doubtful about the size and the future rôle of the Army. I had always presumed that, in convulsions of major proportions like this hitting the Army, the younger officers best suited to rise to the top would stay on, as would the worst, who would be anxious about their prospects in civil life, and that it would be the broad band of middle officers, uncertain about promotion up to and beyond the rank of colonel, who would be most likely to leave.
    What has worried me in the last few months is that so many of the best officers are thinking of leaving the Army, and unless an assurance about the career structure can be given in the nearest future by the Government, this tendency will continue and we shall see the best of our soldiers getting out as fast as they can.
    9.4 p.m.
    Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The main theme of these debates on the Army has been the low morale and the lack of confidence in the future. There is still a very good career for young men in the Army and many people will be attracted to it, but they want to know what is to happen and what the pay and career structures are to be.
    1288
    There is difficulty among the young cadets. My own son is one of them. They are wondering what the future is to be. My son would like to know what Army career is in prospect for him, assuming that he does reasonably well. The young lieutenants, captains and majors also wonder what is to hapen.
    Yesterday, I received from my old regiment, the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, the instructions stating what is to happen to it in the new Light Division. It was clearly stated that the Light Division will consist of four battalions but will drop to three battalions in 1969. Apparently, no one particular battalion, like that of the Durham Light Infantry or the K.O.Y.L.I., is to be disbanded but, nevertheless, instead of four, there are to be three battalions in the division. There will therefore be redundancy. There will not be enough places in the establishment for every officer and man, so some will have to be retired.
    This immediately raises in the ranks the question, "Will it be me?" The tendency could be that the best of our young officers will get out into civil life. On the same theme, about what happens to officers, may I turn to subhead E dealing with the Gurkhas. This regiment is being reduced, and I will not go into the arguments, but I would like to know what will happen to British officers serving with it when it is reduced from its current 12,000 to 6,000. Will these officers be sent back for service at home? Do they have any idea what regiment they will be in—a Light Division, a Royal Rifle Division? It is a difficult transition for these officers—I know because I had to make it after the war. It is extremely difficult and one needs as much notice as possible.
    What will happen to Gurkha officers. There are plenty of these who have the Queen's Commission. Presumably they will take their turn and be made redundant. What will they receive as emoluments? What kind of "golden handshake" can they take back to Nepal? What will be the scale of allowances and retirement pay and pension which will be given to these officers and men when they are redundant?
    Can the Minister tell us what will happen to the Gurkha families of these men who are made redundant? Will their passages be paid back to Nepal or will

    1289
    they be left in Malaysia? They should be sent back to Nepal.
    We have a large recruiting gap to make up and I do not believe that the way in which the Army and the Government are going about filling the gap is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said that what was wanted was lots of glamorous units. He mentioned the paratroopers who are stationed in Aldershot. This is fine, and it would be absolutely wonderful if the whole Army could consist of paratroopers. There would be no difficulty if we had them, with one or two glamorous cavalry regiments, in filling all the vacancies that existed. One also needs people who can cook and do the rather dreary and less glamorous types of jobs which are very necessary to keep an Army going.
    The recruiting campaigns and the posters do not pay enough attention to the real training that can be given in the Army and the fact that after they have served 9 or 12 years in a technical branch or an infantry battalion—or division as it will now be—people can get an enormous amount of technical training, which will help them greatly in their transition from Army to civilian life. I hope that the recruiting campaigns will lay greater emphasis on the fact that this transition can be made much easier. Men can join the unions and get their training and qualifications while serving.
    The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) raised the question of the marriage allowance and the point about soldiers under 21 and officers under 25 not qualifying for it. I hope that he will bear in mind that the purpose of joining the Army is to serve as a soldier, and that the military duties of officers and other ranks should be a prime consideration when considering whether to lower the age limit for marriage allowances. My own feeling is that the officers' age limit of 25 could well be lowered a year or two, but I should not like to see it lowered much further than that, nor would I like to see the other ranks limit lowered very much.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. James Allason: If we are to get recruits, we have to have satisfactory pay and conditions of service. The two are inter-
    1290
    connected. If conditions of service are poor, the pay must be that much higher to try and compensate, but it is important to have satisfied soldiers as an advertisement for the Army if we are to have adequate recruiting.
    In the same way, the treatment of Servicemen must be good. One example where it was not well carried out occurred last year with the case of Private Parkes. The House will remember the very unusual circumstances. After careful consideration by the Ministry of Defence, with legal advice and administrative advice in favour of his arrest, he was duly arrested. Then the Press began to take an interest, which seemed to alarm the military authorities. The Army has nothing to hide and should be proud of everything that it does. Yet, suddenly, the Secretary of State for Defence intervened personally, taking the law into his own hands and overruling the Army Board, which is the proper body to deal with discipline. He instructed the commanding officer to dismiss the charge against Private Parkes.
    It was an extraordinary procedure which, so far, was to Private Parkes' advantage if not to the advantage of everyone else in the Army who was watching this very odd behaviour. However, much worse was to follow for Mr. Parkes, as he became. He left the Service, but was promptly arrested for perjury, and his ultimate fate was much worse than the first. He received far more severe punishment directly as a result of the way in which he was treated by the Service or, more correctly, by the Secretary of State.
    For the benefit of the morale of the Service, can we have an assurance that discipline has returned to its proper channels and that the Army Board is now responsible for the discipline of the Army, the Secretary of State having given up trying to intervene in matters which do not concern him?
    Next I turn to forces pay. The Government accepted the Grigg Report which lays down that the Services shall have their pay reviewed every two years, with the express intention of seeing how pay has increased in civil life over that period and then bringing up the pay of the forces to compensate for that

    1291
    increase. That is only justice for the Services. After all, they cannot withdraw their labour. All that they can do is to fail to recruit, and the Government find that that is happening.
    Instead of continuing with the Grigg process, the Government have referred the possibility of increased pay for the Services which is due round about now to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I regard that as being in complete conflict with the Grigg principle. Whereas the idea behind the Grigg Report was to bring the pay of the Services up to a level which would compensate for increases in civilian life over the previous two years, the National Board for Prices and Incomes is concerned with how a proposed increase in pay is justified in relation to future productivity.
    The Government's action is a complete breach of faith. Even if the Jones Board advises against the proper and fair increase in pay which is due to the Services, I trust that the Government will reject its recommendation.
    9.15 p.m.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: From what has been said in the debate about the difficulty of recruiting officers and other ranks, it is apparent that the Government must do everything they can to improve conditions and prospects, and also to improve the public's impression of the Army.
    One factor to which I wish to refer briefly is the disquiet felt among the older retired officers over their retirement pay and the hardship suffered by widows.
    The Prime Minister, in 1964, said:
    "Since vie feel the position is a positive disgrace, we have persistently brought this matter up in the House of Commons and criticised the Government for its meanness."
    Since the Labour Government have been in power, what have they done about it? A retired major who left the Service in the 1930s has seen the cost of living rise by over 200 per cent. Yet he has only had a rise of some 90 per cent. in his retirement pay. The plight of the older widows is disgraceful, too.
    The Army is a tribal organisation, as has been pointed out by a distinguished Field Marshal. The father and son connection—and I am sure the Under
    1292
    Secretary will agree—is a golden thread that runs through the history of the Army and must be retained at all costs. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will tell us the Government's thinking on this special problem.
    9.17 p.m.
    Mr. James Ramsden: The Under-Secretary of State has been asked a number of questions and will, no doubt, want plenty of time to give the House his reply. I need not make a long speech in attempting to sum up what has been a short but extremely valuable debate with speeches of a consistently high quality throughout, led off, as we were, by the excellent speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish).
    The theme of the debate, which has been referred to by speaker after speaker, has been the general uncertainty which now prevails in the Army as a result of decisions taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In all ranks of the Army there is doubt and lack of knowledge about future plans and prospects.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who is closely in touch with Service opinion, painted this picture to the House.
    The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) referred to the unsettlement among Service families due to the withdrawal of extra numbers of units from abroad to this country and their stationing in reactivated camps with inadequate accommodation for married families round them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) spoke about the uncertainty abroad on the Government's intentions over local overseas allowances. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) referred to the Brigade of Gurkhas and the uncertainty that prevails there in the absence of positive and final plans by the Government for the future of that body.
    We all deplore the fact that the Services should be uncertain about their future. We all hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to allay these fears and anxieties. So far as he can tonight in what he has to say, he will have the House with him, because the last thing

    1293
    that anyone on either side of the House wants is that the morale of the Services should in any way be affected by uncertainty about their future. We await his reply with interest.
    Perhaps I might briefly pick up some of the more important questions which have been asked. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes asked for clarification on two important points in connection with the reference of Service pay to the Prices and Incomes Board. When can we expect an announcement by the Board of the award on Service pay, which under the old procedure would have been due on 1st April of this year? We want an assurance that if the Board's determination is announced after 1st April the award will be retrospective to that date.
    We also want to know how the criteria to be applied by the Board in its determination of the pay review will differ, if at all, from the Grigg criteria. I raised this point with the Government in an earlier debate. I said that it seemed to me that if the criteria were to be varied because, in the Government's eyes, recruiting may no longer have the same urgency and immediacy, that it did when the Grigg system was first announced, this would be extremely unfair, and would be a breach of what the Services have always regarded as a contractual arrangement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us about this.
    It is particularly appropriate that the question of Grigg has been raised, because what struck us as a glaring deficiency during the debate before Christmas was that it was not answered by a Service Minister. One understood the reasons for this, but it seemed particularly inappropriate that in a matter of such concern to all the Services it was not possible for the Service point of view, and Service anxieties, to be dealt with and allayed as far as possible by the representative of a Service Ministry.
    My hon. and gallant Friend also asked what plans the Government had for remedying the deficiencies in recruiting for the medical services to overcome the shortage of doctors. He asked whether it was proposed to restore the lead which Service rates had over civilian rates, on which was based the hope of being able
    1294
    to maintain an adequate number of doctors in the Service against the pull of civilian life.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with this for two reasons. First, clearly we cannot continue with a shortage of doctors in the Army. If there is a shortage, it produces a danger-our situation. Secondly, because I remember the circumstances in which the scheme which hon. Gentlemen opposite took to pieces was originally introduced. It was brought in on the basis of consultations with, and securing the confidence of, the medical profession, and the leading authorities in it. It was because the Services secured their confidence and got their co-operation that it was possible to introduce a scheme under which doctors came forward in reasonably adequate numbers. The Government's changed attitude to the scheme has destroyed that confidence, and we want to know how it is to be regained.
    As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, it is clear on the latest figures that the Government cannot be happy with last year's rate of recruitment. The Minister of Defence for Administration said that the Army would need a yearly recruiting rate of about 20,000 men. Last year the Army got about 15,000. I take it—because a number of categories can come into these figures, including 15 to 16-year-old junior soldiers—that the figure in which the Army is mainly interested and which it needs to maintain it at the strength contemplated by the Government is 20,000 male adult soldiers. Thus, in 1967 we were short by about 5,000 on that target. This must be a matter of concern, and the outstanding point to come out of this debate is that the Government must remedy this situation by dispelling the uncertainty which exists about the future rôle and size of the Army. The sooner we have an announcement about what is contemplated, the better. We appreciate that the Under-Secretary will not be able to do this, but it is important that it is done as soon as possible.
    The situation in which the Forces find themselves illustrates the dangers of the whole approach to the size and scale of the Services which is inherent in the attitude and policies of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for

    1295
    Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) called it a policy of cut first and think later. That describes it well, and the debate has emphasised the uncertainty that such an approach produces. We hope that the Minister will do his best to allay that uncertainty, but we maintain our criticism of the Government and the policies that have brought this uncertainty about.
    9.27 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) for his personal courtesy in giving me notice of the points he intended to raise. I am even more grateful to him for the way in which he ended his speech—leaving aside the political digs—in which he referred to the career satisfaction of the Army. I have been most impressed when meeting young men in the Army to find that they join for a variety of reasons. Without trying to make a political point or attempting to defend the present pay situation, I have found that they get a great deal of satisfaction out of serving. In other words, pay is not the only reason why people join the Army or the other Services.
    I am, therefore, glad for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this connection because it is true that the Army does offer a good career and that there is a stable future for young men in the Army and for those joining it. I am also grateful in the same way to the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden)—again, leaving political digs aside—who made similar comments. I am sure that remarks of that kind are useful to the Army because they emphasise that the Service offers a good career and express what the Army calls for from officers and men and what it satisfies in them.
    On the pay side, perhaps I can first dispose of a matter which requires less explanation than the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board. I refer to the question of local overseas allowances, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy covered earlier, except in one respect. Most hon. Members know that an attempt has been made, as an interim measure, to give overseas rates to compensate for devalue-
    1296
    tion as from 1st March, 1968, except that Service people are to suffer the same 3 per cent. loss of purchasing power as the civilian population. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) emphasised this.
    A comprehensive on-the-spot review of local overseas allowances is to be carried out as soon as possible and new rates struck; and where we find the interim rate which is now being paid is inadequate, the new rates will be made retrospective to 1st March, 1968. The review will involve a team of experts, including members of the three Services and Treasury experts, visiting a number of countries where Servicemen are stationed and it will, of course, take some time. We shall start with the major stations—Germany first—and issue reports and make the new allowances when each station has been covered.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If I might interrupt the hon. Gentleman, he spoke of issuing the reports. Do we understand from that that the material on which the new allowances will be fixed, or at least a summary of that material, will be made public?
    Mr. Boyden: Perhaps I let myself into a trap. I should say that the rates will be announced. I could not comment in regard to the reports but I would think the answer is "No". But I should like to look at that.
    One of the main themes of hon. and gallant Gentlemen and indeed of a good many of the hon. Members who spoke has been the reference of Service pay to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I cannot avoid making the point that the Grigg arrangements were, in fact, broken by the party opposite and it does not at all follow that reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes will not be as good an arrangement, or possibly a better arrangement, than Grigg.
    Mr. Ramsden: The Government keep repeating from that side of the House a statement as to what happened in our day about Grigg which is simply not true. The Grigg principle was never breached. In one case those getting an award had the full receipt of it postponed by one year, but the principle of comparability with outside rates in civilian life was never breached and in the following year

    1297
    the award was received in full. This is a very different thing from referring the whole question of Service pay to an outside body.
    Mr. Boyden: I do not see that it is any less constructive. I should have thought that referring it to an independent body like the National Board for Prices a id Incomes could be just as good as Grigg and might be better, but I do not think one should prejudge the particular issue. The National Board for Prices and Incomes has a set of criteria by which it will conduct the review. The point was made, and I am sure the Board will accept it, that recruiting is obviously a consideration because there is provision in Cmnd. 3235 for cases like this:
    "… where it is essential in the national interest to secure a change in the distribution of manpower or to prevent a change which would otherwise take place"
    and obviously recruiting is a factor which will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Victor Goodhew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Boyden: No, I cannot give way again. I have many facts to deal with and I cannot give way until I have dealt fully with pay. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the criteria of Grigg relating other ranks' earnings to manufacturing earnings and earnings in other industries; and relating officers to executive and administrative grades of the Civil Service. Obviously the Board will consider the matter in relation to its terms of reference. The Secretary of State has put the case for the Services as, if one likes, the general secretary of their trade union and he has emphasised all the points which it is proper for a Minister looking after the Services to emphasise.
    The universities accepted a similar reference to the Board. I have not had any criticism on this score from the soldiers whom I have met. Naturally, they are concerned with pay increases, but I have not heard the kind of criticism voiced tonight in pre-judging the fairness or rightness of the Board's ultimate decision.
    A further advantage is that the review will be continuous and therefore more regular than was the case under the Grigg formula, by which the review took place
    1298
    every two years. The Government want recruits. There is no reason why the method of referring the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board should not be as fair as any other method of dealing with forces pay. The Board will include a member with special knowledge of the forces. Therefore, from the point of view of consideration, fairness and continuous review, there is no reason why hon. and right hon. Members opposite should prejudge the issue.
    The Board is aware of the importance to the Services of an early decision. The Government cannot influence it, but they will take notice of the discussion in the House today and of the fact that everyone wants a decision to be made as soon as possible consistent with a thorough examination of the situation. I do not think that hon. Members opposite do the Army a great service by making too much of their criticism of this reference.
    Mr. Goodhew: Surely there is a great difference between the Services and other people whose conditions of employment and pay are normally referred to the Board. People in the Services are under contract. They have signed on for nine years, or whatever the period is. They are in a different position from people who can leave their jobs tomorrow, as the Minister can do if he wishes. I hope that this point is considered by the Board.
    Mr. Boyden: I am sure that the Board will take that point into consideration.
    One of the keys to this matter is the state of recruitment. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the fact that recruits are not coming in as well as we would want. That is true. They have referred to deficiencies in particular branches. The future size of the Army depends on the review which is now taking place. It is proper that that should be so. The review is being carefully undertaken taking into account the best military advice. Therefore, the Opposition must wait until the review is ready.
    My guess on recruits, however, is that we shall need about 15,000 adults plus 4,000 boys per annum. Certainly we require more than that in the coming year. In other words, we need almost as many recruits as we can get. We shall keep up the pressure by advertising and in other ways to get the maximum numbers we

    1299
    can. But I will not be drawn on the absolute future size of the Army.
    A very serious point was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes about deficiencies in the Royal Army Medical Corps, in particular, and other arms. These deficiencies in the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Royal Army Dental Corps, the Education Corps and the legal services are in professions where civilians have for many years been difficult to recruit. Hon. Gentlemen say that pay is the key. I met members of the Army Medical Advisory Board to discuss this problem and the fact is that one of the limitations on medical careers in the Army is that doctors do not get as wide an experience as they would wish—
    Mr. Powell: But that factor is a constant, and cannot, therefore explain the decline in recruitment.
    Mr. Boyden: I do not think that it is a constant, since suggestions were made to deal with this by responsible members of the Board, of which I took note, and I am doing my best to deal with the matter. In that sense, it can be removed from its constancy. The position of consultants in the R.A.M.C. is satisfactory and we get as many as we want. The reason for difficult recruitment in other Corps, like R.E.M.E. and the Signals is exactly the same—the Army is competing with many other people for these skills. [Interruption.] I will throw the 13 years at the right hon. Gentleman if he wants. I make no political point, but this goes back a long time over a period in which nationally we have not emphasised enough getting highly trained and educated people. I am greatly interested in this question. The Robbins Report on University Expansion is one key to this problem. I admit that pay is a difficulty, and the Board will consider the pay of the R.A.M.C. as much as that of anyone else.
    As to young married soldiers who are entitled to married quarters, it is difficult to determine in favour of very young men when they know when they join that there must be some priority among claimants for married quarters. The Government's record in the last couple of years in keeping families together is very good. There has been a tremendous drive to accelerate the permanent married quarter building programme and to buy
    1300
    ready-made houses. There is a decided improvement in what is called in the Army the "state of family union". We have had to take on very few caravans or mobile homes. I think that Vote 7 includes provision for mobile homes and it is a small figure, which reflects great credit on the Government.
    The conditions referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) are, I presume, on a private caravan site and the families have some option about whether they live there. I should be grateful if he would send me the details about Colchester, because I will investigate it. I know that in one case, after photographers had run havoc around a hut or similar accommodation, a newspaper gave a gross misrepresentation of the conditions in which a young soldier and his wife were living. I will look into the case raised. There were several caravans in my constituency a little while ago and the young married soldiers living there were in good caravans, well looked after and very happy. If we approach a perfect state of society, I have no doubt that I may be able to meet the hon. Member, but I could not hold out much hope at the moment.
    Mr. Lipton: Is any consideration being given, particularly in the case of officers, to reducing the age from 25 to a lower age at which an officer can get married quarters and full allowances?
    Mr. Boyden: I take note of the point, but I do not think that I can go further than what I have said.
    The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) gave me notice that he is not able to be here at the moment. He asked one or two questions to which I should like to refer. He said that one of the difficulties of attracting people in future will be lack of overseas stations. The Secretary of State made reference to this in the recent 'defence debate. We shall continue to do all we can to have exercises overseas. We have a lot of co-operation from a great many countries in this respect. There will be a great deal of enterprise and adventure in that kind of training. I hope we shall also extend adventure training on an individual or small party scale at home and overseas, and this will help. I hope too that the collaboration with civil authorities overseas as in the Beef Island ex-

    1301
    pedition, to which I have referred in the recent Vote A debate, and military cooperation with the civil community, will also be a big help.
    I was grateful to the hon. Member for saying loudly that he hoped that officers will not resign prematurely without their redundancy entitlement. There is a good career for an officer. But if they are in a zone where redundancy is likely I hope they will wait to see what conditions are and get the full redundancy entitlement. One of the difficulties the Government are in—I say this only in part defence of the situation—is that rumours are almost bound to spread when there are bit:, moves of this sort and when consideration is given to cuts, disbandments and amalgamations and things of that sort. I am sure, judging from the tone of the debate today, that hon. Members will not give credence to rumours. If they think there is anything in the rumours perhaps they will check with me.
    I cannot say anything about the situation in relation to the paratroopers or the drums and bands. There have been discussions about cuts and I suppose someone has assumed that drums and bands are going, but this is not the intention at all. The whole matter will be very seriously considered in the light of general military arrangements, bearing in mind that military music plays a very important part in the Army scheme of things.
    Perhaps at this stage—rather out of sequence—I should refer to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) about what he called "the tribal system". I have been very impressed with the strength of the regimental system and the way in which it works both in military spirit and, from my point of view as an Under-Secretary who deals with a great many welfare matters, in welfare matters in a regiment. Sometimes when we are up against regulations and cannot get the money to do certain things, the regimental funds help out in a splendid way. But there is more to it than that. The wives of officers exercise a splendid influence by helping in all ways in often difficult circumstances. It is sometimes suggested to me that other ranks' wives are perhaps a little suspicious of an officer's wife taking action over their particular welfare needs.
    1302
    But I can say without any hesitation that the generality of influence used in this way in the regiments is absolutely splendid and something of which the British Army can be very proud. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and giving me an opportunity of saying that. If the hon. Member for Aldershot writes to me I shall look very thoroughly into the Ghana case, which he put to me.
    The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised a number of awkward-sounding points. The matter of cars to Germany and the mileage allowance is rather complicated. He has raised it with me before. I shall look into it further and write to him about it. The position over children's baggage is not so dissimilar from that of civilian airlines. The allowance of 66 lb. is fairly reasonable, and the rest of the luggage can go by sea. Children's books, heavy equipment and that sort of thing can go by sea, although it would not go as quickly as by air.
    Mr. Onslow: I understand that there is no specific entitlement to a children's element in the allowance for movement of baggage by sea.
    Mr. Boyden: I shall look into that as well. I want to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. If there appears to be an anomaly I shall see what can be done about it.
    The disturbance allowance of £40 has remained for the past 10 years, as the hon. Gentleman said. I cannot at present see much opportunity of doing anything about it.
    The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) raised a martial cry on behalf of women. It is well known that women are hardier than men and better able to withstand extremes of heat and cold. Anyway, there is only 3d. in it. One of the things I have been impressed with is the cheerfulness with which soldiers willingly submit themselves as volunteers to walk around rough tracks testing boots, and being soaked for half an hour by artificial rain to simulate conditions of tropical dampness and so on for a very small extra remuneration.
    The troops I saw dealing with the foot-and-mouth epidemic, clearing out the cow stalls and so on, were getting a certain amount of extra money. I do not know

    1303
    whether it is called objectionable work money or hard-lying money. I think that it is in the Navy that it is referred to as hard-lying money. Certainly, they earned their extra pence.
    I did not know about the harmonium. This also seems to be discrimination where music is concerned.
    On the question of unaccompanied service, a new separation allowance for officers and men separated from their families—normally through an emergency—was introduced in April, 1966. They receive 4s. a day extra after a total of a year of separation.
    As regards the Malays and Chinese, no new scheme is ready yet, but I hope soon to be able to make an announcement about that.
    The hon. Member for Beckenham and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) raised the question of the Gurkhas. The rundown of Gurkhas is at the rate of 2,000 a year until the force reaches 6,000, but we are still recruiting. We are aiming at recruiting about 300 a year, and are also recruiting up to 20 boys a year whom we send to British Army schools with the hope that some may qualify as candidates for commissions. British officers with the Gurkhas will be dealt with on precisely the same basis as officers elsewhere. An attempt will be made to give them their choice of change of post. I do not know whether the hon. Members are aware that the Gurkhas' pay structure was recently revised, the changes coming into effect on 1st February. Redundant Gurkhas are demobilised in Nepal. Arrangements are made to fly some back. Others have to go by air and train. They are dealt with satisfactorily in that way.
    Right hon. and hon. Members have criticised the recruiting figures. But some factors indicate a more satisfactory position than they suggest. For example, using the percentage of discharges by purchase as a criterion, we find that the number of junior soldiers who purchased their discharge in 1967 was a little less than in 1966. The same applies to trained soldiers. In 1966, the percentage of trained soldiers purchasing their discharge was 2·5, while in the year now ended it was 2·3 per cent. I have more figures
    1304
    here but I will write to the hon. Gentleman, as the clock is against me. The number of re-engagements at the six-year stage shows that those who have tasted Army life are satisfied in present circumstances.
    I am most grateful to hon. Members opposite who have stressed a point that I was anxious to emphasise in the debate last Wednesday—that the Army is a good career for both officers and men. We want to do all we can to stabilise the position as soon as we can. We must wait for the defence review in order to get the facts right, and in the meantime I endorse what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said—that the Army is a very good career for men of action.
    9.58 p.m.
    Sir T. Beamish: The hon. Gentleman has done his best to answer many questions, but I cannot say that I am pleased with many of the answers. He ignored one vital matter—whether the recommendation made by the Prices and Incomes Board about Service pay and allowances will definitely apply as from 1st April even if a recommendation is made after 1st April. That is an important question.
    Mr. Boyden: I am not in a position to answer it now.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £186,790,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969.

    Vote 2. Reserve and Cadet Forces
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £4,230,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the Regular Army Reserves (including other ranks to a number not exceeding 50,000) and the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve (to a number not exceeding 101,000 all ranks) (including within these Reserves the Special Army Volunteer Reserve to a number not exceeding 8,700 all ranks) and of the Cadet Forces, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969.
    9.59 p.m.
    Sir T. Beamish: I have only a moment or so, which is very disappointing, but I want to say something about this Vote.

    1305
    We have already debated the future of the Territorial Army at considerable length and we were very disappointed with the Government's decision. This is not the time to go over the arguments again, but I had hoped for an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to tell us how the discussions between the Secretary of State and the Territorial Army Council are going, what sort of structure the right hon. Gentleman has in mind for the Territorials, so that they can be recreated if necessary, and what sort of financial ceiling is to be applied.
    The Government's position in relation to civil defence and the Territorials is com-
    1306
    pletely inconsistent with N.A.T.O. thinking, as the hon. Gentleman knows. This point was not brought out in the last debate. It was only last December that the N.A.T.O. Ministers approved a report on civil emergency planning which stressed the vital importance for such planning. They said that they noted the progress achieved and the tasks remaining to be accomplished. We can only conclude, therefore, that the Government are the only Government in N.A.T.O. not in step on this extremely important subject.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  POST OFFICE
  10.0 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
  That the Postmaster-General be authorised, as provided for in section 5 of the Post Office Act 1961, to make payments out of the Post Office Fund in the financial year ending with the 31st March. 1969.
  Time is very limited, so I do not propose to make a long speech. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has indicated that he will be willing to give time, later on, for a longer debate covering the Select Committee's report, the Report and Accounts, the forecast White Paper and the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will have seen the White Paper on Post Office Prospects 1968–69 setting out the facts. It will not be possible for me to cover all the many activities of the Post Office, so I propose to confine myself to one or two themes.
  I am sure that the House will expect me to say something about the postponement of the Bill to convert the Post Office into a public corporation, announced by the Leader of the House on 1st February. This is a personal disappointment, but it was necessary and the delay to vesting day, which was originally planned for 1st April, 1969, will not be over-long. The Bill will be introduced at the beginning of the next Session. I know that some disquiet has been caused among Post Office staff by this postponement. A number of my hon. Friends who have connections with the staff interests have been good enough to tell me about this, and I know from the staff themselves. Indeed, only two or three hours ago, I talked to a group of staff representatives in Swansea.
  I should like to take this opportunity of reiterating that the delay to vesting day will not be over-long. It will simply be a matter of a few months. I should also like to draw attention again to the undertakings given to the Staff on the position up to vesting day, about conditions of service, security of tenure, and superannuation. These are set out in Cmnd. 3233—Reorganisation of the Post Office. These undertakings have been made known to all Post Office staff and we have been having long and fruitful conversations with them.
  1308
  It is true that many of these discussions have been on a confidential basis with staff representatives. This has been inevitable, but I am hopeful that negotiations on a good many matters can be brought to the stage where unions can debate them openly at their annual conference this summer. Certainly this should be so with superannuation. The full details will be available later this month.
  We have made excellent progress with the job of reorganising the managerial structure of the Post Office, which I announced last year. The separation of posts and telecommunications into two independently managed businesses is now effective, apart from one or two details. I should like to pay tribute to the cooperation of the staff associations in getting this done so quickly and smoothly. The biggest managerial revolution the Post Office has ever had has been carried out in the past 12 months. I am sure that nothing but good can come from the sharper definition of managerial responsibility which follows from the untwining of these two businesses.
  By any standards they are very large industries. One important result has been a drive to make management and staff at all levels more—to use the fashionable jargon—consumer-orientated. We are also examining the size of our management force. There is no doubt that the Post Office is under-managed in comparison with other industries. We can only cope adequately with the growth of business and the rate of change of its technology and ensure higher productivity if the strength of the management is increased.
  I have been looking back at the reports which have been given to the House by me and my predecessors in this office in previous years. Looking back on them, I do not think that the postal side of our business has had the measure of attention which it deserves or that given to its perhaps more glamorous partner, the telecommunications service, and that is not altogether surprising. There are no spectacular increases in traffic on the postal side, and there are no spectacular technological advances. The mechanisation of the postal side of our business is a long, steady hard slog. It is still a labour intensive industry with all the

  1309
  problems that that brings, and one of them has been to hold standards of service without incurring too large an increase in costs. In an industry in which some 70 per cent. of costs are for labour, this has been by no means easy.
  As an illustration of What I mean, I quote the fact that we have had to deliver letters to 300,000 new houses last year. Since everyone expects letters to be delivered at more or less the same time, it is inevitable that we need many more postmen to do it, even if, as I shall show in a moment, we make savings elsewhere.
  There has been an achievement in 1967 of which I am proud, and I pay tribute to the managers and staff who have brought it about. In 1967, we delivered 93 per cent. of fully-paid letters by the next working day after posting, compared with 92 per cent. in 1966. Hon. Members may say that this is a lot of fuss about 1 per cent., but that 1 per cent. means that we have given improved service to 60 million letters during the last year. We aim to do better than that in 1968, but I do not offer any forecasts.
  Further improvement on this high figure will be increasingly difficult to attain, because there will always be some letters posted late on one day which we cannot deliver in remote places the next day and, of course, there are always many letters incorrectly addressed which will not be delivered next morning. So it will be very difficult to improve on the 93 per cent. figure. However, we hope to do so.
  A few moments ago, I mentioned mechanisation. After some disappointments, I am hopeful that we are at last entering an era of mechanisation of all the processes of handling mail in our main sorting offices. These disappointments have arisen not through any lack of application on the part of those responsible for designing the machines—in this sphere of activity, we really lead the world—but, rather, from the intractable nature of the problem itself. Our fully automatic letter sorting office at Norwich has worked well, and equipment for the full mechanisation of three more large offices will be installed this year. Partial mechanisation—that is, using machines to carry out the first phases of the sorting process—has been carried out in six offices, and we will soon be putting it
  1310
  into another 16. We shall spend more than twice as much on plant in 1968–69 than in the current year.
  Coupled with this investment in mechanisation of our postal business, we are intensifying our efforts to improve productivity in the use of our manpower both by research into better methods and by improved management controls, because, of course, there will always be parts of the postal service which can never be mechanised. In spite of having to employ several hundred postmen for delivery to new housing, we expect to achieve an improvement this year equivalent to the saving of about 1,000 men. In 1968–69, there should be a rather greater improvement as the full year effect of this year's measures are felt.
  We are by no means confining our efforts to securing savings through changes applied throughout the country. Much of our expenditure, particularly in sorting offices, is related to the functions and circumstances of the individual office. The phased programme under which we are reviewing the operations of all our large sorting offices in turn, systematically and analytically, is, as we hoped, showing ways and means of making many improvements. Though most of these are individually fairly small in money terms, those implemented already represent in aggregate a continuing annual cost reduction of about one-third of a million pounds.
  Bearing in mind that the study programme is as yet no more than one-third completed, and that consultation with the staff on the changes proposed and the actual introduction of new arrangements naturally takes a little time after each study is made, I am confident of a really significant overall result by the time this programme is finally completed.
  Perhaps I could turn to stamps for a moment, because stamps are a subject which interest many hon. Gentlemen. A feature of 1967 was the introduction of the new definitive series of stamps. Here I believe we have achieved probably the best British stamp ever produced. Stamp sales at the Philatelic Bureau in Edinburgh and at the philatelic counter in London between them contributed £1¼ million to Post Office revenue. We intend to improve further on this performance. We are making special efforts to increase our sales overseas, and in

  1311
  September of last year we opened a philatelic depôt in New York.
  I turn now to the new Giro service, the opening of which this year will be a major step forward in modernising the money transfer services of this country. The arrangements for inaugurating the service are progressing satisfactorily and on schedule.
  A good deal of the building at the Giro centre at Bootle is nearing completion, and the installation of the specialised equipment has already begun. It is an immense undertaking to establish the service in a little over three years from the decision to go ahead.
  A small number of staff moved to Bootle last October and they will be followed by the majority of the planning staff in April, 1968. The recruitment of local staff has already started and will be accelerated from now on. Some 2,000 Merseysiders will be employed by the end of this year, and this will rise to 3,500 by the end of next year.
  Interest in the services that Giro will offer has been widespread, particularly recently after an autumn publicity campaign in the trade Press. We are in close contact with many large organisations in order to ensure that their accounting procedures are integrated to the maximum extent possible with Giro processes.
  I have no doubt that Giro will provide a very useful service to those many people who do not have bank accounts. Market surveys have shown that Giro is likely to prove very popular with the general public. I am confident that this new service is going to be a great success.
  I should now like to say something about our largest business—telecommunications. First, capital investment. As the White Paper says, the Post Office's capital programme over the next five years will probably cost about £2,000 million. The greater part of this will be for the telecommunications services. We shall be spending about £290 million on them in the current financial year, and we plan to spend over £330 million next year. These are enormous sums of money. They represent by far the largest capital programme for the telecommunications service any Government
  1312
  has entered into. This money is needed to improve the service given to our present customers, as well as to provide for new ones.
  I shall not weary the House with a lot of figures, but I should just like to give one or two examples of what this programme means when translated into its effect on the customer. We are planning to increase the size of the telecommunications system of Britain by 50 per cent. in the five years to March, 1972. By next March 98 per cent. of our customers will be served by automatic exchanges and 85 per cent. of them will have S.T.D.; that is, they will be able to dial their trunk calls.
  In the coming year we expect to complete 800 new exchanges, or extensions to existing exchanges, and we shall put 12,000 more trunk lines into the system. We shall meet 1·3 million orders for telephones. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the development areas will be glad to learn that most of the manufacturing work to which this rapid expansion of the programme gives rise, will take place in factories in the development areas. In 1968–69, 73 per cent. of our telephones will be made there, and by the end of the following year almost all of them will be made in development areas, compared with 45 per cent. in 1966–67. The big expansion in the production of exchange equipment has taken place almost entirely in development areas, and 70 per cent. of it is now made there. The Post Office, through its purchasing power, is thus playing its part in correcting the regional imbalance which has plagued the British economy for far too long.
  Of course, spending these vast sums of public money as we are, we have a duty to see that our organisation of the service is as efficient as we can make it. In this context I remind the House that last year the Post Office was thoroughly investigated by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and that we did not come out too badly. I do not think that any public service has been investigated so much as the Post Office has over the last two or three years.
  We are making a great drive to achieve greater productivity. Let me highlight just one example. As I have said, we aim to increase the number of telephones

  1313
  by 50 per cent. in the five years to March, 1972, but, by improved methods of work, we plan to do this with no increase in manpower. I should like to pay a big tribute to the management and the staff associations who have co-operated to the full in these plans. This is a success story in productivity which deserves to be more widely known than it is.
  As an example of the drive towards customer-orientation, to which I referred earlier, let me tell the House about the appointment service which we have introduced in parts of the country, and which have proved very popular. Under this service, customers can make an appointment for a telephone to be installed on a particular morning or afternoon. As a result, about 30 per cent. of our orders are now handled by appointment. Almost half of these are completed within a week of receiving the order, and three-quarters within two weeks of application. We failed to provide a service on the agreed day in only 6 per cent. of cases. We shall be expanding this scheme throughout the country as equipment becomes available. At present it operates for relatively simple installations. We shall introduce a similar scheme for more complex business installations experimentally later in the year.
  Where plant and equipment are surplus, and I accept that this is not the situation in some parts of the country, we have been pushing the sales of telecommunications services, such as telex and special instruments. Already this is producing additional profits, and we hope to do a good deal more in the coming year.
  Finally, I know that the House will expect me to say something about Post Office finances. The White Paper on prospects sets out the problems, and, as the House knows, Post Office charges were referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. My right hon. Friend and I received the Board's Report late last night. It will be published shortly, but clearly the Government have not yet had time to study the Report and come to their conclusions. The House will not expect me, to say more about it tonight, but the House will recall, as I said earlier, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said at Business time on 29th February, in reply to a question from, I
  1314
  think, the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), that we might have a short debate tonight, on the understanding that we find time later on when it is more convenient to have a wider debate.
  The coming year will be one of great challenge in the Post Office, its last full year as a Department of State. There is an enormous amount of detailed planning to be done to make the changeover work smoothly, and the closest cooperation will be needed next year between the management and the staff. By the time this Motion comes round next year, the Bill will, I hope, be well on its way through Parliament, if not already an Act. The coming year is going to be a challenging and exciting one for the Post Office and all the people who work in it.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Bryan: We last debated Post Office matters on 15th March last year, a year ago next Friday. During those 12 months we have had the final Report of the Select Committee of Nationalised Industries on the Post Office—the first thorough Report of that sort for 30 years or more. We have had the White Paper containing plans literally to revolutionise the organisation of the Post Office, and we have had some of the first steps in that reorganisation, in anticipation of the coming Measure. We also had forecasts about wide-scale changes in the nature and scale of tariffs; the I.R.C. has deliberated, although we have not had its report. Tonight we had an admirable account from the Postmaster-General, and his remarks have indeed shown the great deal that has been happening in Post Office activities.
  All in all, this has been a momentous year, a unique year, in Post Office history. Nevertheless, in that year we have not had a single debate on the Post Office. I am certain that the Postmaster-General has enough respect for the importance of his Department, for his job and for Parliament to acknowledge that this lack of debate has been ludicrous and deplorable. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman personally; he must admit that it is part of the mess which the Government have got into in arranging their business, the same mess that has forced them to guillotine the Transport Bill on the strength of—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Any other items which the hon. Gentleman calls messes which do not arise on the Motion are out of order.
  Mr. Bryan: I was about to say also that it is the same mess which has caused the postponement of the Post Office Corporation Bill, a Measure which would have given us ample time in which to debate Post Office matters.
  I was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that although the putting off of the vesting day may be a matter of only a few months, this particularly concerns the employees of the Post Office. I put a Question about this to the Leader of the House some time ago, and although he brushed it aside, the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), who knows a great deal about these matters, was quick to spring to his feet to point out that however short the delay, it meant a lot to these employees.
  To atone for the lack of debate, we understand from the Leader of the House that tonight's short discussion is to be followed by a full day's debate on a later occasion. I will, therefore, use tonight as a sort of hors d'oeuvre to the main debate and ask a number of questions to which I do not expect answers tonight, but with which I hope the Postmaster-General will deal in depth when the big debate takes place.
  My first question concerns the future structure of the Post Office. According to the White Paper, we are apparently to keep the Post Office and the telecommunications side as one business. This was discussed by the Select Committee, and eventually, and with some hesitation, it came down on the side of this solution. On the other hand, as one reads the various arguments that were adduced, one wonders why that decision was taken. I need hardly enumerate the arguments, particularly since the Postmaster-General keeps giving them. In the White Paper is underlined the difference in the very nature of the two operations and they are factors of which everyone is aware—the capital intensiveness of telecommunications and the labour intensiveness of the Post Office; the scientific skills of the one industry and the sheer footslogging inseparable with the other; the speed of development on one side and
  1316
  the slowness of change on the other; and the completely different qualifications of people required for telecommunications compared with the staff of the Post Office.
  The changes already made in the organisation not merely acknowledge these differences but are based on them. Even the common services are being split. One therefore cannot see the logic in the conclusion which has been reached and I trust that the Minister will explain why it has been reached. Is it a matter of the employees? Is it a matter of trade union pressure? Are the trade unions against a separation into businesses?
  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the differences in staff between the postal and telecommunications sides. I wish that he would spell out this matter. I am not sure what he means.
  Mr. Bryan: I was referring to the different qualifications required on the two sides. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that they are a factor.
  At Question Time last Thursday, I asked the Postmaster-General whether we could have the I.R.C. Report. I shall not press him further tonight on this matter, first, because I know that I shall not get it, and, secondly, because, as he said, he has undertaken not to divulge evidence given by private firms. The Select Committee followed its Report with minutes of evidence. Would the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper containing the substance of the Report without the evidence? I say that not as a debating point but because it is of immense importance.
  Most of the ills of the telephone service, such as bad service, waiting lists, and so on, have been put down to the difficulties of supply. The Postmaster-General gives the suppliers a stiff talk, even over their cigars and port after dinner, about their deficiencies and late deliveries. Therefore, one asks oneself, "What is wrong? Are the suppliers bad or lazy? Is the method of buying wrong?" The bulk supply agreements are due to end this month. We should like to know what will take their place and, when we know that, why that is the chosen system.

  1317
  When the Postmaster-General took office, he kindly gave us a promise that during this time of great development in the Post Office he would keep us informed to as great a degree as possible. I should like to ask him to keep that promise. In opposition, information is hard to get, but there is no subject on which information is harder to get than this. One can get it only from the Post Office or from the suppliers, and they are not exactly uninterested parties. Now an expert and informed Committee's Report has been kept from us. It would be of great assistance to us if we could be given the substance of it.
  A small point which has been put to me is this. Why is it that the A.E.I. factory at Woolwich, which apparently was producing parts for the telecommunications industry, which is behind with its deliveries, has been closed? Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General can answer that question.
  On postal services, clearly the most important event in the coming year will be the new structure of the tariffs. We cannot debate this matter until after the Prices and Incomes Board has reported. The Postmaster-General should not underrate the impact of new prices on the public. We as students of the Post Office are interested in the structure, but the public will be much more interested in the new prices. We have seen terrifying predictions in the newspapers about the price of the first-class mail going up to 6d. Some newspapers have said that it will go up to 8d. If this is anything like true, it is a fairly devastating prospect.
  The last rise in the price of the first-class mail, from 3d. to 4d., took place almost exactly three years ago. If the price goes up to 6d., it will have doubled in three years. If it goes up to 8d., it will have increased almost three times, which is a pretty high rate of price growth even for Socialism. Whether or not one claims that the future first-class mail will 'De better than the present first-class mail, it is hard to think that there will be much difference, especially in view of what the Postmaster-General has just said about the 93 per cent. and possibly improving on that.
  1318
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think very hard about the scale of this rise, because he accepts almost too easily the figures he is given. The figures are similar to those which convince businessmen that they should raise their prices. What annoys the public is that private firms which present the same argument are told by the Prices and Incomes Board to hold prices, while the Post Office can raise them. These figures will not be considered a particularly strong reason for price rises. They point more towards the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about management. Never mind the difficulties with equipment and capital planning and so on: it is astonishing the difference to costs which can be made by improved management.
  What are the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts on the safeguards for the user when Parliament's scrutiny is a thing of the past? The White Paper contains promises of a users' council, which is not particularly reassuring. No doubt the council will do its best, but the record of users' councils for the nationalised industries and other industries is not impressive. Even with Parliamentary scrutiny, the method by which the user can make his complaints known, is inadequate. As prices rise, as they undoubtedly will, the public will be touchy about the Post Office, and surely it is worth taking a great deal of trouble to get public relations right.
  The Post Office staff deal with complaints with courtesy—one cannot complain about that. The Postmaster-General occasionally brings out statistics of the 93 per cent. variety, which please him, but people realise that they are the Post Office's own figures. That does not mean that they are untrue, but they are rather like party political broadcasts. Those responsible believe every word, but they are not very convincing because everyone knows the source. When the postage is bad, the public cannot believe the Post Office's own statistics. It is happy to report on itself but is not altogether happy that other people should report on it. I cite as an example the I.R.C. report and we did not hear much about McKinsey's.
  A commercial firm will naturally advertise and praise its own goods; but will go out of its way to get someone else to do so. If it can say that the goods have

  1319
  been recommended by the Design Centre or meet British Standard specifications, it knows this to be highly effective. On a lower level, "Daz" sales executives are always getting the public to say on television that their product is good, rather than saying it themselves. In the same way it would be worth while the Post Office studying the possibility of employing an organisation like Which? to carry out independent test postings and publishing the results of such postings. Similar sample surveys of the telephone service could be made and published.
  Mr. Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there have been independent surveys in the last year, in which the Post Office's figures were tested, and that a Committee of the House considered them and compared them with those of Continental post offices and the American system in great depth and came out strongly in favour of our system? I can understand his point about advertising, but surely this is something which has been considered very recently.
  Mr. Bryan: I am suggesting that this could be periodical and regular. I am sure that what the hon. Member said is true, but if we ask the general public whether this took place, they would not have the slightest idea. It makes no impact on them whatever, but if it were regular and they knew when it was coming, it would have a great impact.
  The main debate is obviously the time to discuss the Select Committee, but this is the first time that on behalf of the Opposition I have had an opportunity to thank that Committee for the admirable document it has produced. I think it will become an historic document. Special thanks are due to the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman. I mention the Vice-Chairman, not because he is a Member from this side of the House, but because, owing to the way in which the Committee's work was divided into two parts, the Vice-Chairman, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), had more important work to do in that rôle than is normal for the Vice-Chairman.
  The Report would have been useful at any time and by any standards, but in this year with so many important decisions to make, it has become a key document.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I should like to make some comments on remarks made from both sides of the House. I cannot get over the personal feeling of being influenced by what appears to be the reasonableness of the Opposition Front Bench speakers who are so temperate in their criticism that one hardly notices the knife stuck in the back.
  On this subject, as on so many, it is still relevant to ask, what about the 13 years? Of course, the people get tired of this. They think it is an excuse for some of our failures and disappointments as a Government. They think it is just party politics without any thought behind the argument. The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) is shaking his head, but he should have a quiet thought about whether he is right or I am right, because, if ever there were a Department whose basic problem has been caused by lack of capital and lack of planning in the past it is the Post Office. This has been brought out well by the very Committee to which the hon. Member has referred, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
  When any party or Government tries to effect radical changes—and most people would accept that the new concept of the Post Office is a radical change—it runs into trouble because any change raises problems which are deep-rooted and fundamental. They were not tackled by hon. Members opposite. Radical changes in management is a nice-sounding phrase by which to attack my right hon. Friend, but where was the radical management which could have been introduced in the 13 years?
  Are we never to get credit for attempting to do anything in this place? Hon. Members opposite seem to have some responsibility. If they are to attack and criticise, they should be aware of the underlying cynicism in politics. It is not just a question of what happened in the 13 years, but of the effect created outside. Here is a Government trying to make radical changes and no credit seems to be given for the attempt to do something which hon. Members opposite failed to do in the past.
  Mr. Bryan: Was not the hon. Gentleman's speech written and thought out

  1321
  before I spoke? It does not seem to have anything to do with what I said.
  Mr. Brown: I can lay down my notes for the moment, because I am not reading my speech.
  Linked with the need for radical management is the problem of productivity, complicated by the fact that there are too many unions. These questions are basic to an attempt to organise any industry efficiently and expect to enjoy co-operation with the staff. In spite of tackling the difficulties inherent in the new corporation idea, and in spite of the good things done, we run into some of the financial problems left to us. A report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries showed that without the benefits from improving telecommunications productivity in 1960–65 the Post Office would have needed by the end of the period a total engineering, clerical and operating staff of 206,000 instead of the 167,000 employed at the end of 1965. Since then it is estimated that there will be a saving of 80,000 staff due to productivity agreements. In installations there has been a 42 per cent. increase in productivity in three years, with a saving of 10,000 staff, which is magnificent. I may be wrong, for this is a complicated subject, but I suggest that few private firms outside can show anything like such an increase of productivity on the production side.
  I get tired of the incessant sniping by hon. Members opposite because somebody did not get a letter delivered the morning after it was posted, or a telephone kiosk has broken down in their constituency. That seems to be an argument for less Parliamentary control over details in any nationalised industry.
  The point I am trying to make is that we also rightly suffer the glare of publicity when there is any justified attempt at increasing prices to finance future investment. I am not now complaining about hon. Members opposite but am trying to think out in my own mind how the Post Office overcomes the disadvantage of being a publicly-owned body, with all the opportunity for public criticism that is certainly not directed against the manufacturers of telephone exchange equipment, to give a good example. My right hon. Friend may be able to give hints about placing orders
  1322
  abroad. I feel slight disappointment that we could not have been a little more imaginative in public ownership in Woolwich, and the other factory mentioned, with some of the research staff, because the entry of public enterprise into this might do more to stir up the private manufacturers than anything else.
  We can afford to be optimistic about the future. It is bright, but there is a great deal of hard work to be done. One of the biggest problems I see is how to involve the staff associations, unions and management in industrial democracy. I do not think that anyone has the complete answer. But I think that 'in the future the Post Office will look at this a little more favourably. There is a challenge to the unions to try to work out what is meant by industrial democracy—I do not like the term "workers' control". The experiment of the new set-up in the Post Office gives every opportunity to those of us who have any ideas about the introduction of industrial democracy.
  I cannot anticipate what might be in the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I say this with no inside information or expert knowledge, but there does seem to be a case for better costing of the volume of equipment which is used only at certain times of the day—the peak period problem.
  Whether this would mean that the business community would pay a variable tariff which would be higher than the domestic tariff I do not know. I would tend to think that it would if we are trying to assess what is to be paid by those who make the biggest demands on the service. The Post Office is doing an excellent job and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he advocates and champions the cause of the Post Office.
  10.46 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) backwards in time into the 13 years with which he was preoccupied. Nor, I assure him, is it my intention to engage in violent and vituperative criticism. All hon. Members on this side, in paying tribute to the Postmaster-General for his enthusiasm for his office and his obvious interest and attachment to it, would wish

  1323
  to join him in what he said about the Post Office staff and the job they have done in the recent difficult conditions of expansion of which the Postmaster-General has reminded us.
  It is an easy matter to gain kudos as a Member of Parliament by criticising any large statutory undertaking. Always, if one abuses a large enterprise of that kind, one will find a responsive chord here and there, because inevitably the size of the organisation is such that everyone has a complaint from time to time. We all feel a little bit desperate about our own complaints—a letter which is late, a post office or sub-post office which is closed when it was formerly open, or when we are not able to get through on the telephone. At these times we feel critical. At the same time we should not lose sight of the vast nature of this operation and the kind of work being done.
  I do not wish to pour oil on the flames of criticism, but I regard it as my duty to explain the way in which the Post Office works and the difficulties it has and at the same time to ventilate legitimate criticism. We cannot put things right unless they are brought out into the open. The hon. Member for Proven will agree that hon. Members who ventilate criticisms and point to things that have gone wrong are not attacking the whole system but doing their duty.
  I want to make one or two points arising out of what the Postmaster-General said. It seems to be a half-term report and he said that we would have a fuller debate on a later occasion. It would therefore be wrong to adduce complicated arguments here and now, and one would not get proper answers.
  The Postmaster-General referred to the fact that efforts were being made to get the Post Office rather more consumer orientated. I would acknowledge that this is already taking place. Nevertheless, this in itself is not enough. It is not enough for the people in the Post Office to be conscious of the needs and irritations of the customers. It is necessary to see that explanations do not have to be given, but the service fulfilled. One of the difficulties facing the right hon. Gentleman and the country is to evolve a method of making an enormous concern like this publicly accountable
  1324
  and enabling it somehow or other to attain the best elements at least of private enterprise—making it both publicly accountable and also conscious of its need to serve the public and to be competitive.
  Many of these things will be discussed when we come to reorganisation later. This would not be the right time to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said about that, save that I want to say how glad I am that he has been able to allay the anxieties of many Post Office employees about their future. I understand that they feel that these anxieties have been allayed to a considerable extent. What he has said tonight will go still further to show them that their anxieties have been very carefully considered.
  My personal anxiety is shared by many hon. Members. It concerns how, in the reorganisation, accountability to the House is to be preserved in some way. However right or wrong it may be for us to ventilate criticism of the Post Office in this Chamber, the fact remains that hon. Members on both sides frequently seize the opportunity so to do. They would rather regret it if opportunities of this kind disappeared.
  I know the difficulties. We had exchanges on the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, and he explained some of them. Nevertheless, I hope that, between now and the time at which the matter is debated more fully, he will be able to give further consideration to the possibility of establishing means whereby hon. Members in this House can continue to have rights available to them, perhaps comparable to those they have now if they do not happen to be precisely the same.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the Post Office was under-managed. One would be interested to hear his proposals. Many of our problems in this country are due to management in private industry and, in many cases, to over-management. It will be interesting to see how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to solve this interesting, provocative and important problem and how he will strike the balance.
  I agree that the Post Office has been under managed. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not move into

  1325
  the situation which we often find in private industry, whereby management becomes top heavy—and that perhaps is an understatement in some cases.
  The right hon. Gentleman moved on through mechanisation to the Giro system. I have two remaining anxieties about this. Is it the intention to continue with a minimum limit, bearing in mind that all other countries operating the system, except two, do not do so? In the two exceptions the minimum is so small as to be virtually negligible. Secondly, there is the question of availability of the Giro in small post offices and sub-post offices in rural areas and so on. This is essential. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure me on this point. Such general availability is important if the Giro is to give the kind of service we hope from it.
  On telecommunications, the right hon. Gentleman explained the kind of expansion going on. One understands some of the difficulties he has to face in that kind of expansion. I want to raise a problem arising from digital dialling. One does not want to put the clock back and say that we should not have it. I know the reasons for doing it. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that each directory inquiry costs him one shilling. With a new kind of directory, using numbers and not exchanges—directories in which it will be difficult to identify the subscribers about whom one has not full information—he will find a rapid increase in the amount of dialling for directory inquiries, and judging by the costings he gave us this could be a serious matter from his point of view. There are difficulties but I should like to see some method whereby something geographically identifiable from the local point of view could still be inserted in the telephone directory so that people could recognise those they were looking for.
  It would also be helpful if they can do what they have hitherto done a great deal—used directory inquiries to look up people's addresses. This is useful, and it may disappear. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the massive increase in houses to which letters have to be delivered. In dealing with this will he try to do something which will help not only his own Department, but others, namely to take steps about the numbering of new
  1326
  and old houses? I worked in a profession in which it was frequently necessary to look for house numbers at night, up trees, hidden under porches, and in very long roads where there was no number at all.
  Postmen have this difficulty all the time and it has existed for years. No one seems to have been able to do anything. Perhaps the Postmaster-General will do something.
  Finally, there is a point about the payment of retirement pensions. We know that some sub-post offices have to be closed, and there is a need for greater concentration and efficiency. Will he look again, not at opening more sub-post offices, but at the possibility of introducing a new method of paying retirement pensions, through, say, agents in certain areas where pensioners live, and where a sub-post office has been closed? These are minor technical points, and I hope that this "half-term" debate will provide an opportunity for some of them to be answered.
  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Others have paid tribute to the staff of the Post Office and I would certainly wish to add to those. The experience of most of us has been that the staff of the right hon. Gentleman's Department are of extremely high quality and in this he is most fortunate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) repeated the old criticisms of 13 wasted years of Tory rule, as he described it. I will not indulge in that kind of banter, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that in any service such as the Post Office, advances are made over a period of time and the Postmaster-General is the beneficiary of the work done by other Postmasters on both sides of the House, and particularly the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who laid many of the foundations which have made the task of the right hon. Gentleman possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) described his speech as an hors d'oeuvre. It has been a short debate, and the main meat is held over for another occasion. I should like to put a number of detailed points which arise and which is would be helpful to have answered.

  1327
  My first is the position of the so-called cuts in the capital expenditure programme of the Post Office. The Chancellor told the House on 21st December, 1967, that approximately £10 million would be cut. We have had a number of Parliamentary Questions, probing as to how this came about, and have got a lot of details from the right hon. Gentleman, for which we are much obliged. Although there has been talk of cuts in the Post Office capital expenditure these are really phantom cuts, because the White Paper, Post Office Prospects 1968–69, shows that in 1967–68 the capital expenditure of the Post Office was £336 million. In 1968–69 it is £365 million, so that despite cuts it would appear that there is something like a £29 million increase in the Post Office capital programme in the forthcoming year.
  I make no criticism of the Postmaster-General about this. The point that I wish to make is that the Chancellors cuts are of a rather phantom nature and this is clearly shown by these figures, and the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper. Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General can tell us to what extent he feels that the cut of £10 million will retard the development of the postal and telecommunications services; or does he consider that its effects will be fairly minimal, as most of it seems to me to be postponements and deferments?
  Another point arises on page 12 of the White Paper. It would appear that there is an increase in the overall staffing of the Post Office of something like three-quarters of 1 per cent., which is comparatively minor. In 1967, however, the Administrative Section increased from 9,452 to 10,240, in 1968, an increase in administration staff of 788 or about 8 per cent., which by any standards is a fairly sharp increase.
  We know about the 25 extra public relations officers which the Post Office has, but it would be useful if the Minister could give the reasons for this very sharp increase in staff. I appreciate that in opening the debate the Postmaster-General said that the Post Office was undermanaged. It may well be that this quite sharp increase arises in filling additional posts in the management chain. Perhaps we can be given more details about this, together with the estimates of
  1328
  the kind of increases in the Administrative Section of the Post Office which are envisaged for the next 12 months. Will they be of the same order of magnitude, or was this a once-for-all jump?
  Another subject on which I wish to touch briefly is the range of telecommunication equipment which is made available by the Post Office. The magazine Which? dealt with this some little time ago. It does not seem that there has been any great improvement since then. Which? referred to the useful range of services which the Post Office telecommunications side provides.
  For example, a person who is going out for the evening can arrange to have his telephone calls transferred to another number. That is a useful service. Business men can arrange conference calls linking three or four different centres. That, again, is a useful service. There are portable telephones which can be plugged into a socket and taken from one room to another. The Post Office can supply a longer telephone flex, an extra earpiece, wall-mounted telephones, amplifying sets for the deaf, an additional bell, an extra loud bell and a flashing light to show that the telephone is ringing.
  Those are all very useful services, but it seems to me that there is not sufficient publicity about them on the marketing side to make the public aware that these services are available. I hope that before the operation of the new Corporation, the Postmaster-General will consider this matter and whether pamphlets advertising the range of facilities which are available could not be issued. Details of these services might be given at the front of the telephone directory. An effort should be made to tell the public of the services which are available, because both the public and the Post Office would be the beneficiaries.
  The next subject to which I wish to refer is parcel traffic, about which we have touched in a number of debates over the years. The White Paper states, on page 8, that
  "Parcel traffic fell by about 6 per cent. in the same period but is expected to remain at about this new level next year."
  Can we be given the Assistant Postmaster-General's analysis of the reason why parcel traffic has fallen? My feeling is that it has become extremely expensive to send parcels by post over the last

  1329
  couple of years. There has been a sharp increase in price. It may well also be that there has been a certain deterioration in the service. I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman could deal with the reasons why there has been a 6 per cent. fall in parcel traffic.
  It seems to me that the White Paper is a little complacent on this matter. It rather accepts the reduction as inevitable and that the drop of 6 per cent. will remain during the present year. The White Paper also deals with telephone faults on page 5. It says:
  "… there are still too many call failures, too many faults and too much congestion in too many places. Improvement of the service for existing customers has priority and will remain the dominant task for 1968–69."
  I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is not complacent about the deterioration which has taken place in some places in the telephone service. These are very fine words and sentiments, and I hope it will be possible to make a reduction in call faults. Perhaps we could have an explanation of the steps which are to be taken to bring about this change.
  This h as been a very short debate, and I have touched on a wide range of subjects, as have other hon. Members. It may not be possible for the Assistant Postmaster-General to cover all these matters in the short time available to him, but I trust that in the later debates he will take notice of these points and deal with them then.
  This will be a very eventful year for the Post Office, and I hope it will be possible for us all to approach the Bill re-shaping the Post Office in a constructive spirit. I am sure my hon. Friends will do so, and I hope the Government will do likewise.
  11.7 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General in opening the debate said that it was expected that we shall have a further debate in the near future on the subject of the Post Office, and no doubt that debate will cover a very wide field.
  I should like to deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) about the cuts. Because of the economic situation,
  1330
  the Post Office, like every other Department, is being required to reduce its capital investment in 1968–69 by £20 million and in 1969–70 by £10 million. This will be achieved by cuts of £2 million for posts and £18 million for telecommunications in the first year, and £1 million for posts and £9 million for telecommunications in 1969–70.
  The postal share of these cuts will be achieved by postponing a number of smaller building schemes without detriment as far as possible to the main mechanisation programme and the buildings necessary to support it. Expenditure on new vehicles is also to be cut, mostly in respect of replacement vehicles, so that labour saving schemes involving new vehicles may proceed. In this way, the cuts, which are bound to be painful, have been applied with the minimum loss of efficiency to the service.
  On the telecommunications side we shall make the cuts by phasing back the programme, deferring stores purchases, a slower replacement of vehicles and postponing some buildings. We shall keep as first priority the need to improve, or, where it is very good, to maintain, service to our present customers. Business requirements will have precedence over residential growth. Our drive for improved productivity will be stepped up wherever possible and in no instance relaxed. I hope that answers the questions which have been asked about the cuts.
  There are few opportunities in the House to discuss the Post Office, as the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) said. Nevertheless, this short debate has been a very good one, and I should like now to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's points.
  He asked why the A.E.I. factory at Woolwich had been closed. The problem facing the telecommunications industry now is not shortage of capacity so much as organisation of production. The management of G.E.C. has told us that it can meet all its orders more efficiently by concentrating production on its other and newer factories in development areas than by leaving some of it in the old factory at Woolwich. Therefore, the change has been made in the interests of efficiency, and it must be said that this is a matter for the company and not for us. We are the customer, and the company is the supplier.

  1331
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other wider points on which he said that he did not expect an answer tonight, but perhaps I might comment briefly on some of them. As regards purchasing policy, the telephone apparatus agreement will not be renewed on 31st March. We are now discussing with industry arrangements for the future purchase of exchange agreement, and my right hon. Friend will make a statement on this shortly. On tariffs, my right hon. Friend is very well aware of the impact of prices on the public. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we make every effort to keep down costs by better management before considering raising prices. I would also point out that we do not expect more favourable treatment than private industry. Our charges have been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes in the same way as charges in the private sector. The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the Press about the size of possible increases accruing from that type of investigation. The points that he raised on more general matters will be looked into, and we hope to be in a position to give him all the answers that he requires when we have this major debate on the Post Office.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) came back again to the Giro, and he asked why there is to be a minimum transaction amount of five shillings. The answer is that it would be uneconomic to allow transactions below that figure. Basic to the whole concept of Giro is the transfer of funds from one account to another free of charge, and that could not be done if transactions below five shillings were permitted. Moreover, market surveys have shown that there will be a negligible proportion of account holders who would want this facility. It must be remembered that it is an innovation for this country. When I was in Sweden, I saw it in operation, but we have yet to get it off the ground here and see how it goes.
  I was then asked why the full range of Giro services will not be available at some very small sub-post offices, where it might be thought that its services are most needed. Although not all the 23,000 sub-post offices will transact the
  1332
  full range of business, the vast majority will. It is not expected that account holders will be inconvenienced by the restriction of the service at very small offices.
  I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) made a very interesting speech. He put the case on behalf of the staff in the Post Office, and drew attention to the amount of work which goes into improving productivity. He pointed out the number of trade unions operating within the Post Office. Finally, he expressed the hope that, even when the changeover takes place, the Post Office can engage in production, and so on.
  My natural reaction is to be on his side on some of his points. However, I must point out that, during the last 12 months since we came to the House to make an application similar to that which we make tonight, we have endeavoured to give good service to the general public, and those in the service of the Post Office have at all times lived up to their positions of trust and responsibility.
  When, last year, we debated the Post Office, we looked back on a year of achievement. Tonight we have brought the picture up to date. My right hon. Friend, in his very interesting speech, pointed out what we are looking forward to in the year that lies ahead. He made reference to the great challenge to come. Posts will be revolutionised by the abolition of the present letter tariffs and their replacement by a system where the poster, not the contents of a letter, will determine the speed with which it will be delivered.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the Giro system which will give the man in the street the benefit of a current account banking system for the first time and the businessman a really modern money transfer system planned for the computer age.
  He also referred to telecommunications and the investment of £330 million in capital equipment to help cope with the rocketing demands for its services. Still more important than this for its customers and for its future will be the introduction to Parliament of a Bill to convert the Post Office from a Department of State into a Public Corporation.
  Finally, I should like to pay a brief tribute to those in the Post Office who

  1333
  do not come into direct contact with our customers and are almost unknown to them—our managers and office workers. It is on these people that the brunt of the changes in the forthcoming year will fall.
  My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the Post Office is under-managed. The new organisational structure and the new management recruitment centre we are setting up will resolve this problem, but in the short term all these changes will make an already difficult job still more difficult. Nevertheless, in spite of this, my right hon. Friend and I are confident that these challenges will be met and overcome. It is this confidence in the quality and determination of our staff at all levels to deal successfully with the problems of the coming year that leads me to ask the House to support this Motion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Postmaster General be authorised, as provided for in section 5 of the Post Office Act 1961, to make payments out of the Post Office Fund in the financial year ending with the 31st March, 1969.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (SHROPSHIRE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
  11.17 p.m.
  Sir John Langford-Holt: By the rules of the House I must be very careful not to anticipate in any way the debate which will take place tomorrow. I want, therefore, to raise the question of a difference of opinion between one of my constituents and the Minister of Agriculture on the question of compensation for foot-and-mouth disease.
  It might be convenient if I were to give what I understand to be the history of the case. On 20th December last foot-and-mouth broke out at the farm of Mr. E. P. Jones, Horton Lodge Farm, Cruckton, Shropshire. The stock affected were 109 cattle of an Ayrshire pedigree herd, plus two bulls and 239 pigs. There is no difference of opinion about the pigs.
  1334
  The Ministry vet arrived at 10.30 a.m. on the morning of 20th December and at 2 p.m. Mr. Mullock, the Ministry valuer, arrived and carried out a valuation. He handed Mr. Jones particulars of his valuation on a piece of paper. There were no printed Ministry forms available at this time. The valuation was for 57 cows £9,110, for 52 young stock £4,080, a total of £13,190. The Ministry at this stage called in a Mr. Kirkwood of Reading as another valuer. Mr. Jones was told by the Ministry vet that Mr. Kirkwood was coming to value the bulls. No mention was made of other animals. Mr. Kirkwood arrived at 1 a.m. on the 21st December and saw both bulls, by which time they were dead, having been given an anaesthetic by the Ministry vet.
  At 9 a.m. on 21st December, that is later the same morning, Mr. Kirkwood returned and carried out a second valuation of the cattle. This valuation lasted until about 5.30 p.m. He filled in the Ministry's valuation form, and he made the valuation £8,771, as against the previous figure of £13,190. Mr. Jones regarded that, and said so at the time, as a ridiculous figure, and Mr. Kirkwood then left. There were three Ministry officials at the farm at that time, and they attempted to persuade Mr. Jones to sign a valuation form. They said that it would not mean anything if he signed it, but Mr. Jones refused, and after a while they told him that he could get a third valuer on his own behalf, and this he did. At 8.30 p.m. Mr. McMorran arrived from Wellington, and completed his valuation at 10.30, that is two hours later. Slaughtering has started before he had completed his valuation.
  The two bulls had died before they were valued by the Ministry's valuer at a figure which the Ministry now wishes to accept. The originally infected bull was sedated at 10.45 a.m. on the 20th, and this is how Mr. Jones described the condition of the bulls:
  "The bull was then given another injection and shortly after he began to cry out. Twelve hours later he finally died, having been bawling and crying all the time. At midnight he struggled to get up and then died. I had a second bull which was injected in a similar manner. He was driven out of his pen into the rain—he luckily died in five hours."
  The point that I wish to make is that the bulls, having been subjected to considerable discomfort, to put it no higher, were dead when they were valued.

  1335
  I will deal only with two valuations which are relevant, the one made by Mr. Mullock, who was chosen by Mr. Jones, and the valuation by Mr. Kirkwood, whose valuation the Ministry seeks to use. I have here a letter from Mr. Mullock commenting on the Minister's subsequent decision. It shows knowledge, competence, and indeed diligence, and the comments of a man who knew what he was doing. As he said in his letter, this herd was
  "one of the best dairy herds in the country".
  Similar comments have been made by the Vice-Chairman of the Shropshire Ayrshire Breeders Club, and the President-Elect of the Ayrshire Society of the British Isles.
  Perhaps we might look for a moment at the circumstances surrounding Mr. Mullock's valuation. The first point to note is that it was the first of the valuations. These terrible things were happening at this farm through nobody's fault, and it is important to note that the first valuation is most likely to be the most significant one. Secondly, Mr. Mullock had with him a Mr. Holmes who was also a Ministry valuer. They arrived at 2.30 p.m. on the 20th, a few hours after the outbreak had been reported. During the valuation a volunteer veterinary surgeon for the Ministry was left in charge. He admitted that he knew nothing about Ayrshires, and anyway, as far as I understand it, expressed the view that Friesians were much better. He was told, when Mr. Mullock had completed his valuation—this was at 5.30 in the evening—that no valuation forms were available. The veterinary surgeon, of whom I have spoken, had already telephoned the Shrewsbury centre to say that, in his view, the valuation which had been given was much too high.
  Mr. Mullock gave Mr. Jones a written statement of his valuation—I will come later to the quality of that statement—and Mr. Jones acceped it. He accepts it still. Mr. Mullock and Mr. McMorran were then removed—Mr. McMorran having given a valuation as well—from the Ministry's list of approved valuers. It is my view that they were badly treated, to put it mildly.
  I come to Mr. Kirkwood's valuation. He arrived at 1.30 a.m. on the 21st after a journey of 200 miles. I am told that
  1336
  even before he had seen the bulls he had put a price on them. It should be noted that one of the bulls had been dead for 10 hours and that the other had been dead for one-and-a-half hours. During Mr. Kirkwood's valuation of the cattle, Mr. Jones was not allowed to point out either the milk record or the pedigree of his cows.
  It is worth noting, too, that among the animals being valued were nine heifers which had been with the bull which had taken 13 hours to die; and one can therefore imagine the condition of these animals when they were valued. It was 33 hours after normal husbandry had ceased that Mr. Kirkwood's valuation was finished. They had given milk at 8 p.m., but during this period they had received no feed. During Mr. Kirk-wood's valuation, these animals had gone through—this is obvious but it must be emphasised—exceptional changes in their routine. Having heard comments about the conduct and results of this whole affair, I would not like to state many of them, although they may have to be stated at a later stage if the Ministry persists in its policy. I come to Mr. Mullock's written valuation and the law. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie), who I believe is in South America, talked about the "statutory procedure laid down by Parliament". Under paragraph 3(1) of the relevant Statutory Instrument, this procedure is given and, whether or not the Minister likes it, that procedure was carried out. It was obeyed in all respects. I have read the Instrument, but it contains nothing about a printed form, which the Minister suggested should have been available. The Minister said that Mr. Mullock was not employed to give Mr. Jones the statement required under paragraph 3(1), but Mr. Mullock was so employed by the Ministry and there is no doubt that he gave such a document containing the valuation to Mr. Jones. In a letter to Mr. Jones' solicitors, the Ministry of Agriculture made this extraordinary statement:
  "It must have been perfectly clear to Mr. Jones at the time that an unsigned piece of paper of such informality was not an official document from the Minister."
  Later the letter stated that if it had been he
  "… would hardly have scribbled all over it."

  1337
  However, anybody with experience of the personal filing systems adopted in country districts knows that this sort of thing happens to documents. There is no mention of the need for signatures in the Statutory Instrument, and it does not say anything about an official document or about whether a document from the Minister should be formal or informal. There is no doubt that this statement by Mr. Mullock was given by a valuer employed by the Minister, whether he likes it or not. Arbitration is not the answer at this stage. The law has been properly followed, and the Minister, like Mr. Jones, should follow it. The Minister appointed a referee, he did not like the score, he fired the referee and he now expects my constituent to agree to a replay.
  11.32 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am grateful in a way to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) for raising this subject, but it was not his intention to raise it tonight. Indeed, if he felt so warmly about it, one would have expected him to choose this as his subject, but he did not.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: The subject which I had intended to raise tonight I have been applying for for the past six weeks. Many of the final details of this present matter have not yet reached me because they were posted in Shrewsbury at 1.30 p.m. yesterday and I have not yet received them.
  Mr. Hoy: This was not the hon. Gentleman's original subject: there is no doubt about that. He did us the courtesy of 'phoning at 11.30 to say that this was the subject which he would raise—
  Sir J. Langford-Holt rose—
  Mr. Hoy: I listened to the hon. Member for a quarter of an hour—
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I not entitled to protection? I was telephoned only this morning by the Table Office and told that I was not allowed to raise the subject of which I had given notice earlier.
  Mr. Hoy: With all respect, that is just what I said—that the hon. Gentleman did not put down this subject. He must
  1338
  not get angry about how the debate came about when I mention it. I do not know why he should be so peeved.
  One of the troubles which he has given us—I have read all the correspondence on this matter—is that it is difficult to speak about this case at the moment. The hon. Member knows that there is the possibility of it going to court. He will know this from the correspondence. Therefore, it would obviously be wrong for me to comment on that aspect. In any case, it has been agreed that, failing this recourse, it should go to arbitration. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member should have seen fit to raise it, in view of these circumstances.
  It is not for me to defend unconfirmed statements by certain people at these interviews, as reported by the hon. Gentleman. But I would say, with regard to his comments about the vet who apparently did not know the difference between an Ayrshire and a Friesian, that the hon. Gentleman does a gross injustice to a competent man—
  Sir J. Langford-Holt rose—
  Mr. Hoy: This is what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not know whether he is aware of what he said, but he does an injustice to the man concerned, who is held in high repute. I obviously must defend him. The two bulls the hon. Member spoke so much about were, I think, the property of the brother of the owner of the farm and happened to be there for a certain purpose. The R.S.P.C.A. officer called at the veterinary centre about them. He had witnessed the use of the tranquillisers and believed that it was done in the best way. We should get this into proper perspective.
  The matter has been taken up by the owners' solicitors direct with my right hon. Friend's Department. Of course, in all the replies given the Department has been acting on the advice of the Minister's legal adviser. There is undoubtedly, and I admit this, a dispute over the valuation of the cattle involved, although not of the pigs. The hon. Member said this, I believe, and I agree. The dispute is in regard to the valuation of the cattle and the owners have been given the opportunity of going to arbitration and I understand that their solicitors agree. No doubt the arbitrator will resolve this problem. Because of this I can make no

  1339
  comment on this or on the claim made by the owners' solicitors that the original valuation, which was given to the owners by the first valuer, is a legal document under the terms of the Diseases of Animals (Ascertainment of Compensation) Act, 1959.
  There was a paper, I have heard it described as a scrap of paper. I am not disputing that at times there may be peculiar ways of keeping accounts in the farming world. I am sure that the House would agree that it would be wrong for me to say more about that at this stage, because this may be the paper which will be produced if a legal case ensues. I am certain that neither the hon. Member nor I would be doing his constituent any good if we were to discuss that in the course of this debate. There is, however, some confusion as to the procedure on valuation. I think that we had better have it clear for the record because this is not something new, something invented by this Government. It has been going on for many years. Under the Diseases of Animals (Ascertainment of Compensation) Order, 1959, the Minister has to value the animals and give notice in writing to the owner of this. For this purpose, the Minister obtains the advice of an expert valuer, but this person is in no sense a referee. He is engaged by the Minister to give the Minister his professional advice. If the Minister, or any of his staff acting on his behalf, does not accept the professional advice, he may discharge his first adviser and employ another.
  No doubt this is a matter that the Northumberland Committee of Inquiry may want to look into, whether this is a good system or a bad one, but I remind the hon. Member that it is part of the existing law of the land and has been for many years. I have no doubt that when the Committee looks at the case it might want to look at this point. In this particular case the principle of arbitration was agreed. Attempts were then made to agree on an arbitrator. The names of valuers from outside the foot-and-mouth disease infected area were suggested to Mr. J. S. Jones, owner of the two bulls, and Mr. E. P. Jones, owner of the remainder of the cattle. They refused to accept any of the names
  1340
  and claimed that they must have an arbitrator from within the area. The Department therefore wrote and told them that we would not accept this and that we wished to adopt the statutory procedure and ask the President of the Chartered Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute to nominate an arbitrator. That is the procedure which is followed.
  The next stage was a solicitor's letter enclosing a scrap of paper which Mr. Mullock, the original valuer, is said to have presented to Mr. Jones. If so, that was quite without authority. The solicitors claimed that this was the statement in writing as provided for in Article 3(i) of the Order, and must therefore be paid. On legal advice, we rejected this view and the correspondence with the solicitors is still proceeding. The solicitors have recently replied to the effect that they are proposing to present the scrap of paper to the arbitrators. It is not for the arbitrator to decide whether this is a valid document under the Order. Most' hon. Members would agree that only the courts can determine whether the solicitors' claim is legally correct.
  It was in those circumstances that I said at the beginning that there was very little more I could say. When it has been agreed to take a case to arbitration, and when there is even a possibility of legal action, it would be quite improper for me to make any further comment in the House tonight. Obviously, when an hon. Member raises a case of this kind I am bound to take note of what he has said. I shall certainly have one more look at it in case anything has been missed, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that neither he nor I will lend very much to the case by discussing it tonight as it may be going to the courts. Neither he nor I would want to say anything that would impair the chances of his constituent or of a correct verdict being reached.
  In any case, if we go through the whole procedure of arbitration I think that he would agree that we want the arbitrator to be free to make his valuation without having been influenced by anything said here.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ELECTRICITY
  Excess Output Capacity
  Excess Output Capacity
  Electricity Industry (Review)
  Electricity Industry (Review)
  High Voltage Lines (Farming)
  High Voltage Lines (Farming)
  Charges (Domestic Consumers)
  Charges (Domestic Consumers)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuel Policy
  Fuel Policy
  Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee
  Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee
  Transport Bill
  Transport Bill
  Steel Industry (Coal Supplies)
  Steel Industry (Coal Supplies)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Siting)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Siting)
  Concrete (Reinforcing Bars and Rods)
  Concrete (Reinforcing Bars and Rods)
  British Steel Corporation (Tonnage Rebate)
  British Steel Corporation (Tonnage Rebate)
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Oil Prospecting, North Sea (Inspection and Control)
  Oil Prospecting, North Sea (Inspection and Control)
  Alcan Aluminium Smelter Plant, Invergordon
  Alcan Aluminium Smelter Plant, Invergordon
  Electricity and Gas Supplies, Aberdeen
  Electricity and Gas Supplies, Aberdeen
  Oil Rigs, North Sea (Safety Requirements)
  Oil Rigs, North Sea (Safety Requirements)
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
GAS
  North-Sea Gas
  North-Sea Gas
  Natural Gas, Irish Sea
  Natural Gas, Irish Sea
COAL
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
HOSPITALS
  Shrewsbury (Personal Case)
  Shrewsbury (Personal Case)
  Llwynypia Hospital (Casualty Service)
  Llwynypia Hospital (Casualty Service)
  Fire Regulations
  Fire Regulations
  Nurses' Uniforms
  Nurses' Uniforms
  SPECIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP ON NURSES' UNIFORMS
  SPECIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP ON NURSES' UNIFORMS
  New Hospital, South Bristol
  New Hospital, South Bristol
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Child Minders and Private Nurseries
  Child Minders and Private Nurseries
  Chloromycetin
  Chloromycetin
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  National Health Service (20th Anniversary)
  National Health Service (20th Anniversary)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Car Parking
  Car Parking
  Town Development Plan, Cheltenham
  Town Development Plan, Cheltenham
  Worcestershire County Review
  Worcestershire County Review
  Wales (Rating Product)
  Wales (Rating Product)
  Roundabouts, Crawley (Subways and Footbridges)
  Roundabouts, Crawley (Subways and Footbridges)
  Water Supply Industry (Wages)
  Water Supply Industry (Wages)
HOUSING
  Rent Act, 1965
  Rent Act, 1965
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Rents)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Rents)
  Rent Assessment Panel, Leeds
  Rent Assessment Panel, Leeds
  Section 34, Leasehold Reform Act (Notices)
  Section 34, Leasehold Reform Act (Notices)
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Option Mortgage Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Blind Persons (Tax Allowances)
  Blind Persons (Tax Allowances)
  Hearing Aid Batteries (Tax Allowance)
  Hearing Aid Batteries (Tax Allowance)
  Local Authorities Outstanding Loan Debt (Survey)
  Local Authorities Outstanding Loan Debt (Survey)
  Decimal Coins (Design)
  Decimal Coins (Design)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (Note Issues)
  Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (Note Issues)
  Hong Kong (District Officers)
  Hong Kong (District Officers)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Mauritius
  Mauritius
SCOTLAND
  Electricity-Transmission Lines (Dounreay)
  Electricity-Transmission Lines (Dounreay)
  Pig Imports (Ireland)
  Pig Imports (Ireland)
  Newsposter "Future"
  Newsposter "Future"
  Traffic Lights, Saltcoats
  Traffic Lights, Saltcoats
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Lord Advocate's Department (Staff)
  Lord Advocate's Department (Staff)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Places)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Places)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Aluminium Smelters
  Aluminium Smelters
  Newspaper Industry (Investment Grants)
  Newspaper Industry (Investment Grants)
  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  "BACK BRITAIN" CAMPAIGN
  "BACK BRITAIN" CAMPAIGN
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY AND MINISTRY OF POWER (RESPONSIBILITIES)
  MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY AND MINISTRY OF POWER (RESPONSIBILITIES)
  POSTMASTER GENERAL (SPEECH)
  POSTMASTER GENERAL (SPEECH)
  OVERSEAS DELEGATIONS (STAFF)
  OVERSEAS DELEGATIONS (STAFF)
  BEIRA (NAVY PATROL)
  BEIRA (NAVY PATROL)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS)
  MIGRATION WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH
  MIGRATION WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH
  MAURITIUS (INDEPENDENCE)
  MAURITIUS (INDEPENDENCE)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tea Consumption
  Tea Consumption
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Promotions
  Promotions
  Vietnam (Aid)
  Vietnam (Aid)
  Royal Observer Corps
  Royal Observer Corps
  Anglo-American Radar Station, Orfordness
  Anglo-American Radar Station, Orfordness
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Immigrant School Children, Bedford
  Immigrant School Children, Bedford
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio, Wales
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio, Wales
  New School, Aberystwyth
  New School, Aberystwyth
  Welsh College of Agriculture
  Welsh College of Agriculture
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
  Wales
  Wales
  Prices and Incomes
  Prices and Incomes
  National Industrial Safety Council
  National Industrial Safety Council
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Sun Printers Ltd. (Electricians)
  Sun Printers Ltd. (Electricians)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motor Vehicles (Identification)
  Motor Vehicles (Identification)
  Petty Sessional Divisions (Middlesex)
  Petty Sessional Divisions (Middlesex)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Management Training and Education
  Management Training and Education
POST OFFICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  "I'm Backing Britain" Postmark
  "I'm Backing Britain" Postmark
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Lee-on-the-Solent
  Lee-on-the-Solent
  Trunk Calls (Mainland-Isle of Wight)
  Trunk Calls (Mainland-Isle of Wight)
TECHNOLOGY
  Winfrith Atomic Energy Authority Establishment
  Winfrith Atomic Energy Authority Establishment
TRANSPORT
  Removal of Vehicles (Receipts)
  Removal of Vehicles (Receipts)

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

STANSTED AND SITE FOR THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
2.35 p.m.
LORD BYERS: 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 produce, before the Stansted Inquiry takes evidence, an objective and independent report containing the estimated costs likely to be incurred in the development of Stansted itself and other sites which are likely to be considered for London's third airport.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the preparation of an objective and independent report on costs and all the other aspects of the third London airport problem will be a matter for the Inquiry itself on the basis of evidence presented by, or sought from, the Government, the British Airports Authority or others such as consultants. The Government will, of course, give the new Inquiry all possible assistance at all times.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for answering the Question. May I ask whether it would not be better to set up an independent technical committee to provide objective estimates, rather than to leave it to the protagonists and the opponents of the various schemes, because they are producing very widely varying figures for exactly the same facilities?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, appears to be getting very near to the proposal that you have an inquiry into an inquiry, and set up a preliminary committee before you start the work of the main committee. But
88
as I see the way it will work out, there will be this objective body, or Commission, however it is composed, and a number of objective and independent bodies will present evidence to it.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood the point. Does he not think it right—because presumably the Commission will not itself consist of technically qualified experts—to have a small technical body to give an objective view, for instance on the cost of the railway access to one airport and to another, so that there may be a proper comparison without the lobbying that goes on?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that this to a very large extent is a technical matter, but the important thing in all these matters is the establishment of the truth. But as to how we can arrive at the truth will be a matter for consultation with the Opposition which I hope will begin within the next few days.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether this committee is bound by the term, "Third London Airport"? Is it not a fact that there is a growing body of opinion which thinks that a new international airport is needed, but not necessarily in the London area?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has put before, and I do not think that we ought to go over the ground again. Almost certainly there will be a need for another international airport in an area other than London, but no serious body has yet suggested that there is not a need for a third London airport.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, something must be wrong here, because I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I feel that if the respective cases—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not my noble friend feel that if the respective cases are put before the tribunal in respect of number one, two, three or four suggested airport there should be an objective set of evidence compiled by somebody like the Treasury Solicitor who

89
could put it impartially before the Tribunal?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my own impression was that I was agreeing with the noble Lord at the end of the cross-questioning. I am glad to think, therefore, that indirectly I might even be in accord with my noble friend Lord Leatherland.

DIPLOMATIC AND MILITARY CODING
2.38 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: 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 to what extent British military and diplomatic encoding and decoding are dependent upon American facilities.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, our diplomatic and military coding systems are entirely in our own hands and do not rely on the United States' or other Governments' facilities.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May I take it that it also means that we are not dependent upon the supply of encoding and decoding machinery from the United States?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord may take that from my reply. The Diplomatic Service does not use American cypher equipment for its telegraphic traffic. I think that some confusion may have arisen here because, for ease of intercommunications, some British and American cypher equipments are used jointly by both the United Kingdom and the United States military authorities. But when these equipments are used for exclusively British traffic they are fitted with special security devices made by Her Majesty's Government exclusively for British use.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord comment on some remarks in The Times this morning that communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of
90
France at the time of the Suez crisis in 1956 were all copied and read by the United States Government by virtue of the fact that they had some knowledge of either our equipment or our procedures?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, it would be wrong of me, I think, to comment on newspaper reports of this kind. The noble Lord is now, of course, referring to code-breaking, cryptonalysis, and not to coding and decoding or ciphering and deciphering. That is an entirely separate matter upon which I cannot comment.

ROMAN WALL CONSERVATION IN CITY OF LONDON
2.41 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: 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 steps are being taken to preserve the three mediæval and Roman bastions, with connecting wall at the Barbican site, and whether the remains of the same wall in Noble Street, at present exposed, will remain on view.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, the three bastions and such sections of the Roman Wall as still exist between Route 11 and St. Giles, Cripplegate, have been given the protection of scheduling under the Ancient Monuments Acts. In view of the importance and interest of these remains there has been close consultation over a long period between my Department, the City of London Corporation, who are the responsible authority, and Professor Grimes, of the Roman and Mediæval London Excavation Council, on the conservation and treatment of this sector of the Wall with a view to its permanent display in a manner consistent with adjoining stretches. My Department are prepared to continue to make available the requisite skilled labour and supervision for consolidating and treating the ancient fabric. It has also been agreed with the City authorities and, so far as

91
the section bounding the Plaisterers' Hall site is concerned, with the architects for the owners, that the Noble Street stretch of wall will remain permanently on view.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that encouraging and helpful reply. May I put to him two short supplementary questions? First, have any plans been made whereby it is possible for people to look at the Wall and bastions now, because the path between Route 11 and St. Giles has, I think, been closed? The second question is whether the noble Lord is aware that my noble friend the late Lord Mottistone prepared a plan showing this ground with a garden inside the Wall set out with café tables and chairs?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a detailed reply to the first of his questions, but I will give him a written answer when I have looked into the matter. The whole concept is to display the Wall. As regards the garden, I believe that discussions are going on at the moment for the building of a private garden for the Plaisterers' Company within their stretch of the Wall.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, arising out of the first reply, did I gather that some of these remains (if that is the right word) belong to the City of London and some to a private owner?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the ownership is varied, but the City of London Corporation are responsible for the overall protection and display of the Wall.

SCOTTISH LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SAINT MARY, SUMMERSTOWN BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
COMMONWEALTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
2.46 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I will begin my speech by emphasising an important point of fact which my right honourable friend made clear in another place. The Bill arises out of the interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal in the case of Bradbury v. Enfield Borough Council. This genesis is reflected in its terms, as I shall show. It does not, however, affect in any way the implementation of the Enfield authority's proposals for the eight schools involved in that case. These have already been dealt with on the basis of the law as the Court held it to be and the Bill does nothing to change that. Indeed, the Bill seeks to give explicit statutory form to the substance of the Court's interpretation of the existing law. The Bill is, I am pleased to say, short: but it is inevitably somewhat technical, and in this connection your Lordships will, I hope, be assisted by the fact that Schedule 3 reproduces the text of the relevant sections of the 1944 Act as they would be read when the Bill becomes law. The amendments proposed are printed in heavy type.
I think it may assist the House if, before dealing with the particular provisions of the Bill, I first explain how the present law on establishing and closing schools operates. Section 13 of the Education Act 1944 requires that when a local education authority or the promoters of a voluntary school propose to establish a new school, or when a local education authority propose to close an existing school, they must give public notice to this effect so that the inhabitants of the locality can, if they wish, submit objections to the Secretary of State. After a two months' interval for those objections, the proposal is subject to the Secretary of State's approval. Up to last year, the establishment of a

93
new school had been equated with the setting up of a new educational entity, normally in new buildings. Changes to existing schools, were not treated as requiring action under Section 13, except where the Secretary of State, under Section 67, determined that a proposed enlargement of the premises of an existing school amounted in his view to the establishment of an entirely new school.
The Court of Appeal took the different view that, in addition to enlargements, other changes to existing schools could also have the effect of producing a new school in place of an existing one. It held that a substantial change in the age range of the pupils or a school becoming co-educational involved so fundamental a change in its character as to constitute the discontinuance of the school and the establishment of a new one. The Court held therefore that proposals for such changes were subject to the formal approval of my right honourable friend under Section 13 of the 1944 Act which could be given only after the publication of notices under that section.
The implication of this decision may therefore be that any schools to which such changes were made without approval under Section 13 are in law new schools which have been unlawfully established and have been unlawfully maintained by the local education authority. Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that it would be unsatisfactory to leave the legal status of these schools, of which there must be several hundreds, and the validity of the action of local education authorities in this state of doubt. It is therefore proposed to regularise the legal position of these schools: and this is achieved by Clause 1, subsections (1) and (4). It will be appreciated that the retrospective effect of these subsections is strictly limited to the validation of actions which were done in good faith and which have subsequently been put in doubt by the decisions of the courts. There is no question of making unlawful something that was lawfully done or of taking away any vested rights.
My Lords, if the Bill necessarily guards against the retrospective application of the Enfield judgment, it equally provides for the implementation of that judgment for the future but by a somewhat different process. No changes are proposed in
94
the procedure for the establishment of entirely new schools, the discontinuance of existing ones or for out-and-out change, such as turning a boys' school into one exclusively for girls or vice versa. Such cases—which involve a complete change of pupils—will continue to entail the discontinuance of one institution and the establishment of a new one. But your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that there is something artificial in labelling a proposal to change the size or function of a school as its formal closure and the establishment of another merely in order to bring the process within the scope of Section 13 and its public notices. At the same time, such changes, if they are substantial are very properly the focus of public interest. The Bill therefore proposes that after the end of the summer term, 1968, changes in the size or character of an existing school, if significant, shall in themselves be subject to the process of notices and representations and require the Secretary of State's formal approval under Section 13, but without involving the formal closure of the school and its replacement by a new one. This is achieved by Clause 1, subsections (2) and (5).
Your Lordships will wish to know how it is proposed to decide whether an enlargement of the premises or a change of character of a school is to be regarded as "significant" and, therefore, subject to the public notices procedure The Bill, in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, defines "significant" in relation to a change in the character of a school or an enlargement of school premises as implying a substantial change in the function or the size of a school. The concept of a significant change in function is new, and it may help your Lordships if I quote some examples of changes which would be regarded as significant for purposes of the Bill and of others which would not.
The point is perhaps most readily illustrated in the case where there is to be a change of sex composition. A change from a single sex to a mixed school or vice versa is a clear-cut and significant change. But, my Lords, other less far-reaching changes may be educationally desirable, but not on a scale to warrant going through the statutory procedure; for example, the admission of a small number of girls to the sixth form of a

95
boys' school for instruction in a particular subject or subjects. Where to draw a line between extremes would be a matter for decision in relation to particular cases or categories of class, but my right honourable friend proposes to give local education authorities some general guidance on the subject if Parliament approves the present Bill.
The same is true of changes in the age range of pupils. A change from, say, a school taking pupils throughout the secondary course, ages 11 to 18, to that of a senior school with an age range of 14 to 18 would clearly be significant. But if, for example, a primary school which hitherto had never admitted pupils before the age of five years decided to do so as opportunity occurred, as many schools already do, the elaborate public notices procedure would hardly be warranted. Similarly, at the other end of the range, with the trend of voluntary staying-on after the leaving age, secondary schools are constantly extending their age range as pupils stay on for advanced work in schools where it has not previously been provided.
As for changes in character involving a change in the ability range of the pupils admitted, the Court of Appeal said, in effect, that in its judgment this was not such a fundamental change as to constitute, under existing legislation, the replacement of an existing school by a new one. The Court specifically instanced the change of a grammar or secondary modern school into a comprehensive school. But I think that there would be wide support for the view that a change in the ability range of a school—particularly in the cases cited by the Court of Appeal—is no less a fundamental change of character than any change of sex composition or of age range and one no less likely to warrant public interest. It is therefore proposed that it should be treated as a significant change under the proposed new provisions and therefore subject to the public notices procedure. In this respect the Bill goes beyond the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
In each of these cases the question whether the change in the function of the school is substantial or not is a question of fact and a question of degree, the answer to which is a matter of judgment depending essentially on educa-
96
tional and administrative considerations. As I mentioned earlier, the Education Acts already contain provision for the determination of the question whether the alteration of the premises of a school is so substantial as to amount to the establishment of a new school, which, again, is essentially a question of fact and of degree. Any question of that kind now has to be determined by the Secretary of State under Section 67(4) of the 1944 Act. This procedure has been found over the years to be both effective and uncontroversial. The Bill proposes accordingly in Schedule 1, paragraph 3, that henceforth Section 67(4) should apply to significant changes of character as well as of size.
Opportunity has been taken to provide, by means of Clause 2 of the Bill, for a middle school to be established by a significant change in the age range of an existing maintained school or by bringing an existing independent or direct grant school into the maintained sector, in each case by means of proposals under Section 13 of the 1944 Act. This change is one of form only, since such changes can be made under existing law, but only through the artificial procedure of formally closing the existing school and opening a new one. By treating the conversion of an existing primary or secondary school into a middle school as a significant change of character (rather than the establishment of a new school) the Bill brings proposals for middle schools into the procedural framework for dealing with other forms of proposals affecting existing schools.
My Lords, as the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill indicates, the proposals to which I have so far referred are those in Clauses 1 and 2, and the consequential amendments to existing enactments specified in Schedule 1. Subsections (1) and (4) of Clause 1 are the validation proposals: they provide that, with effect from April 1, 1945, a change in the character of a school or any move or alteration in the school premises is not to be treated as involving the discontinuance of the school or the establishment of a new one. Subsections (2) and (5) introduce the new procedure for the future which I have described, and have the effect that after the Bill becomes law any proposal to make a significant change in the character or size of a school shall be subject to the procedure

97
of notices under Section 13 of the 1944 Act. Clause 2 deals with proposals for middle schools.
Finally, my Lords, I turn to Clause 3. This concerns school premises and standards of accommodation. Under the existing law, when proposals for a new school have been approved plans and specifications of the premises have to be submitted to the Department. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to dispense with the submission of plans and specifications, at his discretion, where the new school is to be established in premises which were in use as a school at the time when the proposals for the new schools were approved. My right honourable friend would continue to require plans and specifications in these cases when substantial alterations to the premises were proposed or when he himself had insufficient information, but there is clearly no point in requiring plans and specifications in regard to premises where no substantial alterations are being made.
The existing law enables my right honourable friend to make regulations prescribing standards for school buildings and it contains provisions which enable him to relax those standards in certain circumstances. In parallel with the procedure for dispensing with specifications and plans which I have just described, subsection (2) of the clause has the effect that when a new school is established in the premises of an existing school, any relaxation applicable to the premises shall continue. The power to relax the standards under certain of the provisions of the existing law is exercisable only if it is necessary because of a
"shortage of labour and materials".
That formula is no long appropriate, and subsection (3) substitute a reference to
"the need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy".
A brief reference is required to subsection (4) of Clause 3, which supersedes Section 109 of the 1944 Act. It will enable a local education authority, with the Secretary of State's approval, to provide temporary additional accommodation for a voluntary school, until such time as permanent accommodation is provided for it in a building programme. Moreover, where the additional accommodation results in a significant enlargement of the school, the notices procedure
98
will apply and opportunity will be given for public objection. This power will be particularly valuable in promoting the reorganisation of voluntary schools on comprehensive lines as well as in easing the continuing pressure of building resources.
My Lords, I have taken some time in describing the Bill. Although it had its origins in the Enfield controversy, it is in fact a technical and, I venture to suggest, a largely non-controversial measure. It has a twofold purpose: first, to regularise a number of actions and decisions by local education authorities, made and taken in good faith, which had been put in doubt by the decisions of the Courts; and, secondly, to broaden the terms of reference to Section 13 of the 1944 Act so that it no longer has to operate within the narrow concepts of closing existing schools and opening new ones. In parallel, the Bill provides for power to dispense with the full requirements of the building regulations in those cases where a new school or an enlarged one is to operate in existing buildings. All in all, I think that the Bill will bring an added flexibility and realism to the operation of Section 13, and it is on this basis that I commend its Second Reading to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
3.3 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be very grateful to the noble Baroness for having given us a clear explanation of what is, as she said, a rather technical and difficult Bill, though none the less an important one. May I say straight away that I have no quarrel with the Bill, which is a useful measure for putting right what went wrong in the past, and for making sensible provision for the future. There is one respect in which the Bill is unique, and I venture to suggest a very good precedent, and that is in Schedule 3 where, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the chief enactments are reprinted with the amendments made by the Bill in heavy type. This makes it extremely easy for those of us who are not lawyers to follow what is going on and what the Bill actually proposes. I hope that this procedure will be used as a precedent for other Bills which

99
consist mainly of amendments to other Acts; it is of enormous value.
As the noble Baroness explained, this Bill has two functions, one being to regularise decisions taken in the past. As she explained, the Court of Appeal ruled that a change of age range, or a change in sex composition, was so fundamental a change as to constitute the discontinuance of one school and the setting up of a new one, and therefore brought into operation the requirements of the 1944 Act for giving public notice and time for objection. This decision changed the interpretation previously put upon the law, and the Bill is necessary to validate a number of decisions taken by various Governments and by local education authorities in the past. This is retrospective legislation, as the noble Baroness said—and indeed it is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum. I know that your Lordships like to look carefully at any measures which are retrospective. But whereas some retrospective legislation is wrong, other can be justified; and this, I think, is a case in which it can be justified.
Clearly, retrospective legislation is likely to be indefensible where it makes unlawful an act that was perfectly lawful at the time it was done. Here is the exact opposite. Here is a case where Governments and local authorities acted in good faith, thinking that they were working in accordance with the law as it was then interpreted. The law has since been reinterpreted in a different sense, and I believe that this is a correct use of retrospective legislation to regularise and validate actions that were taken in perfectly good faith. I am sure that as individuals we should welcome such legislation where we had acted in good faith and according to the law as it was interpreted at the time. If there were a reinterpretation of the law, I am sure that we should welcome, as it were, an Act of indemnity to legalise the position.
In this particular case retrospective legislation is especially right, because the Bill goes on to put into statutory form the ruling of the Court of Appeal. In fact, as the noble Baroness explained, it even goes a stage further than the Court of Appeal went. They ruled that age range or sex composition changes should require the procedure of public notice.
100
The Bill adds a change in the ability range of the school, which is specifically aimed at covering comprehensive schools. I am sure that we shall all welcome the chance given to people locally to raise their objections upon the establishment of a comprehensive school.
I must confess that I am not quite so happy about Clause 3. The effect of the Court of Appeal ruling brought into operation subsection (6) of Section 13 of the 1944 Act whereby the Secretary of State had to satisfy himself that the school premises conformed to the prescribed standards. Under Clause 3(1)(a) of this Bill this requirement is now confined to the case of newly built schools, and therefore does not apply where a major change takes place in the character of the school. Most of us on this side of the House are very worried and suspicious sometimes of what have been called "botched-up" plans for comprehensive schools, where a number of schools have been combined into one comprehensive school. Often it may be that one of those schools is reasonably adequate in its buildings and provisions as it is at the moment, but inadequate when it is changed in character and becomes part of a comprehensive grouping. I personally remember having had some representations on these lines made to me about schools in Newport. It would therefore seem to me all the more important, when it is proposed to group a number of schools into a comprehensive school, that the Secretary of State should satisfy himself that the premises are up to the required standard.
I hope that my fears are fully covered by the operation of the procedures in Clause 1 of the Bill and by the words in Clause 3, "if the Secretary of State so directs". I presume that in such a case he would so direct and would in fact satisfy himself that the premises were up to standard. But I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would verify that. In general, my Lords, I welcome the Bill and would advise your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
3.9 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I should like to echo the thanks given to the noble Baroness for the clear way she has explained this brief but somewhat complex Bill. A word

101
perhaps is in season on behalf of those responsible for voluntary schools. I would say that in general we welcome this Bill as introducing a simplification and an element of flexibility which will be valuable, and we welcome especially Clause 3(4) with the extension of powers to the authority to provide, or to assist in providing, temporary accommodation for voluntary schools.
There is only one point that I wish to raise. It has been suggested to me that the phrase "significant change in the character of the school" might, when it is taken in connection with the reference in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the variation in the instrument of government, make it possible for the religious character of an aided school to be changed. This is obviously not the intention of the Bill; in fact the noble Baroness explained the meaning of "significant change" as being educational. Whether it would have been possible to introduce the word "educational" after the word "significant" I do not know, but since the point has occurred to others as being one where misunderstanding might arise, although I believe the intention of the Bill is perfectly clear, perhaps the noble Baroness would consider whether anything further needs to be said on that point. Otherwise we welcome the Bill and believe that it will help the voluntary schools to take an even fuller part in the national system of education.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to welcome this Bill and to thank the noble Baroness for her lucid explanation of it. We share with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the possible doubts about Clause 3. On the face of it, there would appear to be a necessity for extra care to be taken with those premises which are already old, and we seek some reassurance on this point.
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, first of all I should like to thank your Lordships and the right reverend Prelate for welcoming this Bill and for the words of commendation which have been given to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, so rightly said, retrospective legislation is always viewed with great care, particularly in your Lordships' House,
102
but as he has reminded us this Bill merely puts right a situation which could have been difficult, time-wasting and costly for those local authorities who had already been described as indulging in unlawful actions.
A question on Clause 3 was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the right reverend Prelate, and perhaps I can give some reassurance on the question of the building standards. My right honourable friend already has a statutory authority laid upon him to satisfy himself about the standard of school buildings, and there is little doubt that in fact he would call for plans where any doubt at all arose. I would also remind your Lordships that there is already power to dispense with building standards on specified grounds where new schools are going into existing buildings. All that the Bill does is to bring the specified grounds up to date. This is achieved in Clause 3(3), and it enables it to be done without plans, but I think I can best reassure the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, by saying that my right honourable friend will at all times satisfy himself as to the standard of buildings before any major changes are made.
I would remind the right reverend Prelate that only the governors or managers of a voluntary school can make proposals to change its character, so his fears can be set at rest. There is no possibility that a school of a religious character will be affected. As we go through the various stages of the Bill I shall of course be happy to try to answer any other points which noble Lords wish to raise.
It is true to say that comprehensive education is not a political issue, as there are many local authorities of different political colours which have already submitted plans on these lines, so I hope the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that notices would evoke some kind of public reaction only on that score will not be called into question. I am grateful to your Lordships for the brief and welcoming comments which have been made, and I ask that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, 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)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair.]
Clause 11:
Removal of articles on show in buildings open to public
11.—(1) Where the public have access to a building in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents, and the object of admitting the public is not a commercial object, any person who visits the building as a member of the public accordingly and by the use of any opportunity or information so obtained removes from the building (then or afterwards) the whole or part of any article displayed or kept for display to the public in the building or that part of it shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and the object of admitting the public is not a commercial object". The noble and learned Viscount said: Owing to the early hour at which this Committee is starting, I am unfortunately deprived of the assistance of some of my noble and learned friends who will not be available until after four o'clock. However, this Amendment and this clause involve considerations which are far wider than purely legal ones, and they are matters in which those who are not lawyers will probably take a considerable interest.
This clause seeks to make it a criminal offence just to remove from a building open to the public, when the opening to the public is not a commercial object, "any article displayed or kept for display to the public". As the clause is drafted, no proof of dishonesty is required. Proof of removal of such an object from such a building is all that is necessary to constitute guilt. As some of your Lordships will know, I am in favour of making dishonest appropriation, theft. That, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has
104
so far resisted. I hope that he will change his mind, but this clause, for which the Government are responsible, goes even further than that. As I have said, it makes the mere removal, the mere appropriation without proof of dishonesty an offence it what is taken is in fact taken from a particular category of buildings.
This clause is wholly unnecessary if Clause 1 remains as it is. But if the word "permanently" is put back in Clause 1, so that to establish theft one has to prove an intention permanently to deprive, then I would be in favour of a clause—but a very different clause—on the lines of that now contained in the Bill. The Criminal Law Revision Committee did not recommend the inclusion of a clause on these lines in the Bill. They said that before they made that recommendation they would have to do further work and consult further people, and it would delay the production of the Bill. Also, I ask your Lordships to note that they thought it might be more appropriate to pass separate legislation.
They said with great force at page 28 of their Report that there are objections to extending the criminal law because of isolated occurrences, and I think they mentioned three occurrences: the removal of the Goya, the removal of a statuette, and also, I believe, the removal of the Coronation Stone from Westminster Abbey—isolated occurrences. This clause is an instance of that being done, and it would, I think, be much better to leave out the word "permanently" from the Bill, as it is now left out, and then to let the general law of theft apply. Then it would be an offence to appropriate dishonestly, whether it be from a church, a museum or a private house or from anywhere else, any property. Then the general law would, where there was dishonesty, cover the class of case that this clause is intended to cover.
If we are to deal specifically in a clause with this particular type of case—this is the question to which I hope we shall get a careful answer—why should it be an offence only if the removal is from a building open to the public where the object of admitting the public is not a commercial object? Why should it be restricted to that? The

105
Committee say, again at page 28 of their Report:
"Churches, art galleries, museums and other places open to the public may contain articles of the greatest importance and value, many of them irreplaceable."
I think everyone would agree with that. But then they go on to say:
"They cannot always be protected as well as in private premises and, if removed, may easily be lost or damaged."
In these days I should have thought it likely that such objects were better protected in art galleries and museums than they are when they are in private houses. There are still in some private houses—and I hasten to add not in mine—things of the greatest importance and value, many of them irreplaceable. Many of those private houses are open to the public and the public can go in and see the wonderful things that are there. I am sure we should welcome that and not discourage it and where that happens give just as much protection for the articles in them as we do when those articles are in the National Gallery or the British Museum. When these houses are open to the public it must increase the risk that some person will come and take them, and take them in circumstances which we know have happened, where it it not possible to prove an intention permanently to deprive.
If we are considering the moral aspects of this question and looking at the conduct of the person who takes away the thing of great value which may be irreplaceable, is it not just as bad to take a valuable and unique picture from a private collection to which the public are admitted as it is to take it from a museum or art gallery such as the National Gallery? I should have thought it was. But if this clause remains in its present form the criminality of the person who removes such an article will depend not on his conduct but on whether or not the object of opening the building for the public is a commercial object. This seems to me wholly illogical, and I would ask your Lordships to consider what will happen in the courts if this clause is passed in its present form and a prosecution is brought for an offence under it.
First of all it will have to be proved, that there has been removal of an article
106
displayed or kept for display from the building. That may be fairly easy to prove, but that will not suffice. The prosecution will then have to go on to say, and prove in every case, that the object of admitting the public is not a commercial object, and if the public do in fact pay for admission it will have to be proved that the excess of receipts over expenditure in connection with the admission of the public and the upkeep or management of the building or collection is wholly applicable for the use of Her Majesty, a local authority, or for ecclesiastical or charitable purposes. That is what the clause provides. So the test is not just what was the conduct of the person accused—did he take it or did he not; you are not even required to prove more than that he took it; you have not to prove that he took it dishonestly. But you have to go on to establish that the object was not a commercial one, and in establishing that, if you charge for admission you must show that not a single penny of the receipts obtained was spent for anything else than in relation to the admission of the public and the management and upkeep of the building and the collection housed in it. Any expenditure on any other purpose will mean that the offence has not been committed and entitle the person charged to a verdict of not guilty, because if anything is spent on anything else then it will not be possible to establish that the excess of the receipts over expenditure was for the use of Her Majesty, for local authorities or for ecclesiastical or charitable purposes.
And so when one comes to consider what is likely to happen in the courts it seems to me that one will have a great deal of time taken up, in nearly every case where it is a case of taking it from, say, a private house which is open to the public, upon the question whether or not the receipts in excess of the expenditure on these particular objects were for charitable purposes or ecclesiastical purposes. Is that the right sort of criterion to lay down for determining whether or not a criminal offence has been committed? Surely that kind of thing is really quite irrelevant in relation to the conduct of the accused person who is charged with an offence. Therefore, I submit to your Lordships that if there is to be such a

107
clause as this surely it should apply to any building to which
"the public have access … in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents."
Those are the opening words of this clause, and this is what this Amendment seeks to achieve: to make this clause apply to removal of an object displayed or kept for display in any building to which the public have access in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents.
The other Amendments, Nos. 21 and 22, are consequential upon this Amendment and I need not say anything about them, but it might be helpful to the Lord Chairman to know that fact. Before I pass from this clause, which should surely contain the word "dishonestly", there are two further points which I would mention, for I feel it may save time if I do so. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 11 there appear at line 5 the words:
"… and by the use of any opportunity or information so obtained removes from the building the … article displayed."
What are those words there for? To establish the offence, is it intended that the prosecution should show that the removal was "by the use of any opportunity or information so obtained"—that is, when he had been upon the premises as a member of the public? It would seem to me that that is what is intended. But it would also seem to me that it is a wholly unnecessary requirement, if it is a requirement. If the prosecution have to prove that, it is going to be a great obstacle in their path. They have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Supposing, as a member of the public, a man goes round a building containing a fine collection of pictures. He not only sees what he wants to take, but he has an opportunity of seeing how well it is guarded. Then, it may be a month or six months later, he comes back and he removes it, and he is caught. You may say that his conduct is worthy of punishment. I would certainly agree. But I doubt whether he will ever be punished if it really is for the prosecution to establish not only that he removed the thing, but that he removed it "by the use of an opportunity or information so obtained". It does not seem to me
108
I that those words are necessary. I have not put down an Amendment to leave them out, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, could deal with that point when he comes to reply.
I note that at the end of subsection (1) it says that the person who does these things
"shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."
I just ask the noble Lord this, as I am not sure about this formula: does that mean that this offence is only triable on indictment, or is it intended that some of the cases which come within its ambit shall be triable in the magistrates' courts? I am afraid I do not know the answer to that one, and I should like to hear it, for this formula "triable on indictment" appears elsewhere in the Bill. Because this matter has come on rather early, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is without the assistance that he might normally rely upon. Perhaps at a later stage he may be able to give me the information for which I ask; or it may be that his advisers will have caught up with events before we finish the discussion on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out from ("contents") to end of line 3.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
3.34 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: Before my noble friend deals with this Amendment, may I at once say that I find myself much in sympathy with what the noble and learned Viscount has just said. But on the other hand, I cannot believe that if his Amendment were accepted he would include in the purview of the clause places like Madame Tussaud's. I have known of the case of a public house in which an historical incident took place and which was on view to members of the public. Would he not accept that the subsection should be re-drafted so as to limit his proposal to places or buildings where objects of art or of historical interest are on display? Otherwise, if the Bill is amended merely by deleting the words that he proposes to delete, it seems to me to widen the subsection in a way that I am quite sure he does not want to do.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not know whether I may reply to the noble Lord. His observations seemed to be directed to me. Perhaps I can deal with it briefly. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. I say, first of all, that I am in favour of making the dishonest appropriation of property, from whatever building it is taken, a criminal offence. I think it should be an offence if it is taken dishonestly, whether it be from a public house, Madame Tussaud's, or anywhere else. But so far as this clause is concerned, certainly my Amendment would have the effect of saying that any object of value, any property which is taken from any building where the property is kept for display or displayed for the public—that is the criterion in the clause—would come within its ambit. That, I think, is a workable test. You could say that there might be something of value in a public house. The test would be, was that particular thing which was taken kept for display to the public and displayed to the public? I think it would work all right.
LORD AIREDALE: If it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss together with these three Amendments, Amendment No. 23 in my name, in which I endeavour to substitute for this long and involved Clause 11 a much shorter and, in my submission, more easily understood clause, then I should be pleased to say a few words about my Amendment now. But perhaps I could first level one or two more criticisms at the Government's Clause 11. First, why does Clause 11 apply only to a building? Many buildings which are on show to the public with their contents have gardens, which equally are on show to the public. Why should it be that somebody who takes an object of value from inside the building would come within the mischief of Clause 11, but somebody who removes a statue or some other object from the garden should not fall within the provisions of the clause? I can see no reason for this at all.
Furthermore, why should not the principle of Clause 11 apply not only to things inside buildings but things on public display in any public garden, street, or square anywhere, whether indoors or in the open air? I can see no purpose at all in restricting Clause 11 to things taken from inside buildings of any kind.
110
When one comes to subsection (2), this extraordinarily involved subsection, the purpose of which is to decide what amounts to a commercial object, one reaches the position that, even if there is a commercial object, it is not to count as such if it is also for charitable purposes. The words "charitable purposes" are the last words of subsection (2). I think I am right in saying that nobody has ever yet succeeded in defining a charity. It is therefore not surprising that when Stroud's Judicial Dictionary has to deal with the expression "charitable purposes" it devotes six whole pages to the subject. One wonders therefore in a given case how long it is going to take learned counsel on both sides to argue, while the accused person stands in the dock, whether this particular case is or is not one of charitable purposes. I think that all this is hopelessly complex and unnecessary in criminal legislation.
What useful object is there in mentioning a commercial objective? Surely its effect will be that people on the lunatic fringe of our society who are inclined to remove things from art galleries will not be so lunatic as not to come to realise that they are liable to be caught by this clause if they take things from public galleries, but they will escape conviction if they confine their attentions to private art galleries. This will concentrate to all those lunatics on to private art galleries. I should have thought that this would be rather unfair to the proprietors of the private art galleries, who will be deprived of the protection which this clause gives to those who look after public galleries.
May I now come to my suggested alternative Clause 11? It is to be observed that I include the word "dishonestly". I agree wholeheartedly with the noble and learned Viscount who has criticised so strongly the omission of the word "dishonestly" from Clause 11 as it stands. It is extraordinary to legislate for an offence to be punishable with five years' imprisonment if it is to be an offence of taking which does not necessarily include an element of dishonesty. That is quite extraordinary, and in my suggested alternative Clause 11 I would not have dreamt of leaving out the word "dishonestly". I appreciate that if you put in the word "dishonestly" it excludes the conviction of people who take part in Boat Race night escapades—the sort of lighthearted undergraduate

111
escapade. But my answer to that is that if a special clause is needed to deal with that sort of case, very well, put a special clause in; but it would be monstrous ever to invoke a provision which involves a possible penalty of five years' imprisonment for something which amounts only to a student escapade. I hope that when we come to Amendment No. 23 your Lordships will prefer it to this very long, complicated and involved Clause 11, which would take up a page of the Statute Book.
3.44 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: When we were considering the very first Amendment moved in Committee on this Bill, to omit the word "permanently", I confess that one of the reasons that persuaded me that that was probably a good Amendment was the clause which we are now considering. The clause showed what the drafters of this Bill thought would have to be provided if the word "permanently" remained in Clause 1. I think that this particular clause is quite absurd. A clause in any Statute, certainly in a criminal Statute, should have both utility and morality. This clause seems to me to have neither. That is a very serious defect. I will certainly support the Amendment of my noble and learned friend because that, at any rate, provides some protection for some articles; but the protection of things of unique value, either because they are of artistic merit or for other reasons, ought to be afforded far more generally.
May I give one example of a peculiarly cruel form of theft which has been suffered by a number of people recently—theft from very distinguished soldiers? Your Lordships may have heard—and the matter has already received publicity—of the theft suffered by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. I could give other examples among my personal friends, where an old and distinguished General has been robbed of all his Orders (not only those awarded in this country but those which have been conferred by foreign Powers) by a thief who may in due course—I do not know—say that they may be returned if an extravagant payment is made to some object which he chooses to name.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Lord explain why he gives as an example
112
the theft from the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery, which I understand did not involve somebody going to view a private collection, but involved a thief breaking into his house, like any other burglar—which is certainly covered by Clause 1, without any kind of reference to Clause 11?
LORD CONESFORD: I entirely agree that on that particular theft that is so, but in other cases the man may obtain lawful access to the house in one way or another, and in some of these cases it is not clear who the thief is, or even whether there has been a breaking in. I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me, but I am pointing out that this particularly cruel form of theft is not necessarily a theft committed in a public gallery. But suppose that it is from some place to which the public have access, why on earth is it thought to be relevant to bring in all this business about a commercial object? What has that to do either with the mischief against which protection is sought or the morality of the transaction? It has absolutely none.
I greatly prefer the type of Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale; though I do not think that his inclusion of the word "dishonestly" is quite so clearly right as he suggests; and I say that for this reason. Supposing the word "permanently" is restored to Clause 1—and it is on that assumption that Clause 11 is wanted—then I imagine that what the Government are going to say is, "We want some absolute requirement against removal which is not dependent on honesty or dishonesty. If we include the word 'dishonestly', we might get back to the type of defence which could be raised in the Goya case". I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but I think that that type of difficulty may be involved if we restore the word "permanently" to Clause 1.
I hope that the Government, after considering the objections and shortcomings of Clause 11 and the new clause, will further consider what they have said on the subject of restoring "permanently" to Clause If "permanently" is to be restored to Clause 1, then Clause 11 does not go far enough. But, in so far as it deals with anything which ought to be dealt with, it will be improved by the

113
Amendment now under consideration which was moved by my noble and learned friend, because I cannot see that any good purpose of any kind is served by this limitation that the admission of the public must not be for a commercial object.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: It will be interesting to inquire what would be the position of the Summer Exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts, because the pictures on display in that Exhibition are for the most part for sale. Would one say that that Summer Exhibition had a commercial object or not?
LORD LEATHERLAND: I think this is a very useful clause and I should like to see it retained. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, after correction, withdrew his remarks regarding the theft which took place at the house of the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. That was straightforward burglary or theft in the dishonest sense of the term. This clause appears to me to deal with cases of taking away which are somewhat similar to the taking and driving away of a person's motor car, with no real, dishonest objective in mind but just with a desire to be mischievous and to cause inconvenience to the owner. It seems to me that this clause would cover such a case as the one which I am about to recite.
Let us assume that I go to the London Zoo, which is a place where the public are admitted for other than commercial objects. Then let us suppose that, by some aberration, I say that I should like to take an elephant home, and by some process of magic I manage to harness an elephant and lead it through the streets of London and park it in my own back garden. I have not necessarily been one of those dishonest thieves, but I certainly have taken away the property of somebody which I ought not to have taken away. I was not animated by dishonest motives in the moral sense of the term; nevertheless I have committed an offence, and it would seem to me that I ought to render myself liable to the punishment which is imposed here—namely, a period not exceeding five years. I hope that some of your Lordships would come to visit me occasionally. I agree that, on the whole, looking at this—
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: May I—
LORD LEATHERLAND: Will the noble Viscount wait half a minute? I shall probably have to cross the noble Viscount's boat anchored on the canal, before I obtain entry into the Zoo; I quite agree about that. But this clause seems to me to cater for the case where a person is not indulging in an immoral kind of offence, but is certainly indulging in an offence which is causing considerable inconvenience to the public.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: May I make one small comment on my noble friend's case, with a great deal of which I agree? Under Clause 11 he would be liable, only for removing something if he removed it from a building. If he removed it from any other enclosure he would apparently not be liable for anything. That is another reason why I think the clause as it stands is inadequate and why I prefer the clause of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Clause 11 begins:
"(1) Where the public have access to a building in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents … and by the use of any opportunity or information so obtained …"
Does this cover churches? I admit that I often go to church to view the building or part of its contents, but sometimes I go to church for another purpose. If I go to church for another purpose and then remove something from the building, should I not then be able to plead to the court that I had not gone to church in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, but would my noble friend not agree that the taking away was only a temporary deprivation?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Yes, quite. That I understand. Nevertheless, as the clause stands it surely leaves open the fact that there is a defence that one went to the building for other purposes than to view the building, or part of it, or any of its contents. There are a whole number of other purposes for which I might go to a public building. There may be a public meeting there or, as in some big houses which are open to the public, there might be a dance there.
LORD LEATHERLAND: In a church?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: No, not in a church. I am thinking of other buildings. There are a whole lot of other defences which could be raised to show that one had gone to a building not in order to view it, or part of it, or any of its contents. Surely that is a reason why we should look at this clause more closely.
LORD ROYLE: If the Committee are discussing Amendment No. 23, and I assume that we are, I want to lend all the support I can to the new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale; and I do so for a very simple reason. I have tried to understand the original clause and have failed completely. With the deepest possible respect, noble Lords of the legal profession have not assisted me in the slightest degree. In fact, as a result of what I have heard there is confusion confounded in my mind. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is trying to do what I have been trying to do for 22 years, and that is to persuade my Parliamentary colleagues to have more simply drafted legislation. I understand quite clearly what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, seeks to do, and in my very poor understanding of the original clause his new clause appears to me to achieve exactly the same objects. Whether the word "permanently" remains permanently in the Bill in the future, does not seem to matter at the moment. What I am concerned about is getting a clarification of what we mean, and I believe that the redrafted clause of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, does just that. Therefore, I shall be very happy to support him.
LORD LEATHERLAND: May I just inquire whether we are discussing Amendment No. 23 or whether we are still on No. 20, because there is an argument which can be mounted in connection with that?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Noble Lords can, of course, discuss any Amendments they wish, but they can decide on only one Amendment at a time.
LORD CONESFORD: May I put one point to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland? I wonder whether, instead of imagining the unlikely case of going to the Zoo and removing an elephant, he would concentrate his mind on the
116
possible case of a man entering a friend's house, quite legitimately and lawfully, seeing an object of great value, either of intrinsic value or of value to that person, and removing it from his house. Does the noble Lord not think that that ought to be covered by some clause such as this?
LORD LEATHERLAND: I think that in that case the police, acting upon legal advice which they received, would straightforwardly charge that man with theft. It was a dishonest act and not the act of mischievous public inconvenience which I cited on the occasion when I was going to take an elephant from the Zoo.
LORD CONESFORD: But surely the point would be whether the police found him. If there was a party the man might be quite unknown.
LORD AIREDALE: Before the Minister speaks, I should like to make it perfectly clear that it was my understanding and intention that we were discussing Amendment No. 23, my new clause, together with the other three on Clause 11, and I was proposing either formally to move my Amendment when we came to it or not to move it. Unless noble Lords decide that they wish to have a separate debate on Amendment No. 23, that is my present intention.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: Before the noble Lord replies, may I give a very personal reason for strongly supporting the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Airedale? It is that, as a character in an Osbert Lancaster cartoon, Lady Littlehampton, said when surrounded by notices, "I am a slow reader". I have counted the words, and it seems to me that not only does my noble friend's Amendment cover both the outside of buildings and the grounds—and would therefore include Lord Leatherland's elephant, whether it was in a building or not—but does so in 38 words instead of in slightly over six times that number. On those grounds only, pending anything that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may say, which I know will be very convincing, I should support my noble friend's Amendment.
4.2 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know whether thieves read Hansard, but if they

117
do I should have thought they would have got more material for their profession from the imaginative ideas put forward by noble Lords in this debate than from anything they have heard for a long time, because there have been some really delightful figments of imagination put over in the last three-quarters of an hour which have had the effect, as my noble friend Lord Royle says, and as I think, of thoroughly confusing the issue. When the noble and learned Viscount got up, rather more than three-quarters of an hour ago, he said that the early hour had deprived him of the assistance of his noble and learned friends the Law Lords. About half an hour after that he indicated that I had no assistance whatsoever because there was nobody in the box; but as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is aware, many years ago, as a small boy, I learnt that a good soldier never looks behind. Personally, I have come to feel that in debates of this kind the one solid support I can count on from behind is the voice of my noble friend Lord Leatherland, who is always certain and effective in my aid. Therefore, I look to the opponents in front, those I can actually see, and rather tend to disregard those behind me.
I would, as it were, address most of my remarks to my noble friend Lord Rowley, who at a very early stage in the debate said that the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount greatly appealed to him. I therefore now want to put the thing in balance, if I may, and for that I have to go back to Clause 1, where we speak of permanent deprivation. As your Lordships will be aware, this was the subject of the first debate, and the word "permanently" was then removed from the Bill. But, as I said the next day, we should proceed on the assumption that the Government would succeed in persuading your Lordships at the Report stage to put back the word "permanently". Subsection (1) of Clause I would then read:
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it and 'thief' and 'steal ' shall be construed accordingly."
The Criminal Law Revision Committee, in their discussions when considering this particular matter, pointed out, as we are all aware, that the law as
118
it now stands, and the Larceny Acts in particular, do not describe every case in which someone dishonestly deprives another of property as theft. That s why we have the word "permanently", and that is why we find it necessary in Clause 11 to deal with particular cases of removal of property which may rot be theft but which in our view should be punished. Under the law as it stands at present—and the Goya case brought this out very firmly—the man who removed that almost priceless painting did not do so, in the view of the court which subsequently tried him, with the object of stealing it: he intended to replace it in due course. He may have argued that there should be a contribution to charity, or some other condition; but the court, under the law as it stands at present, could not convict hilt of stealing the painting, although they did convict him of stealing the frame. We regard that as an unsatisfactory position—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD STONHAM: —and this clause is intended to deal with that. Noble Lords say, "Hear, hear!" This is the first time, judging by this debate, that I have known that noble Lords regarded it as an unsatisfactory position. There were all sorts of red herrings or military herrings brought forward which were quite unrelated to what we are now discussing, so I thought it just as well, to begin with, to bring your Lordships back to the fact that we are discussing an Amendment which has the aim of removing the words,
"and the object of admitting the public is not a commercial object".
I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for suggesting that we should discuss the next two Amendments at the same time, and to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for suggesting that we should have one discussion. This is extremely valuable co-operation, because we do not have to cover the same ground again. I make no objection to those suggestions whatsoever; and anyone who wants a separate Division on a separate Amendment is, of course, fully entitled to have it. But I feel that each time we get a collection of these Amendments one is almost in the position of replying to a Second Reading debate, so many and varied are the points which are raised.

119
But I hope I can go through one or two of them quite quickly.
The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, referred to the Summer Exhibition of the Royal Academy. The Royal Academy Exhibition is protected by the clause as is stands, because the object of admitting the public is not a commercial object, and therefore it comes within the protection of the clause even though the pictures are for sale. I was of opinion that this was not either a summary or an indictable offence, but that it was only an indictable offence, and I have had that confirmed since the "troops" arrived. That is another quick point.
One other matter which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised, and which certainly has my sympathy and I think the sympathy of the Committee, is: why should it be confined to a building? Valuable statues could be stolen from a garden. Indeed, there are many occasions when the public are admitted to both the gardens and the building, often not for a commercial purpose, and therefore I will certainly look into that point because it seems to me that some wider wording would be justified.
With regard to the noble Lord's point about "dishonestly", which is not in this clause, we did not think it necessary to put in "dishonestly" because we could not think of a temporary deprivation being made with a claim of right in the sense of Clause 2, subsection (1)(a). Therefore, it was not necessary to have the word "dishonestly". If we put in "dishonestly", it would not exclude, say, a students' rag. That would be dishonest, and we see no reason, as a matter of policy, to exclude it.
On the general argument—and here I hope to be able to take in most of the points, if not all of them, which have been made—I should like to explain this clause and why he have it. It is intended to protect articles in a building open to the public but only where the admission of the public has not a commercial object. It is designed to apply to a wide variety of buildings, such as museums, churches and art galleries, other than those with a commercial object, and to give protection against a member of the public abusing the privilege of admission to the building.
120
The exclusion of displays with a commercial object will apply not only to commercial art galleries but generally to places such as shops and sale-rooms where the sole object of exhibiting articles is to sell them. The principle underlying the exclusion of articles displayed commercially for sale, even if they be works of art, is that they are displayed in the interests of making sales, and the person displaying them can be reasonably expected to bear the resulting hazards and take precautions against them. This is a very different thing from when the display is not with a commercial objective. The clause protects public collections and private collections if in a private collection the owner is put at hazard by displaying them to satisfy public, cultural or similar interests or a charitable purpose.
The noble and learned Viscount said that it would be extremely difficult to establish that it was not for a commercial purpose. I think it would be extremely difficult to find an example when it would be difficult to establish that, because so many of these private collections, and gardens, are advertised as being in aid of the Church or of a particular charity and objects of that kind. If articles displayed commercially were to be included in the clause it would become very difficult to draw the line short of extending the clause to temporary deprivation generally. For instance, if the clause is to apply to paintings in a commercial art gallery—and we are talking about temporary deprivation and not plain stealing—then it should also apply to a bookshop and to taking a book out of a bookshop.
I will go even further than that. If we take out of the clause the words:
"and the object of admitting the public is not a commercial object,"
then really the sky is the limit. The Amendment would so much widen the clause that it would apply not merely to displays of works of art or similar objects in commercial art galleries and shops but to articles in shops generally. I ask noble Lords to look at Clause 11 to see which words would be left. It says:
"Where the public have access to a building in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents …"
That means any shop, for that is a building to which the public have access and where they go to view the contents.

121
Therefore, if we accept the Amendment the principle of limiting the clause to give protection against a special type of hazards would be removed completely. It would become an offence for a shopper temporarily to remove any article displayed in a shop. This would give the shopkeeper—and I do not know whether noble Lords have considered this—a device far outside the intention of the clause for prosecuting, say, a shoplifter without having to prove the ingredients of theft, which is quite a remarkable thing. It would not be merely inconsistent with the general intention of the Bill, of not extending generally theft to cover temporary deprivation, but if it is to be theft temporarily to remove anything displayed in a shop, there is no logical reason why it should not be a offence temporarily to remove something in, for instance, a private house or your neighbour's house.
Therefore, on general grounds I hope that I have explained the purpose of the clause and why we want to adhere to these exceptions of temporary deprivation but nevertheless to make them offences; because they are offences against the public good and therefore should not, as in the Goya case, go virtually unpunished except by accident. They would be punished. I think a case has been made out for the retention of the clause, and I do not really think a case has been made out for the Amendment and for removing these words. The noble and learned Viscount asked me why it should be an offence where the object of admitting the public is a commercial one and not otherwise. I think the answer that I have given covers that point. He also said that it is just as bad to take a picture from a private collection as from a public one. But it would be an offence to take a picture from a private collection, as from a public one, if the public were admitted to see a private collection either free of charge or where the purpose of the exhibition was charitable or for the other purposes mentioned in the clause.
The noble and learned Viscount also said that he wanted this clause—if there had to be a clause—to apply to any removal from any building to which the public have access. Does he mean this in the terms that I have described which would arise if this Amendment were accepted? Or does he mean a re-drafted
122
clause which would, in effect, gives protection to the same kind of exhibitions (although they may make a profit on them, like country homes and that kind of exhibition) but not to a picture gallery where the pictures are exhibited for sale, and for sale only, or other places of that kind? I think that is a question that really demands an answer.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Does the noble Lord want an answer now? If so, I should be very glad to give it. I can see no logical reason for there being a distinction between the removal of a Goya from the National Gallery and the removal of a Goya from a private collection in a house to which the public are admitted. I should not be content with any clause which did not cover the latter case as well as the former. It is not right, in my view, that the latter case, whether covered or not, should depend upon whether there is a balance of receipts over expenditure for a particular purpose, and on whether that balance does or does not go to Her Majesty, the local authorities, the ecclesiastical authorities or charitable purposes.
LORD STONHAM: With respect, the noble Viscount has not answered the question I addressed to him. He has answered part of it. He merely said that he would like the same protection given to a private collection as would be given to a public collection under the same circumstances, except that the question of whether a profit arose from showing a private collection should riot arise. That is a fair point. That is something that I am prepared to look at. But I did not ask that question alone. What I said was this. Does the noble and learned Viscount really want to take these words out of the Bill so that then you have the position where temporary deprivation in any shop would be theft? If the answer to that question is not "Yes", then I think—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With respect, the answer to that question cannot be "Yes", because if the word "permanently" is reinserted in the Bill then it could not be theft. But the answer to it is "Yes" if it is related to this particular clause of the Bill; because again I cannot see what difference it makes whether something like a Goya is temporarily removed from the National

123
Gallery, from the Royal Academy, from a private collection or from a shop. The loss of an article like that is a loss to the nation. And as the Committee themselves pointed out, it may be irreparably damaged by reason of the removal.
LORD STONHAM: I will not pursue this topic, but the noble and learned Viscount has not answered the point: he has stuck to the Goya. The point I posed has not been answered. The noble and learned Viscount knows very well why he has not answered; it is because on this point I am right. I started my speech by saying that we hope to put the word "permanently" back, and everything I have said since depended on that premise. I am not a lawyer, but when I understand a point I understand a point, and on this I know that I am right.
LORD AIREDALE: The noble Lord makes such a point here about not letting in shops. Surely there is all the difference in the world between a picture shop, which to all intents and purposes is an ordinary shop with a counter where pictures are sold, and an art business where private art exhibitions are held for commercial profit. There might be an exhibition of Constable paintings in a private art gallery run for a profit. That is nothing like shopkeeping at all. Surely the Parliamentary draftsmen can distinguish in the words in an Act of Parliament between these two quite separate things, so as to exclude ordinary shop-keeping transactions and include private exhibitions for commercial purposes.
LORD STONHAM: Of course the Parliamentary draftsmen could do that—I have already said that I will look into this matter—and it is the first limb of what the noble and learned Viscount said. I am now on the point of the Amendment which we have under consideration. I say that I have proved that it is untenable because if you accepted it in the present circumstances it would cover the whole thing—not merely a Goya or pictures, but the temporary removal of a book from a lending library and things of that kind, which would immediately become theft.
LORD FOOT: Would the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, agree that the first words of this clause:
124
"Where the public have access to a building in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents"
would exclude the ordinary case of a shop? Because it could not be said within reason that because a person goes into a shop to buy a book the public have access to that building for the purpose of viewing the building or a part of it, or any of the contents. Would not those words exclude the example which the noble Lord is raising?
LORD STONHAM: So far, I have taken on only noble barristers; now I am having noble solicitors as well. I shall have to appeal to the laymen and read this out:
"Where the public have access to a building in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents …"
In my submission, that describes any shop. The public have access and they certainly go in to see the building or part of it. They certainly go in to view any of its contents that they want to see. That is my understanding of it.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I apologise as I am not at all legal-minded, but I do not quite understand the procedure here. I understood that at this stage Clause 1 had been amended and that the word "permanently" was out. So far as I can understand it, the Minister has based his arguments on the grounds that the word "permanently" will be coming back into the clause. Should we not be looking at it as it is at the moment, with the word "permanently" out?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the Chamber at the commencement of my speech, but I referred to this point. The noble Lord may know that the day after we removed the word "permanently" I made a statement on behalf of the Government indicating our intention to endeavour to persuade your Lordships to recall this word on Report stage. The whole of my arguments have been based on that belief. While I accept that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and many others will endeavour to ensure that the word "permanently"

125
stays out of the Bill, I think there has been a general consensus that we should pursue the discussion on this basis. I do not want to take advantage of it, and all I can say, therefore, at this stage is this. First, I think a very sound point has been made about gardens and environments. Secondly, a sound point has been made about private collections which I will look at with the other suggestions which have been made. But so far as this particular Amendment is concerned I really do not think it is tenable.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have not taken part in this debate so far and I apologise for not having been in the Chamber at the beginning. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, can assist us very greatly by making one thing clear; at any rate, it would help me. I cannot accept this clause in its present form and I would rather let in the danger of shops than draw the line in the way it has been drawn in this Bill. It seems to me that it is quite untenable to give protection to the gallery or the other building and the contents in it, where it is not open for a commercial purpose, in the incredibly complicated way that is described in this clause—which would cause endless trouble at trials—and not give protection when a house happens to be open, as is in so many cases true, on a basis which may be financially viable to the owner.
One of the things which appeals to me in this argument is that people who have houses of architectural value often get grants from the Government to enable them to repair the houses. If they do so, they have to open the houses to the public; it is a term of the grant. If those people charge, as an admission fee, a certain amount to enable them to make ends meet, they are not to get any protection under this Bill. If they happen to charge a little less they will be protected. The thing is so arbitrary as to be wholly ridiculous. I would rather see this Amendment made in the Bill and leave the Government to draft another form of words which would keep out the shops (and I think I agree about that) than leave the clause unamended at this stage. I would much rather do it in that way than try myself to put down at a subsequent stage an Amendment designed to keep in the houses and buildings
126
which I think require protection but which would not protect shops. I do not think I am capable of doing it Parliamentary counsel can and the noble Lord said that he can. I would rather, therefore, leave these words out new and invite the noble Lord to come back at Report stage with a satisfactory alternative form of words dealing with the points he thinks should be dealt with, and covering my point.
LORD CONESFORD: I wish to raise only two points. I have listened very carefully to the Minister's speech and I fully understand his difficulty about opening the matter too widely—what I might call his "shops point". I think that a possible way of meeting that would be, instead of having "any article", which is what the clause now says, we referred to the sort of articles we are considering—such as works of art.
I was surprised when the noble Lord referred to books, because a valuable book is very much in point. What we are frightened of, among other things, are thefts which may do irreparable damage to things of priceless value. I mention this because the Committee themselves, at page 28 of their Report, considered as a possibility for a clause of this kind mentioning the things set out in the Malicious Damage Act 1861—works of art or other objects of interest, et cetera. We have not yet tried at all in this clause defining the object. I mention this only because that may be a line that the Government would like to investigate. But in support of what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, I must say why I feel bound to go into the Division Lobby in support of the, deletion of these words, words that would have an appalling effect in limitation. May I mention two exhibitions which took place last year and which many of your Lordships may have visited: the historic exhibition at Christie's of all the objects they had sold over a great period and an equally interesting exhibition at Spinks? Neither Spinks nor Christie's would be protected under this clause, unless we deleted the words which my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne is proposing to delete. And in those exhibitions there were on show objects of immense national importance. This clause is quite preposterous as it now stands. For these

127
reasons, I am prepared to support my noble and learned friend.
LORD ROYLE: Would my noble friend Lord Stonham point out why the existing clause is so much better than the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in its simplified form?
LORD LEATHERLAND: As this seems to be a free-for-all, may I be pardoned for entering this discussion? It seems to me that we are trying to distinguish between two classes of offence. First, we have the straightforward case of theft under Clause 1, where I propose to deprive somebody of his property. I am convicted and labelled as a thief, a term of opprobrium. Then in Clause 11 there is the case in which I do not necessarily intend to deprive a person permanently of his property; I deprive him of his property only for the time being, because of some whim of mine. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, might have arranged an exhibition at his home in aid of the local Conservative Association. I might go there and think, in a spirit of mischief, that I should like to take a certain picture and exhibit it in my own home in aid of the local Labour Party. I am not dishonest. I am having a hit of fun, a bit of mischief—irresponsible mischief, if you like.
Surely the difference between Clause 1 and Clause 11 is the difference between the crime of stealing a motor car and the taking and driving away of a car where there is no intention to deprive the owner of it permanently—though, incidentally, that might be so. I think that there is a difference to be made between these two acts of depriving a person of his property. I do not like the alternative put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because he incorporates the word "dishonestly" and there are some takings away which are not dishonest. They may be anti-social, irresponsible and reprehensible, but they may not be dishonest. Therefore, if Clause 1 is to retain the word "permanently", then Clause 11 must stay in, in order to cater for those takings-away which are not of a dishonest nature.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: We have had a useful debate on this point and we have covered a great deal of ground. As
128
I moved this Amendment, I should like to say a word in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and to noble Lords who have criticised it. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, who I am glad to see has taken an active part in discussing this Amendment, said, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that if a man removed a picture from a private house and nothing else, that man could be prosecuted and convicted of theft. Of course he would not be, as the law now stands, unless it was proved that there was an intention permanently to deprive. That is one correction I would venture to make on what the noble Lord said. He went on to say (I am discussing this on the basis that the law of theft contains the requirement of an intention permanently to deprive) that there was a big distinction between that and mere removal—and removal without the word "dishonestly" is dealt with in this clause. I entirely agree, but I ask your Lordships to consider what this really means.
It may be socially very tiresome for someone out of a sense of fun or in a rag, to remove something of great value. It may be socially reprehensible, to use the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. But I, for one, feel considerable doubt as to whether reprehensible conduct of that character should be subjected to criminal sanctions without there being some element of dishonest conduct on the part of the accused. I am not at all sure it cannot be said that, whatever his motive may be, whether it is to hold the article until he gets a contribution to his favourite charity or to give himself the pleasure of looking at it, it ought to be regarded as dishonest if someone takes valuable property which he knows that the owner would not consent to his taking. If we are creating in this subsection a new criminal offence, it ought to contain the element of dishonesty. But that is a matter a little away from this Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Royle, seems to want to attack me for not explaining to him what the clause meant. I would never take on the task of satisfactorily explaining anything to the noble Lord. I say that to him with the greatest respect. But what I say about the clause has not been challenged at all by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.

129
May I say something about the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale? I think that its language is much to be preferred to the cumbrous language of this subsection. There I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. My only doubt about it is the inclusion in the Amendment of the words, "where it is kept for public display." Having a valuable picture in a private house, even though people are admitted on certain occasions to see the pictures, makes it difficult to say that the picture is kept there for public display.
LORD STONHAM: The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, does not deal with pictures but with "any article", which would include anything in any shop.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord has clung to that point as if it were a rock that would save him from disaster. He has almost sunk, but he is clinging firmly to that rock at the present time. He is trying to get me to share in attacking Lord Airedale's draft. I am not unduly critical of Lord Airedale's draft, because I think it is much clearer than the subsection in the Bill; but it seems to me that it has the slight defect that it is so widely drafted that it covers articles of all descriptions.
Coming back to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, he said that he was going to put this matter in balance. I do not think think that he succeeded in doing that. I had already said that the word "dishonesty" should be included in the clause and had given the reasons why. He flatly said that he would not accept that the proof that the building was not open for a commercial purpose would cause difficulty. He gave no reasons. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, and I would be in agreement in thinking that in magistrates' courts a considerable amount of time would be taken up in determining whether or not an exhibition was for a charitable purpose. The court would have to look at the accounts. Subsection (2) makes that clear. It would have to see what the receipts were and what they were spent on, and if there was one shilling of those receipts spent on something other than the upkeep of the building, and its management, and the admission of the public, the exhibition
130
would have to be treated as being for a commercial purpose. Think of the accountants who would be needed to produce the books. It would not depend just on proof that there was an advertisement in the local paper. This is absolutely unreal.
But then the noble Lord conies to the rock to which he clings: that if these words were taken out this would apply to valuable articles in shops. Shops are open to sell things; very often there is an exhibition in the hope that sales will take place. What is wrong about that? I say quite firmly to the noble Lord—I thought I had made it clear before—that I am personally in favour throughout of making the dishonest appropriation of other people's property a crime.
It is no argument to me to say that if these words are taken out the dishonest appropriation of other people's property in shops will be a crime. I think it should be. I do not take the view that the criminal conduct depends upon the place from which the article is removed. I do not think that is right. But what I do say is that as the Bill now stands it clearly excludes a wide category of buildings which ought to be covered by it. I do not in the least mind the clause starting with the words:
"Where the public have access to a building in order to view the building or part of it or any of its content.…"
Those are really words of limitation, But I could not agree to allow words to remain in the Bill which make the liability to this crime depend upon whether or not a building is open for a commercial purpose. If these words are taken out, as I think they should be, it will be for the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, if he wishes, to table an Amendment to exclude pictures and other objects in shops. As my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has said, the Minister, with all his resources, can table such an Amendment much more easily than we can. He has the opportunity of doing so. This clause as it now stands is wrong, and I shall ask the Committee to join with me in trying to improve the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: My noble friend Lord Royle asked me why the clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is not acceptable. The short

131
answer, I think, is that it would make the clause far too wide. It would apply to the temporary removal of anything from a shop. I do not think anybody wants that. I appreciate what the noble Viscounts, Lord Colville of Culross and Lord Dilhorne, have said: that it would be much easier (I do not make any agreement on this, but there are the facilities available) for me to agree to the withdrawal of this Amendment and then come back with an Amendment which I think would meet people's wishes.
What I am going to look at, of course, is the point about the area not being confined to buildings, and the particular point which is the object of this Amendment; namely, the question of a public purpose or a private purpose. I agree that there is a strong case for the protection of private collections in this way. I think this would meet the point. But I do not think the way to do it is to take words out of the Bill, which then admittedly
creates a situation that nobody wants and makes the Bill wrong. I think it would be better for noble Lords to accept an assurance from me—because I am going to try to proceed in this way—and not take the words out of the Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that that would appeal to me. It may be, of course, that the whole clause is going to be left out, but in any event I should like the noble Lord to come back with an Amendment which does what he says should be done in this clause. I cannot see that there is any possible way that I should be prepared to agree to the withdrawal of this Amendment.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundonald, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Meston, L.

Airedale, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mills, V.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Feversham, L.

Monsell, V.

Amulree, L.

Foley, L.

Morrison, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Foot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Glasgow, E.

Atholl, D.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Audley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

Oakshott, L.

Barrington, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Poltimore, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hawke, L.

Redmayne, L.

Boston, L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Buckton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Byers, L.

Ilford, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strang, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmany, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Swinton, E.

Cromartie, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Teynham, L.

Daventry, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lambert, V.

Thurlow, L.

Derwent, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Trefgarne, L.

Digby, L.

Lloyd, L.

Vivian, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Loudoun, C.

Wilberforce, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, L.

Luke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Darwen, L.

Beswick, L.

Burden, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, Bs.

Champion, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Bowles, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Faringdon, L.

Fiske, L.

Leatherland, L.

Royle, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Segal, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Mitchison, L.

Shepherd, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Silkin, L.

Granville-West, L.

Moyle, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Hall, V.

Phillips, Bs.

Stonham, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Rowley, L.

Latham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, leave out subsection (3),—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I have nothing to say, except that I believe this clause is better than it was, and therefore at this stage I shall not seek to have it excluded. Of course, if we keep out the word "permanently" I shall seek to have this clause taken out, too.
LORD SILKIN: I want to say a word, not so much on the merits of the matter as on the unfortunate way in which this discussion has developed. Judging by the last Vote, it has become a purely Party political matter on something which one hoped would be discussed and considered quite dispassionately. Every Member of the Party opposite voted one way, whether they had heard the discussion or not; every member of the Committee on this side voted the other way.
LORD CHORLEY: I did not vote.
LORD SILKIN: All right; the noble Lord is a law unto himself. But that is the way the matter is going. I think it is disgraceful that a measure of this kind should be discussed in that kind of spirit. My noble friend Lord Stonham said that
134
he had been impressed by a number of points that had been raised in the debate, and gave an unqualified undertaking that he was prepared to consider the whole clause without in any way being prejudiced in favour of the clause as it stood. A Division is forced on it, and decided on purely Party lines.
I am not going to lecture this Committee—I am too fond of the House to lecture it—but I want to warn it where we are going. If we are going to decide non-Party matters on a purely Party basis we must consider the future of this House and what sort of a place it is going to be. So far as the rest of this Bill is concerned, I hope that we can consider it, not on the basis of one Party voting one way, and the other Party voting the other, but on its merits.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I certainly have not spoken in any Party spirit at all. This was an Amendment which I put down. It was not an official Party Amendment, so far as I know; I put it down on my own initiative. We have argued it out thoroughly, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has spoken of it, too. It may be that those who sat on this side of the Committee voted for this Amendment. I am sure they did it, not out of any Party views or Party beliefs, but because they thought it was right. Noble Lords opposite—some noble Lords opposite—spoke in favour of the Amendment I moved. I will not mention them by name because it might be embarrassing, but no doubt Party discipline was the cause of their voting against the Amendment at the end.
I think it is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has brought Party matters into this at all. We have not proceeded on Party beliefs. While it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was prepared to consider certain things, certainly (if I understood him correctly) he was fighting bitterly to retain the clause as it stood at the moment; and

135
that was, as I made clear, something I could not agree to.
LORD CONESFORD: May I express great regret that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made a most uncharacteristic speech in which he overlooked some facts that I am sure he would consider material. In the first place, I think he ignored the fact that in the recent Division, according to my observation, what he referred to as "the majority Party" were accompanied by those who sit on the Liberal Benches and also by the noble and learned Lord, the only Law Lord present, who sits on the Cross-Benches. To talk about this as being a purely Party matter is inaccurate and unworthy of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
If I may mention one other factor, it is the all-important first Amendment we considered, when there was a majority for striking out the word "permanently". According to my memory—I have not looked it up—the Conservatives were not even in the majority among the "Contents" who carried that Amendment. The allegation that this Bill is being considered on Party lines is wholly unfounded.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should like to support what both my noble friends have said. So far as the Amendments standing in my name are concerned, they are only "official Amendments", in the terms of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, in that I am moving them from the Front Bench. I consider it to be the job of the Opposition to put down constructive Amendments to this Bill, as to any other; but they are not based on any Party line. They are considered to be constructive, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does not think to the contrary.
In regard to the last Division I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, understood very well what I, at any rate, wished. I do not wish to have to do the drafting of this Amendment, because I cannot do it. The noble Lord said that he had the draftsmen and they could do it. When he sees the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see what he said.
LORD STONHAM: I know what I said without looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am glad to have that confirmation from the noble Lord. It was with the intention that it should be for those who are well qualified to get this matter right to do the drafting, that I, at any rate, wished to take this to a Division. It was not a Party affair at all.
LORD STONHAM: Before returning to the Motion, I should like to say that I fully appreciate the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. At no time in any discussion so far—and they have been prolonged—have I ever felt that there has been a Party line. The discussions have been frank and on the merits of the case as we saw them. However, I rather resent the implication made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, against my noble friend the Government Chief Whip, that Party pressure, as he called it, could fail 10 produce on this side of the Committee more than 42 votes. That is a reflection that I resent. There has not been any Whip on this Bill. I think I had better leave the matter there.
On the Motion that the Clause stand part (what is left of it), so far as I am concerned it will not make the slightest difference to the action I shall take in the matter whichever way the vote went. The fact is that we are left with a truncated clause, and I shall endeavour to come back with Amendments which will, I hope, achieve what we all have in mind.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I welcome what the noble Lord has said. Some time ago, when I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was not in the House, I said that when we had a division of opinion in this House on this Bill and voted upon it, if the the majority voted in support of my Amendment I did not think it ought to be represented as a defeat for the Government but as a victory for good sense.
LORD AIREDALE: There is one final point I should like to make since the Minister is going to look at this clause again. It is in support of a point made earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who drew attention to the words at the beginning of subsection (1):
"… access to a building in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents …"

137
The noble Viscount pointed out, perfectly correctly, that art galleries, museums and public libraries are used for concerts, lectures, receptions and cocktail parties, and if the words at the beginning of subsection (1) are left as they are at present then anybody who goes to a museum or art gallery to a concert—for instance, the Victoria and Albert Museum Sunday evening concert—and then takes advantage of being inside the building and removes something, he is going to escape from the provisions of Clause 11 as drafted because he will not have gone in "in order to view the building or part of it or any of its contents". He will have gone there for a concert or a lecture, or whatever it may be. For this reason I think these words should be looked at again.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority
12.—(1) Subject to subsections (5) and (6) below, a person shall be guilty of an offence if, without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, he takes and drives away any conveyance or, knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such authority, drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it.
(6) A person does not commit an offence under this section by anything done in the belief that he has lawful authority to do it or in the belief that in the circumstances of tic case the owner, if asked, would have given consent to his doing it.
5.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (1), after "takes and drives away", to insert", or releases from its moorings,". The noble Viscount said: By this stage the Committee may be grateful for a small and simple Amendment which anyone can understand and which cannot be put down by anybody to any kind of Party pressure. Therefore I do not need to be particularly brave in order to move it. This was an Amendment which I intended to move to the Vessels Protection Bill when it was going through the House last autumn, but owing to the fact that the Bill went through at the tail end of the Session we did not have time for a Committee stage, and
138
if I had attempted to put this Amendment then it would have killed the Bill. If I had put it in then, I hope it would have found its way, in the normal process of digestion, into this Bill.
The fact of the matter is that to move a car or an aeroplane or most other vehicles it is necessary to get into them and to do something inside them, like driving, whereas to move a boat it is often only necessary to untie it and it will then proceed to move itself. If it is in a stream or a tidal estuary it may move itself at considerable speed and to a considerable distance, and what happens to it when it does so may be much more devastating than if a vehicle is simply taken and driven away. If it is taken and driven away it will at least move in a purposeful manner and may not do much damage, whereas if it is cast adrift, in the case of a small boat it will probably be smashed and in the case of a big boat it will probably smash up a number of others. There are other difficulties which can arise as a result of a boat's being cast adrift. For example, it may be left around and almost Certainly will not be returned to its original point of mooring. It may then fall into the hands of anyone who sees fit to take hold of it and to use it for any other purpose.
I am sure I shall be told by my noble friend, Lord Stonham, that this point is already covered by the fact that anyone who casts such a boat adrift and causes damage can be summoned for malicious damage, but some of the types of malicious damage will be very odd indeed. For example, a boat left lying around is often picked up by thieves and used to steal things from other boats. Is the person who cast it adrift then guilty in respect of the sums stolen from the other boats as being the amount of malicious damage that has been done? Is it malicious damage inadvertently to cause somebody to steal something from elsewhere? It must be realised that normally we keep boats safe by keeping them out of harm's way. We moor them in locked marinas; we moor them out in the middle of rivers; we moor them where the general public cannot lay hands on them. The only way these boats can get into trouble normally is by somebody having another boat; in other words, in order to steal a boat they must have another boat.
If a boat is cast adrift it leaves its place of safety and drifts to some towpath to which the public has access, and it is used as a raiding boat for raiding anything in a marina, in a private mooring, on private gardens and all sorts of places where the public normally do not have access. If this Amendment is not put into the Bill it will be necessary to carry on, as I feel sure is going to be suggested, by prosecuting such cases as cases of malicious damage; but one has to understand that all these instances of subsequent damage, due to a boat's being free and in a public area, will also have somehow to be brought in as cases of malicious damage, and in some of the ramifications of this subject that is going to look very odd indeed. It would be much simpler if this Amendment was put in and unmooring a boat was included as taking and driving away. It would make the prosecution of such an offence much more easy.
There is another point. If the unmooring of a boat is to be prosecuted on the basis of malicious damage, we shall have the extraordinary case that something which is done is not illegal at the time but becomes illegal possibly hours or days afterwards, because if you try to prosecute for unmooring a boat as malicious damage and no damage is done, presumably you cannot do so. In other words, there is no prosecution until the damage occurs. But the damage in unmooring the boat may not occur when the boat is unmoored, or within minutes or hours or days or weeks. If the boat has been left lying about and a thief comes and raids another boat with it, it may be a week after, it will be extremely difficult to pursue the original person who unmoored the boat in the first place and who is the person responsible, if this offence is to be taken on the basis of malicious damage. Why cannot we put in this simple little Amendment and make it illegal to move a boat by unmooring it, just as it is illegal to take and drive away a motor car or any other vehicle? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, at end insert (", or releases from its moorings,").—(Viscount St. Davids.)
5.14 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I am being doubly assisted by my noble friend because he
140
not only stated his own case but endeavoured to put my reply to him as well. I think it will be as well if I state the position as the Government see it, and that is not in the way that my noble friend put it. Clause 12 makes it an offence to take and drive away a conveyance without the owner's consent. It replaces and extends the existing offence in the 1960 Act of taking and driving away a motor vehicle, and the similar offence in relation to vessels under the Vessels Protection Act 1967, to which my noble friend referred. I would point out to him that the word "drives" is glassed by the definition in subsection (7) of this clause to apply to conveyances, such as vessels, to which the word is inappropriate.
My noble friend's first Amendment would make the offence apply to a person who "takes and drives away, or releases from its moorings, any conveyance …". There surely can be no doubt that a person takes a boat for the purposes of this clause if he releases it from its moorings. There is no question at all about that. But the offence in Clause 12 requires him to take it and drive it away. The question, therefore, is what he needs to do, in addition to unhooking the rope, as it were, in order to commit the offence of driving away the boat. The definition subsection, subsection (7), provides for the word "drive" to be appropriately construed in relation to boats, and by analogy with the construction which the courts have put on "driving away" in relation to motor cars, it would be "driving away" if the person got into the boat and did something to move it. Whatever he did, even if he paddled with his hands or kicked with his feet, if he moved it at all after getting into it he would be driving it away.
The analogy with the motoring offence is that if a boy goes up to a car and releases the handbrake of the car—and does nothing else—so that the car runs downhill, he is not charged with taking it away. It is completely analogous to unmooring the boat, hooking the rope off the stake. The charge in both cases, if damage is done to the boat or to the motor car, would be that of causing malicious damage. A person who merely sets a boat adrift, without getting into it and controlling its movements in some way, once it is adrift, is not covered by

141
the clause, just as in the case of a person who releases the handbrake of a car. The essence of the point in this Theft Bill is stealing a ride. The person in our example gets into the boat and he steals a ride, and it would be inappropriate to extend the clause to cover conduct which is analogous to malicious damage—and may indeed involve the offence of malicious damage. I would say that setting a boat adrift might amount to theft if the intent in doing so amounted to an intent permanently to deprive the owner of the boat.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: There is one small point on which my noble friend might help me. Earlier in the Bill we were told that if one put one's arm, or presumably one's foot, into a dwelling-house in order to steal one was entering the house. If, therefore, a man shoves the boat off with his foot is he entering the boat?
LORD STONHAM: That, I think, would be a matter for the courts to decide. If a man puts his arm through a window, part of his body actually enters the house, and the clause did not say that the whole of his body had to enter the house: it speaks of entering. It is not for me to say whether pushing the boat out with a foot is or is not entering: that would be a matter for the courts. I would submit that these very fine points that have been invented this afternoon are quite remarkable. I might ask any noble Lord who invented one of these points whether such a case had come up within the last hundred years.
May I deal with one or two points made by my noble friend? He said that some of the malicious damage included the taking of the boat by thieves to steal something from other boats. They cannot take the boat and use it for stealing from other boats without getting into it, and they are caught by the clause because they get into it and steal a ride.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My noble friend does not understand. The boat would not be in the hands of the thieves if the original man had not unmoored it, so that the malicious damage that he has done in that case is the damage done by the thieves.
LORD STONHAM: It is a question of which of us does not understand. I am only asking my noble friend to try to understand this. Let us take it stage by stage. A small boy walks along a towing path and unhooks the rope that attaches a boat to the towing path. He does nothing else. Therefore he may be liable to a charge of causing malicious damage. The same night, or some days or weeks later, someone enters that boat. He will be depriving the owner of it; he will be stealing the ride.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The owner is already deprived of it; the boat has gone.
LORD STONHAM: It seems that the owner has not worried much about his deprivation., because in the case that the noble Viscount put forward the boat was away for weeks and nobody knew about it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: We had an exactly parallel case to this a few months ago on the Regent's Canal. A boat was cast adrift, it left its secure moorings and drifted over to the towpath, and within hours it was picked up by thieves and used to raid other boats.
LORD STONHAM: I accept that. I am accepting the noble Lord's proposition. My difficulty is that he is not prepared to listen at all to argument. I am asking him whether he would kindly just listen, at least until I get to the end of a single sentence. The small boy has cast off the boat, it has arrived at some other shore—perhaps at the other side of the stream. Somebody gets into it. When that person gets into it he is, or he may well be, stealing a ride, stealing the boat, and he is then liable for theft. This is the point. The small boy did not steal the boat; he may have caused the damage. The other person or persons have stolen the boat. If they then use that boat to commit other thefts, of course they are liable for those other thefts. But this is not what the noble Viscount is asking in his Amendment. What he is asking in his Amendment is that the small boy who casts off the boat and walks along the bank of the canal, and does nothing else, should be regarded as having stolen the boat. This is what cannot be accepted.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I am sure that what my noble friend means is taking and driving away a boat, not stealing.
LORD STONHAM: In the words of the subsection anybody who does that commits an offence; he commits the offence which is in the clause. I am saying that he could not drive the boat away unless he was in it. But the clause does not defend the entering of the boat. In so far as it is possible and is right, I think that what my noble friend wants is achieved by the clause. The one thing we cannot do in this clause, and I think ought not to do in a Theft Bill, is to include something which can be only malicious damage.
5.24 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would have another look at this matter. We greatly appreciate the argument that he has advanced; but my noble friend Lord St. Davids has instanced a case where a boat has been liberated on the Regent's Canal and damage has been caused, or it has been used for other purposes. I personally have some experience of a boat being liberated in a harbour, and considerable damage was done in consequence. Nobody ever knew whether anybody was at any time in the boat. The owner of the boat secured it firmly to its moorings, and ultimately some person unmoored the boat. This is the simple connection.
I am not entirely convinced by my noble friend's reply that the wording of the Bill is sufficient to cover this particular type of incident. I am not in a position to make any suggestion as to whether the Amendment of my noble friend Lord St. Davids is quite the right way to cover the situation. From my layman's point of view it appears to be so. But I am not a lawyer—heaven forbid! How they can interpret these things I do not know: it is most difficult. But I wonder whether my noble friend would kindly agree to have another look at this. He may be able to make some suggestion that would help us. Alternatively, if he comes back having given careful consideration to this matter and says that the circumstances which we have enumerated are fully covered by the Bill, I shall be prepared to accept
144
that. At the moment I have certain doubts, and I hope that my noble friend will have another look at it.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: May I corroborate the circumstances spoken to by the noble Viscount? We had a case before the bench, not so long ago, in which a boat had been taken from its moorings and towed further down the beach. At that stage nobody had got inside it. It was pulled up on the beach and it was left there deliberately for a week. Finally, it was found by the owner. But the intention was that, had it not been reclaimed, the people originally concerned with releasing the boat were going to make use of it. They had not got inside the boat, but they had towed it away in order to do so. It was a quite deliberate act. But we were in a difficulty because the law did not allow us to catch them.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to support what the noble Lord opposite has said. I doubt whether the cutting of the painter of a boat or untying its mooring really amounts to taking the boat. The case my noble friend put is obviously a case where the boat was taken but was not driven. Just cutting the painter, unmooring the boat and letting it be carried downstream, may cause grave inconvenience and possible loss. In the case instanced by the noble Baroness it was the prelude to the intended acquisition of the boat, but not in circumstances that would amount to theft. The action in the case put by the noble Baroness, if dishonest appropriation was all that was required—as in my view it should be—would be an offence. But even if that were done, that would not cover the case where in fact there has been no appropriation, because all that has happened is that the boat has been released from its moorings. I think there is a case there for that kind of thing to be covered perhaps by a by-law—I do not know.
With great respect, it does not seem to me that it would be right to make this Amendment in this Bill, because I doubt whether it would cover the point effectively. I think the proper answer therefore would be for the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, to put down an Amendment to this Bill to make that kind of conduct a special offence. He may of course be told that it is not suitable for

145
this Bill; but I should think that it might be brought within the scope of it. However, I do not think that it would be right to make this Amendment in this Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: Would not the noble and learned Viscount agree that the case put by the noble Baroness could at any rate be argued to be a preparatory act to a theft? There is a long line of cases which deals with that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am sure it could be argued to be a preparatory act to the theft. It could be argued that in all cases of taking and driving away a motor car without the consent of the owner there was a preparatory act to the theft.
LORD CHORLEY: The words of that Act are clear. This is not.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord was interrupting me from his seat. We will carry on the discussion between us in some other place, perhaps sitting down. I do not want to hold up the proceedings on the Bill. I only want to encourage the noble Viscount to withdraw this Amendment and, if he can draft it, to put down a separate condition.
LORD STONHAM: I was invited by my noble friend Lord Popplewell to take another look at this point. As I have already indicated, I have looked at it most carefully. My difficulty is this. The noble and learned Viscount said that he was convinced that cutting the painter did not amount to taking away. So am I. I thought I made it clear in my speech that it did not amount to taking away. For that to happen the chap had to get in it. The noble Baroness fully appreciated that point when she said that a boat was removed somehow without anybody getting into it.
But if my noble friend does consider another Amendment which has the effect, as it were, of trying to establish, not dishonest appropriation but purely an act liable or calculated to cause malicious damage in a Theft Bill, then I would have to say that it seems to me to be outside the scope of the Bill and it would not be right to include it. But my noble friend Lord Popplewell has asked me to look at it again and then to come back and say whether I feel
146
that all forms of taking away are covered. I am prepared to do that, but I can give no kind of undertaking to agree that an act which might cause malicious damage would be theft. That is the present position in regard to these Amendments, and I hope that, with that limited assurance, my noble friend would be prepared to withdraw them.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I think that is quite fair. I do not think I can carry this matter any further. My noble friend is more capable of having further thoughts about this matter than I r m, and I would prefer to leave it to him. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (6), to leave out all words after "offence under this section", to the end of the subsection, and insert "unless he acted without a claim of right made in good faith". The noble and learned Viscount said: I put down this Amendment to bring subsection (6) of Clause 12 into line in use of language with the Amendment I had hoped to make to Clause 2(1)(a). Clause 2(1)(a) deals with what is meant by "dishonesty", and says that conduct is not to be regarded as dishonest if a person
"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".
The language here differs and I think that it is intended to have the same effect. I believe that it is undesirable that we should use two different formulae for providing exactly the same purpose, but as my Amendment was not carried into Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill, with these words of explanation I will not seek to carry those words into Clause 12(6). Therefore, I do not propose to move this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This Amendment has much the same sort of object as that which has just been mentioned by any noble, and learned friend. There are two separate places in the Bill where a defence is raised relating to what the accused thought that the owner might have done in the circumstances. The first is Clause 2(1)(a), and the second is in subsection (6) of Clause 12 The

147
formulae are different, and I should have thought that in the circumstances the courts would tend to look for some different intention in Parliament's mind if different words were used. I still believe that it is exactly the same concept which applies in each case. Therefore, I have ventured to put forward a formula in Clause 12 which corresponds with the necessary alteration of wording, a formula which has already been discussed in Clause 2(1)(a). I hope that this may appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the sake of consistency and to avoid argument later on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("or") to end of sine 4 and insert ("that he would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it."—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD STONHAM: The Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is to delete the words
"in the belief that in the circumstances of the case the owner, if asked, would have even consent to his doing it"
and to substitute the words in the Amendment, so that the subsection would then read:
"A person does not commit an offence under this section by anything done in the belief that he has lawful authority to do it or that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it."
As the noble Viscount said, his Amendment makes a drafting change with the object of assimilating the drafting so far as possible to that of Clause 2(1)(b), and the words of the clause as drafted follow the provisions of Section 217(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1960. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for pointing this out. I agree that there is great merit in consistency, and I would advise the Committee to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Abstracting of electricity
13. A person who dishonestly, with intent to cause loss to another, uses without due authority, or causes to be wasted or diverted, electricity supplied by or to the other shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
5.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to leave out "with intent to cause loss to another". The noble and learned Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this Amendment No. 28A, which is consequential. I understand from my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that his Amendment, No. 29, is also consequential. I think it is a slight variant of the words that I have put down, but the point is the same.
This matter is dealt with in paragraph 85 of the Committee's Report. The paragraph deals with the clause relating to the abstraction of electricity, and the Report says:
"It seems to us right to limit the offence to 'dishonestly' misusing the electricity, so that a claim to be entitled to use it would be a defence."
That language does not contain anything about its being an offence if committed not only dishonestly but also "with intent to cause loss to another". If the Amendments which I am now moving are made, the clause will accord with the passage in the Committee's Report which I have just read out.
The word "loss" in this context is defined by Clause 33 as meaning a loss "in money or money's worth". To constitute an offence under this clause it has to be established that somebody has dishonestly, with intent to cause loss in money or money's worth to another, used without due authority, and so on, electricity. Why should it be necessary to prove that the intention of the accused was to cause monetary loss to another person? Very often—I should think in the majority of cases—the person who abstracts electricity for his own use does not think about the other person, or about the Electricity Board which is supplying the electricity. Although, in my view, it is right that there should be a criminal offence for dishonestly abstracting electricity, it appears at the same time to be wrong in principle that the prosecution should have to prove the motive for that piece of dishonesty. Here again we have the requirement to prove motive as part of the criminal offence.
I believe that this doctrine of motive emanated from a university to which I did not go. I think it might be called the "Cambridge heresy". But, at any

149
rate, why should it be here? I looked to see what the Committee had to say with regard to these words, and this is all they said:
"It also seems right, and in accordance with the scheme of the Bill, to require an intention to cause loss to another."
It does not, I must confess, seem to me to be right, and I suggest that it cannot be said to be in accordance with the scheme of the Bill. There has been a special provision for many years—I think right back to 1916—for dishonestly abstracting electricity, and the reason is that electricity is not property which is capable of being stolen, and therefore special provision had to be made for it. In relation to theft of anything which is capable of being stolen, under the clauses of the Bill which we have already considered it is not necessary to prove the motive for the theft. Why should it be necessary when special provision is being made for what may be called "stealing" electricity? It really cannot be said to be in accordance with the scheme of the Bill when this Part of this Bill—we shall come later to fraud and blackmail—is dealing with theft, and it is no part of the offence of theft to prove what the motive of the theft may be.
This is an important matter of principle. I am very much against introducing into our criminal law, save in the most exceptional cases, the requirement that the motive of the accused must be proved. Here it is quite clearly sought to impose that requirement, and in my belief it is wrong to do so. This Amendment makes it an offence dishonestly, without due authority, to use electricity or cause it to be wasted or diverted, and I think that that is not only simpler but also better. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("with intent to cause loss to another").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I most warmly support my noble and learned friend on this matter. I think that not the least of the arguments—in fact, perhaps the most important of all—is the one that he has touched on: that this is only a specialised form of theft which has to be dealt with separately because of the nature of electricity. I shall take a lot of persuading by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that there should be an ingredient in this form of theft which
150
does not appear in the general form of the offences under Clause 1.
There is another point which is perhaps not so important, but to which I shall return time and time again in the subsequent clauses of this Bill. I want to know to what extent this clause preserves the scope of the existing criminal law. I have seen that in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 there is created a new criminal offence to do with telephones and the dishonest use of a public telephone with intent to avoid payment. I am told—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, could confirm whether or not this is so—that the existing offence under the Larceny Act, vague and difficult to construe though it may be, is sometimes used to deal with people who make false "999" calls on the telephone.
I have done my best to analyse that particular action which at the present moment I believe to be criminal. So far as I can see, it certainly does not cause loss to anybody, because it is everyone's right to make a "999" call and to use the electricity involved without paying for it. The trouble is that it puts a great deal of confusion and difficulty in the way of those who have to answer the call, whether it is the police, the fire services, the ambulance or whoever it may be. Equally, since no payment is required in any event, the offence in Schedule 2 is not apt, because that says, "with intent to avoid payment", and, as I have said, no payment is required. If this form of social nuisance and tiresomeness is properly dealt with under the Larceny Act as it stands, by prosecution for maliciously and fraudulently abstracting electricity, then I believe it cannot be dealt with under this Bill. I should like the noble Lord to explain why the law is being changed in this way and to explain the justification for making this existing criminal offence criminal no more, if I am right in my understanding of the matter. I shall be very glad if he will deal with that, as well as the main point of principle raised by my noble and learned friend.
LORD AIREDALE: I, too, should like to support this Amendment to leave out these words. The clause, with these words included, reminds one of the bad old days before the introduction of the statutory offence of taking away a motor vehicle without the owner's consent;

151
because in those bad old days it was no offence to drive a motor vehicle away and to abandon it, not intending permanently to deprive the owner. Something had to be done about that, and the device was used of charging the person who drove the vehicle away with stealing the petrol. Everybody was very uncomfortable about that, because it was quite obvious that in many of the cases the thief, or the person who drove the car away, never thought about the stealing of any petrol. The position was so unsatisfactory that it was necessary to do something, and so the statutory offence of taking away without the owner's consent was introduced.
We have the same situation here. If we must have in this clause a specific intent to cause loss to another, then the position in many cases will be very uncomfortable. It will be quite obvious that the person who stole the electricity was not thinking in terms of depriving somebody else of money or money's worth, and it would be much better if we could leave those words out.
LORD CHORLEY: There is a good deal to be said for this Amendment, and I am very much impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said. These cases will be tried by juries, and it will be open to them to award serious punishment. If the argument is put to the jury that the man's intent was not to cause loss to the electricity company at all but just to benefit himself, it may not be too easy for the judge to remove that from the minds of the jury after a speech by a skilful advocate.
I have had cases of this kind at quarter sessions in which a person in very hard circumstances was cut off, and in which there was a good deal of sympathy on the part of the jury. The man, being a bit of a scientist, reconnected himself, and it took the jury very nearly two hours to find him guilty under the present law. I can quite imagine that if it is argued that the man's intent was not to cause loss to the electricity company, but just to see that his wife and family were not left freezing in the cold, it might then be difficult to get a conviction from the jury, although that was reasonable. I think, therefore, there is a good deal to be said for this Amendment, or for something on those lines.
LORD HURCOMB: May I ask the noble Lord when he replies to explain exactly what these words do? I used to have a good deal to do with the electricity supply industry, and I cannot quite imagine circumstances in which someone can use or divert for his own purposes electricity to which he is not entitled, without causing loss in some way or other to someone. Of course, he will come along and say, "I only diverted a small amount. The electricity generating authority would not have been able to shut down a set, and in point of fact it has made no difference at all".
But why should anybody who has acted dishonestly have to be in the position of saying that he did not really do anyone much financial damage? It seems to me that, both from the practical point of view, as well as from the point of view of the arguments which have been so powerfully deployed, these words are at least superfluous if not harmful, and I hope the noble Lord will make it quite clear why the are in.
LORD STONHAM: It has been a most interesting debate. I wonder if I could deal first of all with the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, about the "999" calls—the false calls, the malicious calls, and so on. In the view of the Government it would be inappropriate in a Theft Bill to seek to deal with malicious, or indeed obscene, telephone calls; but in any event there is no need to do so because they are dealt with specifically by Section 66 of the Post Office Act 1953. Under that section it is a summary offence punishable by a fine not exceeding £50 or one month's imprisonment, or both, if any person:
"(a) sends any message by telephone which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;
(b) sends any message by telephone, or any telegram, which he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to any other person; or
(c) persistently makes telephone calls without reasonable cause and for any such purpose as aforesaid".
In addition, a person making a false "999" call to the police is likely to commit an offence under subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which came into force on January 1 of this year. Section 5(2) of that Act says:
"Where a person causes any wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making

153
to any person a false report tending to show that an offence has been committed, or to give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or tending to show that he has information material to any police inquiry, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months or to a fine of not more than £200 or to both".
I hope the noble Viscount will therefore accept that Clause 13 is not concerned with the dishonest use of the telephone, which is specifically dealt with by the new offence inserted in the Post Office Act 1953 by paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to this Bill.
May I now come to the other points which have been raised by noble Lords who have spoken? The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, asked me precisely what purpose is served by the words which it is proposed to leave out. My belief is that they do not do very much, and I prefer to deal with the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount, who has a general objection to the use of the words "intent to cause loss" or "a view to gain" as a test of criminality. The Criminal Law Revision Committee included in Clause 13 the words which it is proposed to delete because they, the Committee, thought them "in accordance with the scheme of the Bill" (they use these words in paragraph 85 of the Report), and the words have value as indicating the nature of the mischief at which the clause is aimed. On the other hand, the words are not in my view essential to the clause, in order to limit it, as are, in my view, the similar words in other clauses. It is difficult to think of any conduct which would be covered by the clause if the words were deleted which ought not to be criminal or ought not to be dealt with in a Theft Bill.
Accordingly, I would advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment and, of course, the second one, which is consequential on the first. If the two Amendments are made, I think the clause will read very well, and will be easily understood—namely,
"A person who dishonestly uses without due authority or causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years".
I hope your Lordships will agree to these Amendments.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to thank the noble Lord most sincerely for accepting this Amendment. I was not suggesting that these words limited the scope of the clause. What I was saying, and what I feel is the case, was that in practice it would be difficult in many cases to get the conviction which the facts of the case warranted if these words were retained. I think it is an improvement of the Bill to leave them out. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for accepting these Amendments.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: This Amendment is consequential on the last one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("electricity supplied by or to the other") and insert ("any electricity").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
5.56 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved to leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new clause:
Abstracting of electricity
"13. Any person who dishonestly causes electricity to be used, wasted or diverted, shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."
The noble Lord said: I think the only substantial point left to be discussed under this Amendment is whether the words "without due authority" are necessary as well as the word "dishonestly", because the clause in the Bill uses both. It says,
"dishonestly uses without due authority…electricity",
et cetera. I should have thought it that the objection to having the words "without due authority" in the clause was that it would allow a person to escape from conviction under this clause if he took the electricity in circumstances amounting to what up to now has been known as obtaining by false pretences.
Perhaps I could best explain this by giving an example. Suppose some public-spirited woodworking company said that on Thursday evenings members of the local Sea Scouts could use their carpenters' shop and the electric machinery in it for boat-building, and one Thursday evening a dishonest youth

155
came along and said, untruthfully, "I am one of the Sea Scouts; may I use the workshop?". And suppose the foreman in charge of the workshop says, "if you are one of the Sea Scouts, that is the arrangement, and you can". In those circumstances, that young man gets due authority to use the workshop, and he may use the electric-powered machinery. But for the words "without due authority" having to be satisfied in this clause, that young man would be caught as having committed an offence under this clause, and one would suppose that that was right and that that was what was intended. But if the words "without due authority" are kept in, then that young man is going to escape, because the foreman will have given him due authority, notwithstanding that he was not entitled to it, he not being a Sea Scout. He will have been given due authority, and he will escape conviction under this clause.
I do not think that can be intended; and that, I think, is the only point left that needs to be discussed under my proposed new clause in place of Clause 13. But that is the point and I hope it is a good one. As the Government are at present in the mood to accept Amendments, I hope that this one will prove acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD STONHAM: It is not a question of mood: I am always in the mood. It is a question of argument; and the clause as amended, after accepting the two Amendments moved by the noble and learned Viscount, appealed to the Government as making for the right words. I wonder whether I could just slowly read them again to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The clause as it is now amended reads:
"A person who dishonestly uses, without due authority, or causes to be wasted or diverted any electricity shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, wants it to read:
"Any person who dishonestly causes electricity to be used, wasted or diverted…"
But the amended clause of the noble and learned Viscount Dilhorne now employs
156
the words, "A person who dishonestly uses electricity himself"; and Lord Airedale's draft applies only to "any person who dishonestly causes electricity to be used wasted or diverted". The noble Lord thinks his words are wide enough to cover the person who dishonestly uses the electricity himself; but I think it desirable that the clause should be clear on this particular point.
The Amendment has only just been accepted and it does not give me much chance to think about it. I may be doing an injustice to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, by not having understood entirely what he said. Without any discourtesy either to the noble Lord or to the noble and learned Viscount, I think this Amendment ought to be withdrawn and then, if we feel after consideration that there is anything in it, I can communicate with both the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Lord and let them know.
LORD SOMERS: If you use electricity, you surely cause it to be used.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, I know; but it is not as clear, in my lay submission, as the words now used in the clause as amended. I hope that what I have put to the noble Lord is fair. I am not necessarily saying that he is wrong. I simply think the clause as now worded is better and achieves the purpose better. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment I will look at it and if I find there is anything in it (or even if I do not) I will write and let him know. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount wishes to make any observation.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think myself there is a distinction between the word "uses" and the words "causes to use", because "causes to use" implies that you have employed somebody else to use. At least it is open to that argument. I am doubtful whether what I and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, want to achieve would really be achieved by the use of those three words instead of the one word "uses".
LORD AIREDALE: I am obliged to the noble Lord. In view of his undertaking I will certainly withdraw my Amendment now. I think I made it clear

157
that the substantial point simply is that a fraudulent person can, by some fraudulent dodge, persuade another to give him authority in certain circumstances to use electricity; and if he does so and actually obtains due authority, he escapes from being caught under this clause. That would seem to be wrong. There is no need for the words "without due authority" because we have already got the word "dishonestly", and that should suffice. That is the point. I will certainly withdraw the Amendment now and perhaps return to it later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Criminal deception]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1), to leave out "permanently". The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really consequential on the Amendment which was moved to Clause 1. As we are proceeding on the basis—which I hope will prove utterly wrong—that that will be cancelled out, I shall not move this Amendment, which is consequential to what is in the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "to obtain or to retain" to the end of the subsection. The noble and learned Viscount said: This is consequential upon Clause 6. Whether Clause 6 stays in the Bill is a matter of some doubt at the present moment, but this Amendment is consequential upon Clause 6 going out. As Clause 6 remains in, I do not think there is any need for me to move this Amendment.
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment raises a question of some importance and some substance. If the Committee would allow it—I know I have been talking a great deal—I should like to say a little about this subsection. We have now got away from the part of the Bill which is under the heading of "Theft…" and we are coming to the part of it which has the heading "Fraud and blackmail". This
158
Amendment is to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 15. The clause is really a very curious one, because it creates no fewer than three different criminal offences, each one of which is put under the heading of Criminal deception.
First of all, in Clause 15(1), the offence of criminal deception is defined as follows:
"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it, shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."
Then, in subsection (3), you get another offence of criminal deception and it is worded very differently. It reads as follows:
"A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another, by any deception induces a person to do or refrain from doing any act shall on conviction or indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
Two offences are given the same label with different ingredients contained in this clause. But it yet contains in subsection (2) a very distinct offence. It reads:
"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains credit or further credit for himself or another (whether for performance of an obligation which is legally enforceable or of one which is not) shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."
That is a very wide provision. It means that if anyone deceives his bank manager and so dishonestly obtains an extension of his overdraft he will be committing a criminal offence. However that may be, it seems to me wrong that in a Bill of this character these three offences should be all dealt with at the same clause. They ought to be in separate clauses. But the point of substance on which I wish to address the Committee is this: whether it is right to have two distinct, but in many respects similar, offences of criminal deception. One has to compare subsection (3) with subsection (1). Subsection (1), as I have indicated, covers any dishonest obtaining by deception of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. To constitute an offence under that subsection, it has not to be proved—and I ask the Committee to note this—that the obtaining was with a view to gain for himself. There is no

159
requirement to prove that motive. All you have to prove is "dishonestly…with the intention of permanently depriving the other" and obtaining by deception.
When you come to subsection (3), which contains the other criminal deception offence, one sees that to constitute an offence under that subsection does not require any proof of intent permanently to deprive. I must say that it strikes me as very curious that the Committee—and these are recommendations of the Committee—should have recommended in the same clause the creation of two offences both called "criminal deception"; one which requires proof of an intent permanently to deprive but no proof of the motive—no proof that it was done with a view to gain—and the other which requires proof with a view to gain but no proof that it was done with an intent permanently to deprive. I find it quite illogical and I cannot see the basis for it.
Subsection (3) is very wide. There is one further difference between this subsection and subsection (1) which deals with the obtaining of property dishonestly by deception. Subsection (3) deals with the inducing of a person to do or refrain from doing an act by deception. It seems to me that it would be quite possible to incorporate in one subsection a provision that a person who by any deception dishonestly obtained property belonging to another, with an intent permanently to deprive the other of it, or induced a person to do or to refrain from doing any act, would commit an offence. You could run the two together, if the two offences had the same ingredients, but here they do not have the same ingredients.
In paragraph 99 of their Report the Committee put forward the objections which they saw to what is now Clause 15(3). The paragraph states:
"The objections put forward to Clause 12(3)"—
that is now Clause 15(3)—
"were these.

(i) The terms of Clause 12(3) are extremely general, whereas it is a principle of English law to give reasonably precise guidance as to what kinds of conduct are criminal. The expression 'dishonestly', 'gain' and 'deception' are not precise enough for so general a provision as Clause 12(3).

(ii) The offence itself would be a preparatory one…

160

(iii) The offence would cover many minor cases of deception of various descriptions which public opinion has not regarded, and would scarcely now regard, as requiring the application of the criminal law to them—for example, offences by traders, advertisers, applicants for employment and persons soliciting the temporary use of an article or some service. The offence would also cover deceptions of a kind which, though criminal under the existing law, are only punishable with minor penalties on summary conviction—for example, using an out-of-date season ticket…"

Then it goes on:
"No such general extension of the criminal sanctions against deception is called for. Serious cases are adequately covered by the other provisions of the Bill together with other general offences such as forgery or perjury, less serious cases by special provisions dealing with and adapted to a wide variety of subjects."
They say that overlapping is another objection:
"There would be overlapping between the offence under Clause 12(3)"—
which is now Clause 15(3)—
"and other offences under the Bill, including the complete overlapping (save for the penalties) with the other two offences under Clause 12 itself."
I find that very difficult to follow, as the the ingredients of the other two offences under Clause 15 differ from the ingredients under Clause 15(3).
Finally, the Committee state this objection, and I ask your Lordships to note these words:
"It is illogical that, while appropriating property generally without an intention permanently to deprive the owner is not made theft or any other offence…and obtaining property by deception without such an intention is not made an offence under Clause 15(1)"—
as it now is—
"deception in order to obtain the loan of a thing will be an offence under Clause 15(3)."
So under this particular provision, despite all the argument we have had against making dishonest borrowing an offence, here it is made an offence, and recognised by the Committee to be made an offence, where the borrowing is dishonest because it has been induced by deception.
Those are the objections the Committee stated to subsection (3). In paragraph 100 of their Report they go on to deal with their conclusions. I do not propose to read the whole of that very long paragraph, but I should like to remind the Committee of what they said in answer

161
to the objection they had made themselves when they said it is illogical that while appropriating property generally without an intention permanently to deprive the owner is not made an offence, deception in order to obtain the loan of a thing will be an offence under this provision. This is what they said:
"It is recognised that it may seem curious that deception in order to obtain the loan of a thing should be an offence under Clause 12(3)"—
which is now 15(3)—
"when temporary appropriation generally is not an offence. But it is not necessarily an objection to a Bill that it omits to provide for some kinds of conduct comparable with others for which it does provide. Moreover there are, as mentioned in paragraph 56, objections to making temporary appropriation criminal and the offence under Clause 12(3) does at least require that the loan should have been obtained or sought by deception and with a view to gain.
One member of the Committee remains unable to accept the view that the arguments in this paragraph are sufficient to outweigh the objections to Clause 12(3) set out in paragraph 99."
Apart from those references I do not find anything in this part of the Report which explains why again the words "with a view to gain" are inserted—again, the requirement to prove motive; and I would remind the Committee that "a view to gain" means a view to getting money or money's worth. Contrast that with Section 15(1) which is the more serious offence of the two. If you are convicted under subsection (1), you are liable to a maximum of ten years' imprisonment. Under subsection (3) you are liable to a maximum of two years. But for the more serious offence no proof of motive is required at all.
As I have said before, and I fear as I shall say again, it seems to me that it is wrong in principle to require proof of motive, and it is not at all clear from the Committee's Report why they require that in Clause 15(3). If your Lordships would look at Paragraph 96 on page 45 of the Report, you will see that the Committee seek to give examples of cases which they say would be covered by Clause 15(3). They say:
"Examples of the cases which will be covered,—
and then, in italics—
"provided that there is dishonesty, are given below."
162
There is no suggestion there of the further qualification that provided it was with a view to gain for himself. The only condition is "provided that there is dishonesty". The first example given is:
"Inducing a person to release the offender from payment of a debt or to give him a rebate or allowance".
Here they say that the offender will not obtain property, so he will not gain money from the operation. I can only see its being regarded as money's, worth if the release from payment of a debt is treated as money's worth. I am not sure whether money's worth would be so interpreted, and if it is not, this example which they say would be Covered by subsection (3), provided there is dishonesty, would not be covered as the clause now stands.
They give as example No. 2:
"Obtaining employment or some other contract or opportunity to get money or money's worth."
And No. 3 is:
"Various minor cases such as obtaining the loan of an article or obtaining a service, without property, where no question of credit arises."
Does that amount to doing something with a view to gain for oneself of money or money's worth? I should have thought not and I should think that the examples the Committee gave of cases they would like to see covered in subsection (3) show that they did not think that it was a necessary ingredient then to include the words "with a view to gain for himself" in the provision. They put them in later, it is true, but I fail to find any reasoning for their doing so.
There is one other matter with which I should like to deal. On the same page, it says:
"The purpose of creating the offence is to provide for relatively minor cases not falling within the main offence of obtaining property by deception under Clause 12(1), within obtaining credit by deception under Clause 12(2) or within procuring by deception the execution of a valuable security under Clause 15(2)…".
Here the Committee are saying that one of the purposes of this provision is to deal with relatively minor matters not falling within Clause 15(2). On the previous page, at the end of paragraph 95, dealing with this subsection (2), they say:
"The offence is in fact covered by the general offence of deception "—

163
under Clause 15(3)—
"…except that the maximum penalty for the latter offence will be only two years' imprisonment."
Now, which is it? In paragraph 95 they say that Clause 15(3) covers Clause 15(2) and in paragraph 96 they say that it does not. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be able to tell us which view of the Committee is the right one. But if it does cover Clause 15(2), then either one or the other is unnecessary.
The point I want to finish on, in moving this Amendment, is that it seems to me especially wrong that the ingredients for the criminal offence of criminal deception should differ, as they clearly do, in subsection (1) and subsection (3) of this clause. It may be that if we want criminal deception to extend beyond the dishonest obtaining of property to inducing a person to do or to refrain from doing any action, we should put further words in subsection (1), but let us have one subsection dealing with the matter not two. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will seek to attach importance to the fact that there is a difference in maximum penalties. We sometimes worry too much about what maximum penalty is prescribed, because I do not think that the courts look at that so very much. In a case of criminal deception the punishment would be determined according to the nature of the case and not according to the maximum punishment fixed by Parliament for the worst case of its kind. So I think there would be no objection to amending subsection (1) to bring in "inducing a person to do or to refrain from doing an act"; but for the same offence of criminal deception we cannot have two different criteria. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
6.27 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has delivered a devastating criticism of Clause 15(3), but I venture to add a few words because in conversation about this Bill in a number of quarters I found no provision which has given rise to so much anxiety as this. Everybody to whom I
164
ventured to speak about the Bill has said that this is a provision which is much too wide, much too dangerous and which must come out, if the Bill is to be a good Bill.
My noble and learned friend has directed attention to the paragraph in the Committee's Report about this matter and perhaps it is worth adding to what he said that subsection (3) represents, as the Committee itself makes plain, a compromise between two different approaches, each of which was evidently favoured by some members of the Committee. So we are not here in the presence of a unanimous Committee recommendation but in the presence of a compromise and, it seems apparent, an unsatisfactory compromise.
The two points of view are set out in paragraph 97 of the Report. One view was to have a perfectly general offence of criminal deception, on the lines of subsection (3). Obviously there are merits in that. There would be one generality and clearly that appealed to some members of the Committee. On the other side was the alternative, which we find at the top of page 46, to create certain specific offences, on the lines of Clause 15(1), which deals with the classic obtaining of property by false pretences, and of subsection (2), which deals with credit and certain other matters about valuable securities in other parts of the Bill. That is what one might call the particularised approach, which was favoured by certain members. We have here both the particular offence and the general offence, which, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, overlap, while at the same time introducing inconsistent ingredients into the specific offence in the last clause. It seems that this cannot be the best possible solution.
What has gone wrong in this clause? I venture to suggest that it is not difficult to see what has gone wrong and what requires to be put right. One sees this from paragraph 96, which sets out what subsection (3) is aimed at producing. The simplest point which the paragraph makes is that there is nothing in Clause 15(1) and (2) or anywhere in the Bill which deals with services. The whole of the Bill is concentrated on property. We have property defined, as we know, in

165
Clause 4 as "money and all other property". But it does not include services—although the American comparable law does include services as something valuable, which, in their conception, can be stolen. On the conception of this Bill services are distinguished sharply from property, and that is why we get into this difficulty in Clause 15. Clause 15(1) deals with dishonestly obtaining property, and Clause 15(2) with dishonestly obtaining credit.
The Committee propose to deal with that problem in this way. They evidently contemplate that most services of any importance will be covered by subsection (2), because you will be asking for credit; and then they say: "Oh well, only minor services require to be covered, and that can be dealt with in subsection (3)—services where you do not ask for credit" Surely, that is a completely false approach. Services may be of the greatest possible value in the modern world: repairs to machinery—one can think of any number of things. To say that if you obtain services by deception you are thereby normally seeking credit is surely the wrong approach. That is the exceptional case, not the normal case. What one requires to do is to deal directly with cases of services, and not to divide them between a rare case where services are given against credit, which they say is covered by subsection (2), and then have to have the residual subsection (3) to deal with so-called minor cases, but which I suggest are major cases, where credit is not obtained.
The solution—and I think it corresponds closely to what the noble and learned Viscount was suggesting—is to expand subsection (1), and possibly also subsection (2), so as to deal with these matters which the Committee, or the minority of the Committee, think require to be covered by subsection (3). Services are the most important ingredient. There is also the case of a debt or rebate. This is very much in the credit sort of field, and one would think that there would be no difficulty in adjusting one or other of the subsections to deal with it. Omitting the picturesque case of obtaining a low handicap in a horse-race by a false pretence—an example which I must say appeals to me, though it is one which I think we ought not to be too careful about legislating against—that leaves
166
out the case of loans, which, as the noble and learned Viscount pointed out, is covered by subsection (3)—quite illogically, from what has been said as regards loans in the rest of the Bill.
There is the other point about subsection (3), which again emerged from the noble and learned Viscount's; argument. You are put in this dilemma: that either you have to retain these words,
"with a view to gain for himself or another",
which introduces all the objections which the Committee have already heard and accepted against legislating subjectively, or you have to take out those words, in which case the clause really has no content at all, because then it would relate simply to a person who dishonestly by any deception induces a person to do or refrain from doing any act—any act in the world, irrespective of whether it produces any benefit to the person deceiving or anybody else: a clause which surely could not have been acceptable to any members of the Committee who put this forward.
So, with great earnestness, I respectfully invite the members of the Committee to support the noble and learned Viscount to remove subsection (3). And I invite the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to deal with any cases which in the opinion of the Committee require to be covered by this clause by an expansion of the preceding subsection.
LORD CHORLEY: I find myself in full agreement with what has been said by the two noble and learned Lords who have just addressed the Committee. I am a great supporter of this Bill as a whole, but if there is one part of it that I think is unsatisfactory, it is Clause 15. As the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down said, it has given rise to more criticism, certainly among academic lawyers, than any other part of the Bill. What the noble and learned Lord said about services is very true. In modern times services are more and more important; and there have been some cases which have come to my knowledge in which prosecutions have not been possible because under the present law obtaining services by false pretences is not a crime. Except in a narrow number of cases, this Bill does not make, it a crime, and that obviously is a serious defect—a defect which has, as the noble

167
and learned Lord pointed out, been put right in the United States and also, I believe, in some Commonwealth countries.
The noble and learned Lord pointed out that Clause 1 re-establishes, in a way, the familiar offence of obtaining by false pretences, using the term "deception" instead of "false pretence". But one of the difficulties that has arisen repeatedly in dealing with cases of obtaining by false pretences is that the pretence must relate to some matter in the present or in the past, and a future false pretence does not bring the man within the criminal law. It looks to me as if this defect will remain exactly as it is, and, so far as I can see, this Bill will not clarify the law at all. I may be wrong about that, and I await the Minister's advice on the subject. I do not want to say more about that, but it does not seem to me that the new proposal is much of an improvement.
But it is really subsection (3) that is very serious indeed. It is arguable that subsection (3) makes the ordinary case of obtaining a contract by fraud a criminal offence. It is not phrased exactly on those lines, but it is arguable that this is so. That is a view which a number of my colleagues have taken of it. If, every time a contract is induced by fraud, there is to be the possibility of an indictment, this will be a very serious matter. It is going to involve many people who feel that they have been cheated. Cheating is going on all the time, but at the moment you can bring an action, if it is a small case, in the county court or, if it is a serious case, in the High Court, for the tort of fraud, and on the whole I think experience shows that that is the best way of dealing with it. But if everybody who is in this state is to be allowed to bring a prosecution, it will lead to a very serious state of affairs, and one which I am sure would not appeal either to the sensible lawyer or to the sensible layman. I hope that, by one means or another, the Government will succeed in finding some method by which the ordinary tort of fraud in connection with a contract or obtaining something else is not made a criminal offence indictable before a jury.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The point that we are immediately considering, I
168
believe, is subsection (3) of this clause. I listened with some interest to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, when he quoted from the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The Committee set out four or five possible offences which might fall within this subsection, but according to the noble and learned Viscount, he did not think—and I do not think the Committee really thought—that those offences were appropriate for being dealt with in the manner suggested in subsection (3). I know in my own experience of an incident for which subsection (3) was precisely and exactly tailored. This happened forty years ago, when I was a young sub-editor with one of our national Sunday papers.
It was a quarter to twelve on a Saturday night; we had just put one edition to bed, and another was due in a quarter of an hour. I was sitting drinking the proverbial tea with the editor when in came a message: "There's a man outside with a fine story". The editor said: "Charles, go and see what it is". I went and saw the man. He was an Irishman wearing tattered clothes, and he produced a letter from his parish priest in Ireland saying that his poor old aunt had died and left him £50,000. So I immediately sat down at the typewriter and created a wonderful romantic story of this poor, unemployed man roaming half-starved about London suddenly becoming possessed of a fortune of £50,000.
I showed it to the editor. He said, "That's fine". I said, "Don't you think we ought to ring up the priest?". He said, "No; we haven't time". So it went on the front page in the next edition. Less than three-quarters of an hour later we had the police telephoning us from Piccadilly Circus saying that this man had been showing a cutting from that morning's paper saying that he had come into £50,000, and had already managed to borrow two lots of £10 from unsuspecting people. It seems to me that that person is described in subsection (3). He dishonestly deceived me by inducing me to do something; to wit, write that story. It seems to me that this particular subsection is precisely tailored for that type of offence. It may be suggested that the man could be caught under subsection (1), but I should say—not necessarily in this case of mine but in some similar

169
Cases—the evidence might not be sufficient for a conviction under subsection (1). Subsection (3), I suggest, would be a very valuable safety valve, which would certainly catch the man I have referred to.
LORD HENDERSON: He certainly caught you all right.
6.42 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: Not for the first time, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Leatherland for a valuable contribution. It had a great deal more sense than many I have listened to. This illustrates in a very marked way the difficulty in which we continually find ourselves in this Committee. I know that noble Lords do not like references to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and I have made very few—fewer than almost anyone else. But in this debate the noble and learned Viscount read out, quite fairly and at some length—and it was necessary to do so—what the Committee said, their views and their deliberations and the conclusion they finally came to. I thought I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, refer to a minority of the Committee. So far as the advice they gave on which this clause is based is concerned, whatever the differences of view—whether there was one dissentient or a minority larger than one—what we are considering now is their majority view. They considered it for a long time and went into it very carefully. Therefore I refuse to believe that the majority advice that they gave was not of very great value.
The other difficulty we are in is this. It is perfectly proper and right to say that it is the duty of your Lordships to consider what is put before us and to criticise it. But, excepting the contributions which have been made to this particular debate, it often happens that contributions are made which obviously reveal that those who have made them either do not understand the particular Amendment or certainly do not understand its place in the scheme of things. But eventually, unless we decide not to divide, we have a large number of Peers come in and vote, and only a minority can have the least idea of what it is about. We are then making a decision on something which a number of extremely eminent lawyers have spent—not
170
only on this particular part, but collectively—a good many years. This leaves me in a position of particular difficulty, because, thinking as I do that we are putting sound proposals before you, and soundly backed proposals, it is very difficult nevertheless to answer these long arguments on points of detail in a way which is acceptable to your Lordships. Therefore, I can only put the point of view that I have.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, suggested that subsection (3) and subsection (1) of Clause 15 could run together if they contained the same ingredient. But that is against the great objection that has been made. The whole point of having the separate offences in subsection (1) and subsection (3) is that they cater for different circumstances, circumstances which cannot be met by offences with the same ingredient. Therefore we must have two different subsections. Subsection (1) is concerned with the obtaining of property subsection (3) is concerned with acts induced with a view to gain. The noble and learned Viscount suggested that there was inconsistency between paragraph 95 and paragraph 96 of the Committee's Report. Paragraph 95 says, in effect, that all offences under subsection (2) are covered by subsection (3). Paragraph 96 says that some offences are covered by subsection (3) which are not covered by subsection (2). I see no inconsistency in that at all. It is perfectly right. Therefore, I cannot accept those points as criticisms.
To my mind, the really irresistible argument in favour of subsection (3) is that it creates a general offence:
"A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain … by any deception induces a person to do or refrain from doing any act "
shall be liable to up to two years' imprisonment. I see nothing difficult about subsection (1) or subsection (2) both having a very much higher level of maximum penalty than subsection (3). This is a general offence which does not correspond to any existing offence, as I understand it, in any Statute. But it has, I think, a considerable value because it may be used in future in cases where we think there is wrongdoing which should be punished but which cannot be punished at present.
As I understood it, one of the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley,

171
was that there were some offences which in his view would escape subsection (3). If that is so, then they escape now, and this is something we will look at. It is an argument not for deleting the subsection but for enlarging it.
LORD CHORLEY: It was the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, about services, which I think is very good.
LORD STONHAM: But it is not an argument for taking out the subsection; it is an argument for looking at it and seeing whether the umbrella covers all we want it to cover. In saying that, I do not for a moment accept that it does not cover it. I should like to look at these things. But it seems to me that the provision that a person who
"dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another, by any deception induces a person to do or refrain from doing any act shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years"
is a pretty wide coverage. The noble and learned Viscount quoted examples—I do not want to repeat them—given by the Committee of the kind of offences which are not at present covered by a penalty but which will be covered in future. Therefore, we are doing something new, and this overall general offence will replace a number of offences of deception in existing Statutes. But the main object of creating the offence is to cover cases of dishonest deception which the Committee considered ought to be made criminal and which are not, or may not be, covered by the present general law, or the main offences of obtaining property by deception under subsection (1) or obtaining credit by deception under subsection (2).
Several valuable speeches and suggestions have been made, but in the main they are not arguments for removing this subsection: they are arguments for reconsidering it and for enlarging it. We shall be glad to look at that possibility, but the particular Amendment that we are considering at the moment is whether or not the subsection should stay in the Bill. I think it should—or an enlarged or amended one should—because otherwise, if we take out the subsection, this quite important purpose of roping in offences which will then be subject to
172
Penalties—acts which are not at present subject to penalties—will be defeated. Therefore, while repeating that I shall look at everything that has been said with a view to amending this subsection, and probably enlarging it—which seems to be the general view—I think it ought to remain in the Bill at the present stage.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to put one question to the Minister. Is it his view that in subsection (3) the words, "to do … any act" include the entering into any contract from which advantage is expected? This is almost the precise point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. And if it does include entering into any contract, is it the view of the Government that that is the intention? That would be a most important thing, and none of the examples given in the Report of the Committee seems to indicate that they intended to go quite so wide.
LORD STONHAM: I presume that the noble Lord includes in his definition the supposition that the act is dishonestly done?
LORD CONESFORD: Yes, certainly.
LORD STONHAM: I am advised that the answer is yes, that "doing an act" includes entering into a contract.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I find it surprising that the noble Lord should think the criticism of this Committee is that this particular provision is too narrow. Up to now we have drawn a distinction between different forms of fraud. There is fraud which is subject to the Common Law, and for which one can get damages, and there is fraud which it has been thought right to make subject to criminal sanctions. The reason why I regard this particular Amendment as being so important is not only that there is no corresponding provision in any Statute that I know of—that is nothing against it—but because, so far as I can see, this subsection makes any form of fraud criminal. Of course fraud involves dishonesty; it would not be fraud unless there was dishonesty. And when the noble Lord says that he will consider enlarging the scope of this subsection I reply that I do not see how he can make it any wider than it is. It is because it is so wide and so general that I think it is wrong.

173
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley put the case very powerfully when he said that anyone who gets a contract signed by fraud will commit a criminal offence; anyone who gets another person to do anything by deception—and deception involves dishonesty—will commit a criminal offence. That is a tremendous enlargement of our criminal law. I quite recognise, as my noble and learned friend has said, and as I sought to indicate, that we want to cover a slightly wider field than the obtaining of property by dishonest deception; and one could include services in subsection (1). But to retain this subsection, which is of such a general character and really abolishes the distinction between fraud which is criminal and
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall be agreed to?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I wonder if I might raise one point before we proceed. I wonder if we could have a little clarification as to the programme of business this evening. I had understood last night that there was some intention of having dinner and continuing after dinner. That, I understand, is not now contemplated.
fraud which is not, is, I believe, going too far. If any change is required in subsection (1) I should like to leave it to the Government to provide the drafting of it. But I feel strongly about subsection (3); I think it ought to be out of the Bill. Therefore, if my noble friends, and those who have heard this argument, will support me, I shall seek to excise it, leaving it to the Government to draft any words they like to bring services back into subsection (1).
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Monson, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrier, L.

Moyle, L.

Audley, Bs.

Foot, L.

Oakshott, L.

Barrington, V.

Gray, L.

Rea, L.

Boston, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Remnant, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hacking, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chorley, L.

Hawke, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Henley, L.

Somers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmany, L.

Thurlow, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mills, V. [Teller.]

Wilberforce, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rowley, L.

Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Royle, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

St. Davids, V.

Burden, L.

McLeavy, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Shepherd, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Stonham, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peddie, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Greenway, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Henderson, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Heycock, L.

Popplewell, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Raglan, L.

Perhaps the Chief Whip could give us an indication of what is going to happen.
LORD BESWICK: I am very sorry that there was some misunderstanding about dinner. On reflection, we hoped that we would save an hour by not having a dinner break, especially as I understood that certain members taking part in this discussion wanted to get away by 8 o'clock. What we are now hoping is that we might make progress to Clause 20. At an earlier part of the evening

175
it was suggested that we might reach Clause 20. We have been delayed a little more recently, but perhaps we could see how things go for the next half hour and then come to a decision.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Following on what the noble Lord has said, may I say that I doubt (although I do not think any of us have been trying to hold up proceedings) whether we could get to Clause 20 without going to a late hour and thus exhausting me—not that that matters—and exhausting the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. We have been here since a quarter past three, and he has carried the heaviest burden of the lot. I would suggest that we try to get on as quickly as we can and try to rise somewhere just after half past seven.
LORD BESWICK: Perhaps we could get another few minutes after half past seven, probably to about eight o'clock. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will be here very shortly. I accept what has been said about the exhausting character of the discussion, and particularly what was said about my noble friend Lord Stonham. He will be reinforced in a few minutes' time. Perhaps we can see what progress we make within the next half hour or three quarters of an hour, and I am sure that we can come to a reasonable arrangement.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I hope so. I am not getting any reinforcements; the reinforcement I had has deserted me. May I ask the Deputy Chairman of Committee whether he has put the Question, That the clause stand part, because I think there are one or two points to be raised on this Motion.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think the Question was put, and I should like to raise one point about it.
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I am not sure what Motion we are on. The noble and learned Viscount had an Amendment down, No. 34A. I did not think it had been called, and I wondered whether we could get that out of the way.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think No. 34A just falls, because it is part of subsection (3); and I think that No. 35 falls, too. I thought we were on the Question, That the clause stand part.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My advice to the Committee is that Amendments Nos. 34A and 35 both fall, and I have put the Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part.
7.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is what I thought, and I am glad to have it clarified. What I am hoping very much the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with his great patience and courtesy, will do before Report stage is to consider very carefully, as he promised, what has been said about the contents of Clause 15(3). I know that it has now been struck out, but there may well be parts of the offence which it contained that ought still to be in the Bill somewhere or other—perhaps in Clause 15(1) or 15(2) or in a new form of 15(3) altogether.
Perhaps he will also be so good as to look for one moment at paragraph 99(iii) of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Report. He will see that they are dealing with the objections put forward to Clause 15(3) as it was drafted when it was in the Bill. Then they say—and I do not think this is just an objection; this is what everybody agrees would be the effect of this subsection if it were in the Bill—it would cover many minor cases of deception and so on. For example, it would cover:
"using an out-of-date season ticket or committing the offence recently created by s. 13(b) of the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965 … of fraudulently claiming or taking exemption from tolls."
Let us suppose for a moment that the Government are reconsidering the whole of the contents in relation to the more general form of criminal deception, with the idea perhaps of putting it back in some form or another. If that is what the Criminal Law Revision Committee thought was covered by their Clause 15(3), I do not agree with them.
This is only an example. But if one is intending to cover somebody who fraudulently claims or takes exemption from tolls, that is not done with a view to making a gain for oneself or for anyone else; it is done with a view to causing loss to another. I do not know that that is right at all. I do not know whether these criteria of the financial gain and loss are the correct ones to put in

177
this Bill at all. But there is another inconsistency, as I see it, in the draft attached to the Criminal Law Revision Committee's own Report, in that they say that the offence covers certain matters when, so far as I am aware, it just does not.
It seems to me that this is something which really ought to be considered. Of course, it would mean widening the offence still further. That may be objectionable. But if the Criminal Law Revision Committee thought that it ought to cover this sort of thing, and yet they draft a clause which does not do so, we have here a conundrum which must at some stage be cleared up. Perhaps that type of consideration could be brought into account when the noble Lord is reconsidering this matter, because I feel quite certain that we shall not have heard the last of this. I hope that we have not heard the last of it, and that we shall have positive propositions put forward by the Government now, with the assistance of all the drafting skill that they have at their command, so that we can try to pinpoint exactly what sort of action, dishonesty, should be covered by this type of offence and how it should be properly put into the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will consider the point that I have made.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: There is one point that I should like to raise, in view of what my noble friend has said. He has read from a passage at page 47 of the Committee's Report. I think he was wrong in saying that the Committee wanted subsection (3) of this clause to cover the kind of offences to which he referred. But they said that it did cover them, and they went on to say in that particular passage:
"No such general extension of the criminal sanctions against deception is called for."
One of my objections is that it has been too wide and covers things where an extension of the criminal sanctions to those particular things is not called for.
May I just say this to the noble Lord. He will appreciate, I am sure, from what I have said, that I am not against this offence of criminal deception applying in certain circumstances in relation to services. I think it may be difficult to draft, but I think we have now paved the way to enable the Government to put
178
forward a draft, starting with a clean sheet which I hope, when we have seen it, will be able to command general acceptance.
LORD WILBERFORCE: I do not want to prolong this discussion unduly, but I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord to paragraph 4, where one has the words "whether deliberate or reckless" in parenthesis. I do not want to start a debate at this stage on "recklessness"; but if the noble Lord looks at the Report of the Committee at page 49, paragraph 1, at the top of the page, leaves me with the impression that whereas the Committee recognises that there is a difference of judicial opinion in certain cases as to what "recklessness" means, they have not really resolved that in this paragraph. "Recklessness" is a rather dangerous word. It has a certain meaning in the civil law. As the Report makes clear, it is being used in the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, and a number of judges have expressed themselves in quite different terms as to what it means. I cannot find anything here which revolves the meaning of that word in an) one particular sense, and I would hope: that if this phrase is to stay in—it may be that when the clause is adjusted it can go—it ought to be made rather more clear than it is. I will not repeat what I have said about services, because I think the noble Lord knows what view I have on that point already.
LORD STONHAM: The position is perfectly clear, and the task before me is perfectly clear. How on earth I am ping to accomplish it I do not yet know. But certainly in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I will look particularly into this point, especially with regard to what the Committee actually intended. But I would point out—this is no carping point—that sub-paragraph (iii) at the top of page 47, which both Lord Dilhorne and Lord Colville of Culross quoted, were objections which were put forward, as they are perfectly well aware. When the noble and learned Viscount quoted the words,
"No such general extension of the criminal sanctions against deception is called for",
this was part of the objection which the Committee in fact discarded because they decided on having a clause in the Bill.

179
So I cannot accept that these are being quoted as an expression of view. I know they were not, and Lord Dilhorne did not quote them as an expression of view. But I wanted to make that point clear.
We shall look fairly at this matter and do the best we can. It may be that we shall be able to discuss our ideas before the Report stage in an informal way to see whether we can pool ideas.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
False Accounting
16.—(1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,—
(a) destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose; or
he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.
7.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another". The noble and learned Viscount said: To my mind this Amendment raises another most important question, and I am sorry that it has come on at this hour, because I think that a discussion on it is bound to take a considerable time. But perhaps we can break off if need be.
Your Lordships will remember that in Clause 13 we have the words "with intent to cause loss to another". Then in Clause 15(3), we again had requirement of the proof of motive, "with a view to gain for himself or another" Now, in Clause 16, which deals with false accounting, the two are married up and the clause begins with the words:
"Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, falsifies accounts …"
That again requires proof of motive, and I personally think that, quite apart from that fact, this is an undue limitation on this clause, bearing in mind that gain and loss here mean, in relation to Clause 33, monetary gain or money's worth, or the loss of money or the loss of money's worth. One finds many cases of falsifica-
180
tion of accounts, as they are still called, where the falsification is not to gain money, not to cause anyone else to lose money, but to cover up a defalcation that has occurred, it may be a considerable time before. With these words in, it does not seem to me that falsification of accounts would in those circumstances be covered, and I think that it ought to be covered.
In my view, this clause is too narrowly drawn to enable that to be covered. In many respects I think that this clause is a considerable improvement on the present law. But that I think is defective. I do not see any need to prove the motive for the dishonest act. Once it is established that the act was dishonest, that the destruction, the defacement, concealment and falsification of the accounts was dishonest, should not that suffice? Why go on to attach to that dishonesty a particular motive?
I am putting this as shortly as I can. The Committee said in paragraph 103 of their Report:
"We considered whether to limit the offences to falsification to the prejudice of an employer or to make them, as now, general so as to cover falsification to the prejudice of anyone."
I do not mind that formula, which one could easily apply, but then they go on to say:
"We decided in favour of the latter course, partly in order to deal with cases of dishonesty which would not otherwise be covered and partly in order to avoid argument whether falsification in a particular case was for the purpose of defrauding the employer or somebody else. In consequence of widening the offences the clause applies to using documents as well as to falsifying them; but as a corollary the offence under the clause is limited to documents required for accounting purposes instead of including documents of all kinds."
So far I find myself in complete agreement with what they have said: that it is not confined to falsification to the prejudice of an employer but is intended to be general so as to cover falsification to the prejudice of anyone. They then go on to say:
"The practical effect, however, will be little, if at all, different."
Then this is all they say about the inclusion of the requirement to prove motive:
"The offence is also brought into line with the scheme of the Bill generally by the requirement that it should be committed dishonestly

181
and with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss to another."
That is all that is said about the novel requirement of having to prove, in addition to dishonesty, the motive with which the dishonesty was committed. So, nothing more having been said than that and bearing in mind that no such motive has to be proved in relation to theft, I suggest that it is an undue narrowing of the clause. I should have been much happier if the draftsmen had stuck to the language of the Committee when they said "falsification to the prejudice of anyone". I believe that that is what one has to look at. One has to look at the consequences to the person who is deceived by the false accounting or concealment or destruction of documents. That should be the test, instead of looking at it the other way round and seeing what benefit the criminal sought to obtain for himself or someone else and then seeking to define that by saying that it must be a financial gain or a financial loss that he intends to cause. I think that there is something here which requires to be looked at. I should be much happier if these words were omitted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("dishonestly") to end of line 30.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I will do my best to be short on this matter, but this is an extremely complicated subject. If we have to adjourn discussion of this clause until to-morrow that will be a pity, but it may be inevitable. Clause 16 is said by the Committee to replace three provisions of the existing law, Sections 82 and 83 of the Larceny Act 1861 and the whole of the Falsification of Accounts Act 1875. But it does not replace the whole of Sections 82 and 83, because those two sections of the existing law are also dealt with, in part, in Clauses 18 and 19 of this Bill.
There are two main considerations which ought to be brought to the forefront of this discussion. First of all, in regard to the words which have been' quoted by my noble and learned friend
"The practical effect however will be little, if at all, different",
182
I would ask: Is that so, or is it not so? And if there is any difference, is it justified? The second consideration is whether the Bill correctly draws the new offence so as to cover all the things which ought to be covered, and whether, when the Committee say, in that bleak phrase, that the offence "is brought into line with the scheme of the Bill generally" this requirement of financial gain or financial loss is in accord with the scheme generally; and, if it is, whether it should be and whether it is the right scheme. I am sorry to approach the matter in this bold, flat way in respect to the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on this point, but I am perturbed about this and I will attempt to explain why.
Let me deal first with the Falsification of Accounts Act. It is, I think many of your Lordships will agree, a very difficult and unsatisfactory measure, but I do not think that the existing law confines the application of that Act to cases where the falsification is don, a view or an intent to financial gain or loss. I have looked with great care at the case of Drewett, in the Justice of the Peace Reports, volume 67, at page 37, to see what Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone, had to say about a case which came before the Court of Criminal Appeal, or whatever is equivalent in 1905. There was a question whether the chairman of quarter sessions had misdirected himself, and the Lord Chief Justice, who was dealing with the directions, quoted from the chairman:
"I directed the jury that even if they believed the story told by the prisoner, namely, that she had, unknown to her employers, introduced into the business of which she was the manageress private moneys of her own and in order to repay herself without their knowledge she had falsified the accounts, this would be no defence to the offence with which she was charged."
That was one of the directions, and there were a number of others. Later on the Chairman of Gloucestershire Quarter Sessions told the jury that
"if they were satisfied that the prisoner had falsified her accounts either in order to help herself out of financial difficulties"—
that would be gain for herself as long as the financial difficulty had not yet occurred but if it had already occurred then I think it would not be covered—
"or for the purpose of concealing from the directors the true condition of the company"—

183
that might or might not be covered by the question of financial gain or loss—
"or misleading the shareholders or the public as to its financial soundness"—
I should have thought that there could be no doubt that that is not covered by the expression "with intent to cause financial gain or loss"—
"it would be their duty to find her guilty".
That was the direction.
This particular case resulted in the conviction being quashed on the grounds that the whole question of fraud had been withdrawn from the jury, but I do not read the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice as going so far as to say that had the question been properly put to the jury in Drewett, then those types of intent which the prisoner might have had would have been outside the scope of the Falsification of Accounts Act. If they were not outside—and are not now outside—that Act, then the law is being changed when this Bill, in Clause 16, attempts to confine the intent which is relevant for the purposes of this offence to one of financial gain or loss.
One must then pass to the two sections of the Larceny Act 1861. Section 83 is the more important in this respect. The Falsification of Accounts Act applied to clerks and servants, whereas Section 83 applies to anyone who is a director, manager, public officer, or member of any body corporate or public company. In both of those cases the Bill expands the type of person who may fall within the offence under this clause. Nevertheless, Section 83 says that a director, or the other people mentioned, shall be guilty of the offence if with intent to defraud he destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, and so on. Then later on it says:
"…if he makes a false entry in any book of account."
That is the relevant part of the existing section for the purposes of this clause.
I think the important words in that section are, "with intent to defraud". The last thing I wish to do is to get involved at this stage of the evening in a discussion about the width of the proper application of the decision in the case of Welham, but it is very clear if one looks at Archbold on this subject. At paragraph 2043, when discussing offences,
184
including that under Section 83 of the Larceny Act 1861, the learned editor of that book takes the view that the Welham definition of "defraud" may well also be applicable to cases under Section 83 of that Act. The Welham definition of fraud was, of course, a definition for the purposes of the Forgery Act, but what it said, and said most clearly, was that for the purposes of that Act an intention to defraud was not solely confined to an intention to cause gain to oneself or to somebody else, or to cause loss to another. It had a much wider application.
There are other conflicting opinions in different branches of the criminal law about the meaning of "defraud". There was a recent case about using an Excise licence on a vehicle, where the word "defraud" was interpreted narrowly. On the other hand, an Opinion by Lord Tucker in your Lordships' House in 1957, when dealing with conspiracy to defraud, interpreted that expression widely enough to cover the case of somebody who, with the intention to defraud a Government Department, used some form of criminal action to stop that Government Department carrying out a duty which, had it known the true facts, it was bound to carry out to prevent, in this case, I think, the sale of metal behind the Iron Curtain. There are these various definitions of "defraud" for the purposes of various criminal offences.
One then comes to see whether or not the scheme of this Bill is consistent about the matter. I regret to tell your Lordships that I cannot see that it is, because I have already said that some of the contents of Section 83, and indeed of Section 82, of the Larceny Act 1861 are contained in Clause 18 of this Bill; others are contained in Clause 19. Of course, Clause 18 includes other things as well. It includes matters which come from Sections 27 to 30, I think, of the Larceny Act 1861, where the same phrase, "with intent to defraud" is found.
In Clause 18, there is no confinement of the intention to one relating only to pecuniary gain, financial gain and financial loss. Yet in Clause 15, despite the same origin, despite the same words in the original Larceny Act 1861, "with intent to defraud", here is this very confinement about which my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has spoken. Therefore, I cannot see that there is a

185
pattern in this Bill at all. In some cases the Committee seem to have taken the view that there should be this narrow definition; in others they have not.
Then one looks at the very wording which my noble and learned friend has quoted from paragraph 103,
"… so as to cover falsification to the prejudice of anyone."
That, if ever there was an instance, is the definition in Welham, or something very like it, and yet they have not carried it out; and they have not, I think, reproduced the existing law; or, at any rate, there may be some question whether they have. It is perfectly true that the clause goes beyond the directors and the managers of the company, and the servants and the agents, under the 1875 Act. But when one is taking account of what ought to be the new offence of falsification of accounts, one collects together all the old references and gets rid of them. One sees whether they should apply generally—and the Criminal Law Revision Committee say that they should—and then one takes into account what should be the breadth of the offence.
There is certainly an argument, if one finds that the Bill as a whole has a pattern, for sticking to the pattern. But if one finds that it has not, when the same intent to defraud is the origin of this clause and of Clause 18, and there is no consistency; when one finds the Criminal Law Revision Committee saying that what they intended to cover was falsification to the prejudice of anyone; and when one adds in the doubts whether the existing law as it now stands is covered adequately by this present clause, and one thinks whether or not one would wish the sort of example which my noble and learned friend gave, of the person who covers up a previous defalcation by subsequently falsifying the accounts (and he, as I understand it would not now be caught) then one is in grave doubt as to whether this test in this clause is right.
I should be very glad to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explain a little more closely than has been done in the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Report, how this confinement of the intent can be justified either by relation to the existing law or by relation to what the law ought to be, because I
186
do not believe that in either context it is right at the present moment.
LORD PARKER of WADDINGTON: I am afraid that I came in rather late to the argument that is going on new, but one thing, I think, is clear; that this Bill is really a lawyers' paradise, and in the time I have been here I have never heard so many learned opinions. But at the end of the day I am thinking—and I am willing to be corrected—that this is not a Fraud Bill but it is a Theft Bill, and it seems to me that that is the pattern which the Criminal Law Revision Committee have set themselves. That is why they have talked about depriving of property and the kindred offence of doing something for gain or to cause loss. I can quite understand the argument that there are cases here which are not covered, but I venture to think it is because this is not a Fraud Bill but a Theft Bill.
7.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I approach this matter with even more humility than the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I have not, of course, had the advantage of hearing the discussion on the previous Amendments, because of the continuance of the all-Party Conference on House of Lords Reform which has precluded me from being here. Nor have I the advantage of being familiar with Drewett's case, though I shall have an opportunity before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very sorry: I did give notice of that matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not the noble Viscount's fault. But I had not anticipated that I should be dealing with this Amendment myself: I thought that it would be my noble friend Lord Stonham. But, as I understand it, this clause is intended to replace Sections 82 and 83 of the Larceny Act 1861 and also the Falsification of Accounts Act 1875. Sections 82 and 83 respectively create offences of "keeping fraudulent accounts" and "wilfully destroying books" and so on, which may be committed by "a director, public officer or manager of any body corporate or public company" and which require an "intent to defraud". The 1875 Act creates an offence of

187
falsifying accounts which can be committed only by a "clerk, officer or servant" and which again requires an "intent to defraud".
The clause goes wider than the provisions which it replaces, since it deals with false accounting by any person and is not confined, as the previous offences were in essence (although their drafting may permit a wider construction), to acts done to defraud a body corporate or other employer of the offender. Now it is said, as I understand it, that Clause 16 undesirably narrows the existing law because of the meaning given in Welham's case to the words "intent to defraud". I am in this difficulty about Welham's case, that I think it was the noble Viscount who nominated me for appearing for the appellant, or something of that kind, and so I suppose although we take the same view I ought not to say whether we think that your Lordships' House were right in deciding Welham's case as they did.
There a sales manager had witnessed forged hire-purchase agreements upon which finance companies had advanced money to his company, and when charged with forgery had put forward the defence that he had not intended to defraud anyone but had believed that the forged agreements were being used to make it appear to the authorities that the finance companies were not evading certain credit restrictions. The House held that in intending to induce the authorities to do something that they would not have done but for his deceit the sales manager had an intent to defraud the authorities. There are, of course, critics of the present Bill who have argued from this case that, although the Criminal Law Revision Committee intended the words "with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another" in Clause 16 to replace and be equivalent to the words "with intent to defraud" in the enactments which Clause 16 replaces, the clause is narrower than the previous enactments, which would cover, for example, a falsification of accounts to cover up a previous defalcation or to avoid or mislead a Board of Trade inquiry where the falsification was not "with a view to gain".
The effect of the decision in Welham's case is no doubt a matter for legal argument, but the reasoning in that case
188
rested almost entirely on a review of the history of offences of forgery, and it was held by the Court of Appeal subsequently, in the case of Manners-Astley last year, that the definition of "with intent to defraud" in Welham's case is not a final and authoritative definition of the phrase for all purposes. There is a strong argument for taking the view that in the Acts replaced by the present Bill "to defraud" means to deprive of something by cheating or similar means, and that, accordingly, Clause 16 does not create gaps (in the sense of not going as wide as the existing law) in the way that has been alleged. If what I have said is contradicted in Drewett's case, then obviously I shall have to consider it.
It may be said that even if this is right, the Bill ought to go wider than it does and make criminal certain fraudulent acts which may not be criminal now, but it would really be outside the general scope of the Bill to deal with conduct which is not, broadly speaking, done with a view to gain or to cause loss to another; and, in any event, such conduct may already be criminal under other provisions. For example, falsification of accounts with intent to deceive a Board of Trade inspector may in some cases be an offence under Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 under which it is an offence knowingly and wil-fully, otherwise than on oath, to make a statement false in a material particular in various types of document, including an account or a balance sheet, which is required to be made by any Act of Parliament.
It is possible that a case can be made out—and here I am coming back rather to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, said—in the field of falsification of accounts and in relation to other clauses of the Bill for creating new types of criminal liability in respect of conduct which the Criminal Law Revision Committee did not treat as within their terms of reference. But (and I think this is important) there would be obvious dangers in precipitately creating new offences without the kind of study in depth which is made by the Committee and your Lordships may think it wisest that any widening of the law going beyond the scope of the present Bill should be left to be considered as part of the comprehensive programme of modernisation and codification of the Criminal Law,

189
using the full resources of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the Law Commission and the Home Office, to which the Government are now committed. This is, after all, a Theft Bill, and it is limited to this field.
The Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, really seeks to achieve in another way the purpose of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. The words which it is proposed to substitute for "or … cause loss to another "would apparently cover everything that is covered by those words, since something done to cause loss to another would be something done to prejudice his rights; but the subsection would then also cover, for example, the dishonest falsification of accounts to deceive an investigating official who might discover some previous irregularity. If it were desired in principle to extend the clause in the way contemplated by the Amendment, the drafting of it would need further study, and it would be a matter for consideration whether it would be better to make an Amendment on the lines proposed by the noble and learned Viscount's solution, by deleting the references to gain and loss. It is, however, for the reasons I have ventured to give, the Government's general view that the subsection should stay as it is. This, however, of course, is without prejudice to reconsidering everything which has been said on this Committee stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will reconsider this matter. I knew about Manners-Astley, but then I drew his attention—and perhaps he would be kind enough to look at this as well—to another case which dealt with criminal conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud. That was a case called Board of Trade v. Owen. It was in that context, which is a different context from that of forgery, that at any rate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, decided or took the view that "defraud" had this wider meaning. So it is not only in the context of Welham that this concept crops up in the criminal law. It appears in other types of criminal cases; and I do not tie the argument for one moment just to Welham. It should be thought about in the more general context.
190
I take very much to heart the point made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, that this is a Theft Bill, but I have two points to make on it. First of all, if one looks at Clause 18, one finds that for some reason—and this is very much mixed up with the accounts clause with which we are dealing, because some of it is derived from the very same sections of the old 1861 Act—there is no such test of financial gain or loss there; none it all. The Committee thought it inappropriate there. If that is so, why is it appropriate to confine Clause 16 in this way? The second point is this. If by any chance the existing law bears an interpretation wider than that which is put down in this clause, confined to financial gain and loss, then it is all very well to say that one should leave the general reconsideration of the offences beyond the scope of theft to the codification of the law, but this Bill repeals all the existing criminal law in this respect. Section 5 of the Perjury Act is there, but as I understand it the maximum offence is less and, anyway, it is hardly the place that it one would expect to look, in a sensible, modern, revised criminal law, for something to do with false accounting. One's first impression, if one was dealing with false accounting in a context where part of the general matter that is being repealed and re-enacted is not confided to financial gain and loss, would be that it is not completely inconceivable that the rest of it would be dealt with in the same way.
So I am asking the noble and learned Lord to see whether, if one is going to confine the Theft Bill in this way, it is right at the same time to repeal all these old offences, because it may be that there is a gap. There is no other Bill before the House to fill that gap, and there may be these defalcations previously committed which the falsification of accounts would then be carried out in order to hide, which are no longer criminal. Perhaps they are not now; I do not know. But if they are now, then the repeals in the Schedules to this Bill will leave a gap in the criminal law which is not filled and which, indeed, will have to await, after no doubt considerable thought and study by the Criminal Law Revision Committee or the Law Commission, the introduction of a Bill at

191
some later stage. What is to happen in the meantime? Are these people to get away scot free; and is it the right way to draft this Bill so that they do? I would most earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord to consider that sort of point, despite the general context which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies, may I say something in respect of what he said?—and I hope that this is the last time that I shall say anything on this Bill to-night. Of course, this is a Theft Bill, but the Long Title is:
"An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences …"
and the particular clause we are dealing with, Clause 16, comes under that Part of the Bill entitled "Fraud and blackmail." Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I do not think it is any argument in opposition to an Amendment to what is included in the Bill under the marginal note of "False accounting" to say that this is a Theft Bill. Once Clause 16 is there—although it may be that it ought not to be in the Bill; and I am not seeking to argue that—surely we ought to try to get it as right as we can.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained how it was that this particular formula had come to be used in the beginning of the clause. He referred to Welham. Of course there is some degree of controversy about whether the decision in Welham applies in any field other than the field of forgery. I am not concerned to enter into that argument or discussion at all. What I want to seek to achieve is that whatever the law has been in the past, however vague or uncertain it has been in relation to falsification of accounts, at least when this clause is passed it should be clear and adequate.
The draftsman has taken one view of what "intent to defraud" in this field meant: that it meant there must be an intent to deprive or cheat someone of money or money's-worth and gain that kind of benefit. That is what I might call the narrow view. I do not think it covers
192
the field that ought to be covered. I gave a single instance, that of the man who has defrauded, who has taken the money (whether it be by theft or by any other way) and who is using false accounting to mislead people, to cover up what he has done. I do not think it can be said in that case that it has been done with a view to gain or with a view to causing loss to another, because that has already occurred. I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to look at it from that angle. I think my noble friend Lord Colville has made a very powerful case indeed.
I am not seeking to justify an alteration on the ground of Welham or of anything else like that. I am merely saying that if we are to get this right we ought to broaden the statement of intent, if you like to call it that; and I believe the right words to do that are the words the Committee themselves used, "to the prejudice of another". But if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said—as I gather he has said; and perhaps he will confirm it—that he will really seriously consider with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and others what has been said on this important part of this debate, I personally would not wish to continue it any further at this late hour. If I am right in interpreting the Lord Chancellor as having said that he will do that, then I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I will certainly consider it. Apparently the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said that he was going to refer to the Drewett case. This point had not reached me. May I just say, so that it is on the Record and so that the noble Viscount can consider it before the Report stage, that as I understand the position in Drewett there was a woman employed by an hotel charged under the 1875 Act with falsifying the hotel books. She put up the defence that she had done so in order to reimburse herself for money which she had put into the hotel to cover up extravagances and expenditure on its behalf, not wishing her employers to know what she had been doing. She was convicted at quarter sessions, but the conviction was quashed on appeal on the ground that the chairman of quarter sessions had given a

193
wrong direction on the question of intent to defraud and had not left to the jury the question of whether there was such an intention.
It is suggested to me—and, as the noble Viscount will follow, I have only just seen this and have not had time to consider it myself—that it is clear from the judgment of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved that they took the view that the jury might on the facts have convicted, if the summing-up had been satisfactory, on the ground that the accused had an intent to defraud in the sense of causing loss to her employers. Therefore, although the question under the 1875 Act was strictly not whether or not the woman had acted with a view to gain but whether she had acted with intent to defraud, there seems to be no difference in substance and she would equally have been guilty under Clause 16.
The noble Viscount referred to examples given by the chairman of quarter sessions in Drewett's case; that is to say, examples of her possible intentions in making the defalcations, and suggested that the decision of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved did not mean they were bad in law. What Lord Chief Justice Lord Alverstone said in referring to the summing up was:
"The concluding part of the summing up, 'I told the jury in conclusion that if they were satisfied that the prisoner has falsified her accounts either in order to help herself out of financial difficulties or for the purpose of concealing from the directors the true condition of the company, or misleading the shareholders or the public as to its financial soundness, it would be their duty to find her guilty' seems to me to be objectionable because of the introduction of the last two alternatives—"
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is a misquotation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Oh, is it?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have the Report here. What he said was:
" … seems to me, although not so objectionable as the first two portions,"—
and this is a very important difference—
"to be objectionable because of the introduction of the last two alternatives, which were consistent with innocence. Practically the chair-
194
man withdrew from the jury the question of the intent to defraud. I regret that we cannot allow the conviction to stand."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the Lord Chief Justice appears to have been saying was that Drewett should not have been convicted if the jury had found that the purpose of the defalcation was to conceal from the directors the true position of the company or to mislead the shareholders or the public as to its financial soundness—the last two alternatives, as he calls them. This seems to support the construction of the 1875 Act, because the point was that in the event of either of the last two alternatives there was no intent to defraud the employers within the meaning of the 1875 Act. If that is right, the 1875 Act depends in substance on there being a view to gain or intent to cause loss to another; and the Bill does not cut down its effect.
I will say nothing further, because I have not had the opportunity to study this; but the noble Viscount will no doubt consider that also before the Report stage. This is not an easy Bill, as we all know. The Committee said of this offence:
"The offence is also brought into line with the scheme of the Bill generally by the requirement that it should be committed dishonestly and with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss to another."
I should like to have an opportunity of reviewing this clause and particularly the question of whether there really is a gap; and if there is a gap, whether it is one which ought to be filled by this Bill or left for the wider reform which is to follow.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In which case the noble and learned Lord will presumably look at the repeals; or he might have to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said—and this is, as I think the Committee will recognise from what has been said, a very difficult question—I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I think that we have done very well to-day in dealing with seven clauses, and that this would be an appropriate time to adjourn the Committee. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned at one minute past eight o'clock.