Sitting of 21 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
    BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
    KIDDERMINSTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
    SAINT STEPHEN, CLAPHAM PARK BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
    BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
PETITION

  Teachers (Recruitment and Remuneration)
  Mr. Pardoe: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to ask leave to present a Petition. Before doing so, I think it right that I should declare an interest since I act from time to time in the capacity of adviser to the National Association of Schoolmasters, on whose behalf the Petition is submitted. The Petition is signed by more than 78,000 school teachers in England and Wales and concerns the recruitment and remuneration of teachers. It sets out that there is manifest and widespread discontent about recruitment and remuneration of teachers and dissatisfaction with the negotiating machinery, which is the Burnham Committee.
  1204
  The Petition concludes:
  "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the honourable House will be pleased to appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate into the causes of the aforementioned discontent and that the committee of inquiry shall be asked to recommend to Her Majesty's Government equitable principles for teachers salaries and reformed negotiating machinery to give effect to those salary principles so that all teachers are accorded a suitable economic status and the needs of the education service are satisfied.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc."
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CIVIL SERVICE

    Senior Civil Servants (Pay)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister for the Civil Service what recommendations have been received from the Plowden Committee in respect of the pay of senior civil servants; and what action he now proposes.
    The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), on 11th July.—[Vol. 779, c. 351.]
    Mr. Biffen: As these people can barely be classified as lower paid and in view of the impossibility of measuring the productivity of the senior Civil Service, is not the decision of the right hon. Lady an indication that she recognises that the market rate is by far the most valuable indication for measuring the wages and salaries which these people should be earning?
    Mrs. Hart: What is clear is that the first stage of the increases is in line with the incomes policy. Those in the higher Civil Service last had an increase almost four years ago and the remaining stages of the increase fall to be considered in the context of the needs of incomes policy.
    Mr. Whitaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that until steps are taken to reduce the enormous differentials in the public and private sectors the public sector should enjoy at least equality and preferably better conditions than the private sector?
    Mrs. Hart: I think my hon. Friend has put his finger on the kernel of the matter. While we have competition in the public sector we cannot in terms of the high standards of our administrative Civil Service allow senior officials to become poor relations. But if my hon. Friend were to say to me that we should look at the relationships between pay of all kinds—both high and low pay—I would entirely agree with him.

    Fulton Committee (Report)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what further systematic progress-chasing he has done on the Fulton Committee Report.
    Mrs. Hart: Progress is continuous. The report "Developments on Fulton", to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew the attention of the House on 13th March recorded a number of decisions. Since then the Government have announced several more. Further announcements will be made as appropriate.—[Vol. 779, c. 351.]
    Mr. Dalyell: In particular, has any decision been made on a section of the proposed Civil Service College in Scotland for which a number of Scottish Labour Members have been pressing?
    Mrs. Hart: I ask my hon. Friend to await the Answer to a further Question which I should be giving in a few minutes time.
    Mr. David Howell: What progress is being made with the study which I believe is being undertaken of Government activities which might fruitfully be hived off to separate agencies and taken out of Departments?
    Mrs. Hart: Hiving off is under study, but I am not in a position to make any clear statement about it.

    Youth Exchange Programmes
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister for the Civil Service what exchange programmes exist between younger members of the Civil Service and their counterparts in other member countries of the European Free Trade Association; and to what extent Her Majesty's Government are encouraging such programmes.
    Mrs. Hart: Study visits by small groups or by individual civil servants are encouraged if the value seems likely to
    1206
    justify the cost. Apart from individual visits, 14 study visits to six of the member countries of the European Free Trade Association and two visits to E.F.T.A. Headquarters have been made in the last five years by groups of young civil servants attending courses at the Centre for Administrative Studies.
    Mr. Jay: Does that mean that the Government have arranged similar exchanges with the countries of E.F.T.A. of which we are a member as they have with the countries of E.E.C. of which we are not a member?
    Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend will be aware of an Answer I gave a week or two ago about visits to E.E.C. countries. We have some parallel visits to E.F.T.A. countries, but the degree of each is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Industrial Civil Servants (Pay and Productivity)
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement on recent negotiations with industrial civil servants, including dockyard employees, concerning productivity and pay.
    Mrs. Hart: Negotiations are continuing on a pay claim for industrial civil servants. A meeting of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments was held on 17th July, but agreement has not yet been reached. Discussions are also being held, on the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council, with a view to introducing a productivity scheme for the Royal Dockyards.
    Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that, whether it is justified or not, there is a widespread feeling, particularly amongst unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the dockyards, that the Government are dragging their feet on producing their side of the bargain to make a success of the proposed productivity agreement?
    Mrs. Hart: I am aware that there is an anxiety to reach a conclusion to these discussions as soon as possible. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Government dragging their feet. These are rather complex negotiations, and we hope that they will be concluded as early as possible.

    Manpower and Costs (Savings)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in the Government's policy of making savings in Civil Service manpower and costs; and to what extent the implementation of the Plowden Report on the pay of higher paid civil servants will affect this policy.
    Mrs. Hart: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I would refer him to the Answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17th June. In answer to the second part, I see favourable rather than adverse effects.—[Vol. 785, c. 82.]
    Mr. Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend explain why on 10th July a Question was tabled and accepted but an Answer refused, although she arranged a sponsored Question for the 1lth for a written reply and gave a full answer? What was the idea? Can we have some explanation?
    Mrs. Hart: I am perfectly prepared to give my hon. Friend a full explanation. He will realise that these matters follow collective consideration and the timing of Questions and Answers has to relate to that.

    Civil Service College
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made on the accommodation for the Civil Service College recommended in the Fulton Report.
    Mrs. Hart: As hon. Members will be aware, the Civil Service College will take over non-residential accommodation in London and the residential centre at Sunningdale Park at present used for central civil service training. We have now decided that the third centre needed by the College will be in Edinburgh, and it is hoped that accommodation in Atholl Crescent and some nearby property will be available for use by Autumn 1970, when the College is to be set up.
    Mr. Moonman: I am sure that this will prove to be an ideal centre and that the distance from Whitehall will be no real handicap, as others have found in travelling to different parts of the world. How will research be carried out, be-
    1208
    cause my right hon. Friend will recognise that it is an important part of any management training establishment? Will she maintain contacts through the centre with industry and government?
    Mrs. Hart: One very good reason for selecting Edinburgh was that, apart from its being the centre of the Civil Service in Scotland and its good communications, it also is an area where there are immense technical college and university facilities. Although the links have not been worked out in any detail yet, one would certainly hope that full use can be made of these facilities.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her recognition of Edinburgh in this respect will be warmly welcomed in Scotland?

    Secrecy
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps he proposes to take to end unnecessary secrecy.
    Mrs. Hart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper on Information and the Public Interest.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of the White Paper caused some disappointment in that it did not go as far as the Fulton Committee hoped that it would? Is she aware further that the Fulton Committee, in saying that there was too much secrecy, had in mind the presence of Green Papers and the like and that what was really needed was a further step forward which unfortunately up to now has not been forthcoming?
    Mrs. Hart: I know my hon. Friend's keen interest in this matter. As the White Paper says, the Government do not intend to rest content at this point. We intend to carry development further along the lines suggested in the White Paper.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: To put this matter into perspective, would it not be better if the Government had a little more secrecy regarding their own policy statements and made them in the House before giving them to newspapers?
    Mrs. Hart: What we are discussing on this Question is quite different. We are

    1209
    discussing how far the public can legitimately be involved in the implementation of Government decisions.

    Administrative Civil Service
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister for the Civil Service what examination he has conducted into the length of time administrative civil servants stay in one job.
    Mrs. Hart: As my hon. Friend will recall, evidence was submitted to the Fulton Committee about patterns of administrative class careers. The problem is to provide a balance of specialised knowledge with a reasonable breadth of experience. A survey of administrative work is being undertaken as a basis for decisions on the Fulton Committee's recommendations on administrative specialisation. The results should be available by the end of the year.
    Mr. Sheldon: I am sure that the research carried out by my right hon. Friend will be very warmly welcomed, because one of the features of the administrative Civil Service has been the frequency with which these people have moved around and consequently been unable to acquire the specialised knowledge that is a necessary part, if only a part, of the work that they undertake.
    Mrs. Hart: I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. I am sure that he is right and that this will be a most valuable survey. We shall await with interest the results of it towards the end of the year.
    Mr. Lane: For the sake of continuity when the time comes, what special dispositions in the Civil Service are being made in readiness for possible negotiations to join the Common Market?
    Mrs. Hart: That does not arise on this Question. If we have the most efficient Civil Service, it will be able to deal with whatever contingencies are demanded of it.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Council of Europe (Greece)
    Mr. Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the action
    1210
    of the Greek Government in dismissing the President of the Council of State for upholding the rule of law, he will now reconsider the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards continued Greek membership of the Council of Europe.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): No, Sir. While we remain deeply concerned about the situation in Greece, our policy on the question of Greece and the Council of Europe remains as set out in my statement on 7th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 458–64]
    Mr. Archer: Are there no common standards of legality entailed in membership of the Council of Europe? If so, what does the Greek Government have to do in order to fall below them?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that was made plain in my statement on 7th May, when we expressed very great concern about the situation in Greece and recognised that unless the Greek Government were in a position to conform to what is required of membership of the Council of Europe, it would not be possible for that membership to continue. We must proceed with a certain degree of prudence and patience.
    Mr. Molloy: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the present vicious and authoritarian régime in Greece will not last for ever? Democracy will be returned. Will not the part which we are playing at the moment appear to be a little shabby?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the House, when I made my statement on 7th May, took the view that our part was shabby. We made it quite clear in the Council of Europe that we believed that membership of the Council imposed certain obligations and that we hoped, whatever the evidence might be, that the Greek Government would be able to fulfil those obligations in time. This is a matter which will have to be considered at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

    Ocean Pollution
    Mr. Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate discussions at the United Nations with a view to the

    1211
    adoption of an international convention to reduce pollution of the ocean, and provide for compensation in respect of infringements, similar in nature to the convention of the Council of Europe relating to fresh waters.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, already administers an international convention on the prevention of oil pollution at sea. It is convening a conference in November to consider liability and compensation for oil pollution from ships, and is also considering the need for international agreements to prevent pollution of the sea by other agents from ships and equipment operating in the marine environment.
    Mr. Archer: I warmly welcome that Answer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to averting a situation where the ocean may shortly contain more oil, detergent, radioactive matter and sewage than it does water, this will also be a useful exercise in international control?
    Mr. Mulley: The faster we can move to a convention to prevent pollution of the seas the better. This is one of the activities we have in consideration of the seabed in the United Nations and I believe that we are, perhaps slowly but nevertheless surely, moving in the right direction.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is it not important that the matter should be left to I.M.C.O., which is making good progress, rather than crossing the wires by having other bodies examine it as well?
    Mr. Mulley: We believe that I.M.C.O. is the right organisation for this and that this kind of very complex and technical problem is best handled by a specialist agency in the United Nations rather than by the General Assembly or by a general body of that kind.
    Mr. Dalyell: In any forthcoming legislation is there not a case for making a bias towards the responsibility of the individual skipper of a ship?
    Mr. Mulley: As I explained in my Answer, the questions of liability and compensation are to be discussed at this
    1212
    conference and I do not think I should anticipate what the results might be.
    Mr. Braine: Whilst welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman has said about I.M.C.O., may I ask him whether he is aware of the growing anxiety in this country and elsewhere about pollution of the environment? Can he give any idea of what preparatory work is being done by the Government in connection with the proposed United Nations Conference on the problems of the Environment?
    Mr. Mulley: The control of the environment is a matter which is being taken us, as a result of the initiative of the American President, in N.A.T.O. In terms of our own immediate environment, we have concluded a reasonable arrangement for the North Sea, which comes into effect next month. I think we have got to move step by step in this process, and I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present position in Gibraltar consequent upon recent measures taken by the Spanish Government.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments regarding the situation in Gibraltar.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) on 14th July.—[Vol. 787, c. 14.]
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the growing feeling in this country that there should be some positive reaction in aid of a very gallant people? Has he considered, for example, the imposition upon Spanish subjects working in this country of a Gibraltar tax which would be quite specifically given to the people of Gibraltar to aid them in their present very real difficulties?
    Mr. Stewart: We take into account the strong desire in this country that we

    1213
    should help the people of Gibraltar. We have taken measures to that end and I am glad to say that the recruitment, for example, of substitute labour is proceeding, that the current hotel bookings are satisfactory and that business is up about one-third on 1968 figures. I am not satisfied that measures simply of retaliation would help the people of Gibraltar or would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend accept that the firm statements which he has made in this House have given great encouragement to the Gibraltarians and to those of us who have the interests of Gibraltar at heart? Would he also consider the possibility, perhaps in the Recess, of himself making a visit to Gibraltar?
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said and I shall consider this possibility
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give some further thought to methods of retaliation? Is it not clear that the Spanish Government will continue to behave as they are doing until something is done to them which hurts?
    Mr. Stewart: I have explained to the House on many occasions that in considering retaliation we have to ask what measures there are which would be likely to cause the Spanish Government to change their policy, which would positively help the Gibraltarians and which would do more injury to Spain than it would to Britain or Gibraltar. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if we can find a method that fulfils these conditions we would take it, but I do not think it is in the interest either of this country or of Gibraltar to hit out merely for the sake of hitting out without regard to the results.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has now considered the action of partially freezing remittances to Spain while the present blockade of Gibraltar lasts.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I have examined the hon. Member's suggestion. There are considerable legal and technical difficulties, but quite apart from these,
    1214
    I am not convinced that a measure of this kind, which would penalise ordinary Spanish people living in this country and with whom we have no quarrel, would influence the Spanish Government to change its policy towards Gibraltar.
    Mr. Tilney: But how else can we bring pressure on the Government of Spain? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there are many Spanish workers in this country earning a considerable amount of money, and that there are British residents in Spain, both of whom help the Spanish balance of payments? Would not he consider this matter again?
    Mr. Stewart: I have looked into this matter, but I am convinced that to take the action which the hon. Gentleman suggests would be of no assistance to Gibraltar, would not affect the policy of the Spanish Government and would be injurious to people who are in no way to blame for the present situation.
    Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that a very good lead has been given voluntarily by some trade unions in advising their members not to holiday in Spain? Will he ask the Confederation of British Industry to invite its members to follow that lead?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, I have expressed the hope before in the House, and I do so again, that before any British subject thinks in future of spending a holiday in Spain he will have some fellow feeling for our fellow citizens in Gibraltar.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Beeching report on Gibraltar will be published; and if he will make a statement on further British assistance to Gibraltar.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further help he is considering to offset the effect on Gibraltar of recent Spanish action.
    Mr. M. Stewart: On the question of assistance to Gibraltar, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House on 14th July. The report of the Beeching mission draws on confidential information and

    1215
    would not be suitable for publication in its present form.—[Vol. 787, c. 14.]
    Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling that Gibraltar is getting the kicks and Britain is only contributing money? Does he agree that what is needed, at least, is a long-term economic plan with British help designed to maintain and expand the economy of the Rock?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir; this has been in our minds for some time and we do not neglect it. But what I have said about the report of the Beeching mission is right.
    Mr. Tilney: Can the Foreign Secretary say what is the cost to the British economy and also the economy of Gibraltar of the Spanish blockade? Will he look into the possibility of reducing tourist air fares to Gibraltar? Does he not agree that it would be better to cut some of the Spanish remittances from this country rather than turn every cheek to the Spanish lash?
    Mr. Stewart: There were three parts to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On the last, there is a later Question on the Paper. As regards the cost to the economy, I could not answer that without notice. I shall look into the question of reducing tourist air fares.
    Mr. George Jeger: A minute or two ago, my right hon. Friend said in reply to a question about retaliation that it must be something which would help Gibraltar and help Britain without injuring Gibraltar. Would not a decrease in the number of flights between Britain and Spain and an increase in the number of flights between Britain and Gibraltar achieve just that end?
    Mr. Stewart: I have looked into that, but it is rather more complicated than my hon. Friend supposes.

    Sir Humphrey Gibbs
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to recruit the services of Sir Humphrey Gibbs, after his retirement as Governor of Rhodesia, so that his experience will continue to be of use to Her Majesty's Government.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): In announcing his resignation on 24th June, Sir Humphrey Gibbs said that he and Lady Gibbs intended to live as private citizens in Rhodesia and to do what they could to promote its future progress.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend realise that it will be a shocking anomaly to mark Mr. Smith's rebellion by depriving this distinguished and experienced civil servant of giving service to the State and a great loss to Britain? Will my hon. Friend see that that loss is not inflicted on us?
    Mr. Foley: We have greatly valued Sir Humphrey Gibbs' courageous stand in the cause of legality in Rhodesia. There is no question of our losing touch with him. He has indicated his wish to retire as a private citizen, but I am sure that his views on Rhodesian matters will always be listened to with respect.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to bring before the United Nations the facts concerning Mr. Smith's recent proposals as to the constitutional status of Rhodesia and the resulting consequences on the coloured population there with a view to taking international steps towards the protection of the present and future of the coloured population.
    Mr. Maurice Foley: These matters were fully discussed at the United Nations last month in the Committee of 24 and in the Security Council. Our policy is to maintain economic and political pressures, with international co-operation, until wiser counsels prevail in Rhodesia in the interests of all who live there.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not realise that this was one of the purposes for which the United Nations was formed and that the coloured people are in a majority in Rhodesia? Will he take steps to see that justice is done to them?
    Mr. Foley: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: As the United Nations has shown itself unwilling or powerless to deal with real cases of oppression, genocide and slavery in

    1217
    Africa, is it not more appropriate that the United Nations should keep quiet about the question of Rhodesia?
    Mr. Foley: I am aware of the hon. Member's views of the United Nations and his views on realities in Africa. I state clearly and firmly that I totally disagree with everything that he says.

    Intelsat
    Mr. Luardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether at the discussions on the future of Intelsat now taking place in Washington, the British representative will support proposals to bring Intelsat under United Nations auspices.
    Mr. Mulley: I am not aware of any such proposals.
    Mr. Luard: Whatever the exact relationship that is established between Intelsat and the I.T.U. or any other body of the United Nations, does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is extremely important to ensure that the management of the system is taken out of the hands of a body which is virtually a national organisation and that the voting powers of the governing council of this organisation are made sufficiently equitable to ensure that the body can be seen to be a purely international body and not a national organisation?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree that Intelsat should be organised to allow the fullest participation of all members, and that is one of the substantial matters now under discussion in the negotiations which are going on. But I do not think there is any question that the international status of Intelsat should be changed. It is a successful commercial enterprise; its membership is open to all members of the United Nations and its agencies, and we hope that many other States will join the 68 existing members.
    Mr. Wood: May I take this opportunity to congratulate the American Government and people on the superb achievement last night?
    In relation to Intelsat, will the right hon. Gentleman say what proposals he has for putting this on a permanent basis?
    Mr. Mulley: We have already had some preliminary negotiations for the
    1218
    future of Intelsat and there is a preparatory committee, of which we are members, sitting at the present time. There is a further conference towards the end of the year which I hope will give the definitive agreement we want.
    I should like to endorse very strongly what the right hon. Gentleman said about last night's achievement. I am sure that it is the wish of all parties in the House to extend to the American Government our warmest congratulations at the tremendous achievement of those men last night.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

    Vietnam
    Mr. Luardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose international supervision of the new elections now officially proposed in the Vietnam peace talks.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Geneva conference to arrange international supervision of the elections now officially proposed in the Vietnam peace talks.
    Mr. M. Stewart: International supervision of elections in Vietnam has already been proposed both by President Thieu and by President Nixon but has so far been rejected by the other side. I hope that their objections will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Luard: Is it not a fact that one of the main points in dispute in the present Paris peace talks is under what Government or under what supervision elections in Vietnam should take place? Is not an obvious way to resolve this dispute to have the U.N. supervising the elections in South Vietnam?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, I am bound to say that this seems to me an entirely reasonable proposal.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is it not, however, a fact that the United Nations have shown a remarkable reluctance so far to become involved in this difficult problem? Is not the heart of the matter that there should be some internationally supervised security system that would

    1219
    prevent infiltration and police any ceasefire which may take place?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that is so. Indeed, I expressed views very similar to that a number of years ago. But it now rests, I think, very much with what I described as the other side to see if they are willing to accept a reasonable proposal.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Was not international supervision of the elections an essential part of the agreements of 1954, and have not all parties accepted those agreements?
    Mr. Stewart: I think all parties have accepted them in name. We have now reached a stage where it is important to see how many parties will accept them in fact.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position about the United Kingdom's application to join the Common Market.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his negotiations to secure British entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on 10th July to a Question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).—[Vol. 786, c. 303.]
    Mr. Wall: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people are pleased now that there seems to be a better chance of Britain entering the Common Market, and, equally, other people would prefer an Atlantic free trade area? Is it not the Government's duty to consider the pros and cons of both those alternatives and inform the British people on the important facts
    Mr. Stewart: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there now seem to be better prospects than at some time ago for the success of our application
    1220
    for entry into the European Economic Community. In order to enter the Economic Community, one has to negotiate an agreement in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Rome. In the course of that negotiation, we should have regard to British interests and we should endeavour to keep the House informed.
    Mr. Marten: I listened with interest to what the Foreign Secretary said. Does he recall that Dr. Luns, the Foreign Secretary of Holland, who was over here last Monday, said that the British application would receive the backing of the Dutch Government only if there were a firm commitment by this Government to a federal Europe? Is the right hon. Gentleman, or is he not, giving such a firm commitment?
    Mr. Stewart: We commit ourselves in making the application to what is set out in the Treaty of Rome, and this was further spelled out in the recent Anglo-Italian declaration. The British Government stand on that.
    Mr. Griffiths: Could the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the impressions he formed at last week's meeting of the Monnet action committee which he attended, and will be reaffirm that, in spite of the problems of agricultural policy and institutions, for the British Government to pursue their application to join the Common Market continues nevertheless to make good sense for this country?
    Mr. Stewart: I believe without any doubt that it is right for us to continue our application. As for the work of the Monnet committee, there is a later Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister's replies last Thursday on the question of nuclear sharing were received with widespread approval on both sides of the House, and does he agree that those who think that we can ease our way into the Common Market by offering nuclear sharing with France or any other West European country are acting at once cynically and in breach of both the spirit and the letter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
    Mr. Stewart: That is another matter, and nothing I have said would give any support to the anxieties which my hon. Friend has expressed.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When we come nearer to the prospect of a negotiation, will the right hon. Gentleman see whether he can bring the statistics up to date regarding British entry? There have been many thrown around which have little basis in fact that I can see, and help in this respect from Her Majesty's Government at a later date would be valuable.
    Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we should put information of this kind before the House as soon as it was meaningful. Some of the hypothetical speculations which have been indulged in have no relationship to reality.
    Mr. Shinwell: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile his statement at the Monnet meeting in Brussels last week that he is in favour of supra-national government with the repeated statements by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he is not in favour of federalisation? How do we reconcile those statements?
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend will remember that in the Anglo-Italian declaration there was reference to a European Parliament and the method of election thereto. The reply I gave at the Monnet committee meeting was entirely in line with that declaration. The development of a fully federal Europe is a very different matter.
    Mr. Hastings: Whatever the other economic merits may be, is the Foreign Secretary aware that visitors from this country to Belgium and Holland are being implored by their friends to bring gifts of butter because they cannot afford to buy it there?
    Mr. Stewart: That seems to be another question.
    Mr. Barnett: In view of the perversion of the facts in both the economic and the agricultural spheres which there have been in recent months, would it not be as well for all concerned if a White Paper were issued at the earliest possible moment setting out the true facts and taking into account all the possibilities, including the considerable changes which would take place in our own agricultural set-up.
    Mr. Stewart: I must repeat what I said earlier. My right hon. Friend the
    1222
    Prime Minister has made clear that, as soon as it is possible to make a meaningful communication on this matter, it will be made.
    Mr. Jay: As the Prime Minister has twice said in the House that it is not the Government's policy to take this country into a federal State, why does my right hon. Friend make statements committing this country to a European Parliament, which plainly implies federation?
    Mr. Stewart: No, Sir; I advise my right hon. Friend to study again the terms of the Anglo-Italian declaration, with which the House is familiar and which, I think, is acceptable to the House.
    Later—
    Mr. Richard: On a point of order. I do not in any way question the sole prerogative which the Chair rightly has about whom it shall call to ask a supplementary question. However, do you not think it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to point out that, apart from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, supplementary questions were asked by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), which I make to be five on one side of the argument, while only two were called on the other side of the argument—the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett)?
    In view of the expressed view of the House on the last occasion when this subject was debated and as HANSARD is read carefully on this issue by people in Europe, do you not think it right that it should be made clear that the ratio of five to two, even allowing for the fact that you have to protect minorities in the House, is grossly unrepresentative of the views of the country?
    Mr. Marten: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member has referred to the divisions in the House and what he considers to be the ratio of pros and antis. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that you were absolutely right for two

    1223
    reasons? One is that there were two Questions on the Order Paper, so that if the two hon. Members asking those Questions are subtracted, the ratio is probably quite right, and that, according to the latest National Opinion Poll, about one-third of the people in the country think that Britain should go into the Common Market. You reflected that splendidly, Mr. Speaker; thank you.
    Mr. Speaker: Under the guise of points of order, the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), anxious to help Mr. Speaker, have continued the battle of the Common Market. It happens from time to time that when I call hon. Members to ask questions the amounts of support for different views are not mathematically the same. Questions Nos. 18, 19 and 41 were three Questions about the Common Market, two from one opinion and one from the other. I am glad that the hon. Member for Barons Court does not question Mr. Speaker's selection of hon. Members to ask supplementary questions.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Further to that point of order. As there are a large number of free-ranging Members—if I may call them that [Laughter.]—may I point out that I was very disappointed that my legitimate Question No. 51 was not called with Questions Nos. 18, 19 and 41? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me why.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which the hon. Lady must take up with her right hon. Friend. I cannot distinguish between the free-rangers and the batteries.
    It happens from time to time in a round of Questions that some very important issue arises. I could let it run for the whole of Question Time. I have to balance the keenness of a number of hon. Members to ask supplementary questions on one Question with the keenness of those hon. Members who have had Questions down for a long time and who will be disappointed. I must disappoint someone every day.

    St. Vincent (Constitution)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the St. Vincent Constitutional Conference.
    Mr. Braineasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the implementation of the new Constitution of St. Vincent.
    Mr. Mulley: I refer the hon. Members to the White Paper laid before the House on 18th July, which contains the Final Report of the Conference.
    Subject to the Legislative Council's approval of the outline of the revised Constitution given in the White Paper, St. Vincent will become an Associated State on 27th October, 1969.
    Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some people question the wisdom of granting associated status before the holding of an election in the island? Will he tell the House why this was done and what consideration was given to it?
    Mr. Mulley: The commitment to St. Vincent to have associated Statehood was made as long ago as 1966 and has been held up only by local difficulties. There have been differences—which are not unknown—between the Government party and the Opposition about the date of the election and also about the numbers and boundaries of constituencies. This has been a difficulty which, we hope, has now been resolved by the decision of Her Majesty's Government, which has been accepted by the Government party in St. Vincent though not by the Opposition. The position is that the election will be held at the usual date, that is, some time before 1972, and at that election there will be 13 constituencies.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Braine.
    Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman has answered my Question, Sir.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise—I put this in a genuinely interrogative form, because I see the difficulties—to create a new associated State in view of the difficulties, revealed by Anguilla, in the existing status, which leaves Britain with residual responsibilities but no residual power? Is it not reinforcing failure to do this again?
    Mr. Mulley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but St. Vincent was committed to having statehood in 1966, and the particular difficulties which arose

    1225
    in Anguilla are unlikely to happen in St. Vincent. However, there is a widespread demand in St. Vincent for associated Statehood. As we promised that in 1966, we feel that it is right to do it now. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Shepherd visited the island and spent a considerable time testing all kinds of information. On his return, he reported very strongly that there was this desire, and we think it right to agree to it.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reach a conclusion on the matter of appointing an Ombudsman for Hong Kong.
    Mr. Foley: The recently devised City District Officer team, which is working most satisfactorily, is providing the general public in Hong Kong with an opportunity of making known to the authorities their views on the conduct of public affairs. Other arrangements also exist. Consideration is, however, being given in the Colony to the question of how complaints that may exist among the public may be more carefully and fully examined.
    Mr. Rankin: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Would he not go the whole hog and agree that if an Ombudsman can find a useful function in Britain he could find a more useful function to perform in a part of the Commonwealth where there is no democracy whatsoever?
    Mr. Foley: I am not sure that one can equate the two in this context. In Hong Kong, there is not an elected element in the legislature and this presents certain difficulties in the creation of an office of Ombudsman or a similar office.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government in Hong Kong do a very good job, despite the number of Communists who can infiltrate that area from Communist China? Is he not also aware that the vast majority of the Hong Kong Chinese support the Government wholeheartedly?
    Mr. Foley: I am aware that the Government of Hong Kong does a very good job and, equally, that there are some problems unresolved.
    Mr. Richard: Is my hon. Friend not aware that it is wrong to equate the City
    1226
    District Officers scheme and an Ombudsman? The main difference is that an Ombudsman has certain, executive functions and can recommend certain courses of action. Whereas the City District Officers scheme—desirable and welcome though it is—is no more than an opportunity for people to complain to the Government?
    Mr. Foley: Yes, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, in the absence of elected representatives, there is a problem of sifting complaints. This is why, in the meantime, what has been devised is, to my mind, the best that could be done.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons are now detained in Hong Kong under emergency provisions; and for what reason.
    Mr. Foley: None, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: None? Would my hon. Friend make some inquiry into the authenticity of that Answer? Is he aware that the number which I am given is not "none" but thousands? Would he look into that matter?
    Mr. Foley: I want to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that I do not stand up at this Box and give an Answer which I have not verified. The Answer is "None, Sir," in terms of persons who are now detained under emergency provisions.
    Mr. Driberg: When my hon. Friend uses the words "detained" and "detention", is he referring only to persons detained without trial? Is there not still in prison a large number of persons who were tried on charges arising out of the emergency?
    Mr. Foley: That is certainly true. I answered the Question on the Order Paper.

    N.A.T.O. (Scientific Discussions)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose that those members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation who are not members of the European Economic Community should meet regularly to discuss the scientific subjects discussed as a

    1227
    group by the members of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Mulley: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Would the right hon. Gentleman have another look at this? Would he inquire into the success of the conversations between Ministers and officials on scientific subjects within the Six and see whether, at least until we are more closely associated with the Six, we could not have useful discussions with the other members of N.A.T.O., particularly in view of the scientific achievements of the last 24 hours?
    Mr. Mulley: We are, of course, looking forward to receiving an invitation to join with the Community in considering scientific and technological co-operation and there are already several organisations in Europe—O.E.C.D., the Economic Mission for Europe, the Council of Europe and, of course, N.A.T.O. —for this. What the hon. Gentleman proposes would be adding to a duplication which is already quite a problem in demands on personnel and so on. We certainly want the closest consultation, but also want to avoid machinery which will duplicate what already exists.

    Canada (Army Manœuvres)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments following the manœuvres in Canada in which men of the First Battalion Royal Green Jackets in a mock African battle defended Wamali, a make-believe Black African State, against infiltration from a make-believe white-ruled country, Lagona; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Mulley: None, Sir.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one does not have to be an expert in crossword puzzles to see that the name of the black African country here is an anagram of Malawi and that the name of the white-ruled country is an anagram of Angola? Is he in favour of this gratuitous insult to our oldest ally, Portugal, and to Malawi, a Commonwealth country in good relations with her? Does he not think it quite absurd to have this sort of exercise when, in Africa, the position
    1228
    is the reverse and it is the African States who are infiltrating and trying to subvert the white-ruled countries?
    Mr. Mulley: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that, so far as I am aware, he is the only person who has expressed great concern about this matter. There have been no unfavourable reactions locally. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was not consulted about this imaginary situation. We have plenty of work dealing with real situations and would not have expected to be consulted. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find out how the Army draws up its training plans, he must inquire of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Howie: Can my right hon. Friend tell us who won?
    Mr. Mulley: I will make inquiries and inform my hon. Friend.

    Independence Constitutions (Safeguards)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways Her Majesty's Government seek to safeguard the people of colonial territories against future fundamental changes in their constitutions when negotiating independence terms.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The method is to entrench the constitution or the more fundamental parts of it, such as those relating to elections to the Legislature, the independence of the judiciary, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. The alteration of entrenched constitutional provisions cannot be effected by a simple Parliamentary majority.
    Mr. Goodhew: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some two-thirds of the ex-colonial territories in Africa have now amended very fundamentally the Constitutions which they were given on independence? Why did he throw over the possibility of a negotiated settlement with Rhodesia on the demand for double safeguards, when he does not demand even single safeguards of other countries?
    Mr. Stewart: We by no means threw away the possibility of a negotiated settlement with Rhodesia. We pursued the principles to which all parties in the House are committed.
    Mr. Orme: Does this not prove that when a country gains independence, and thereby its freedom to rule itself, entrenched clauses or safeguards put in beforehand mean nothing and that this would have been the same with regard to Rhodesia?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think that one can always draw that conclusion. When a country proceeds from dependent status to independence, it may, if its history and nature require it, be desirable to entrench clauses. There is no way, of course, of preventing the violent and illegal overthrow of those entrenched clauses. Nevertheless, I repeat that it is desirable, if the history and nature of the country require it, to provide for such clauses. In some cases it is not necessary. The United Kingdom and New Zealand, for example, have managed very well without a written constitution.

    Foreign Minister of France (Meeting)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now plans to meet the Foreign Minister of France, Monsieur Schumann.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I have no specific plans to do so, but I hope an opportunity will arise before long.
    Mr. Digby: Regardless of the British application to join the Common Market, is it not important to improve relations with our neighbour and old ally, France? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest possible steps to meet his opposite number?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Biffen: As soon as the right hon. Gentleman does get the opportunity to meet M. Schumann, will he point out that the common agricultural policy is an extravagant absurdity for the British to contemplate and that we are not prepared to enter negotiations with a view to becoming the receiving ground for agricultural surpluses from continental Europe?
    Mr. Stewart: If I am able to have an opportunity to meet my French colleague, I must judge for myself what it will be best to say.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the agricultural position in France, as elsewhere in Europe, is likely to change in a period of time?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

    Chemical and Biological Warfare
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the disarmament discussions at Geneva relating to chemical and biological warfare.
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been given to our representative in the United Nations Organisation arising from a report submitted to the Secretary General by 14 international experts on the dangers of chemical and biological weapons.
    Mr. Mulley: As I told the House on 10th July, I tabled on that day in the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva a draft Convention for the Prohibition of Biological Methods of Warfare, with an associated draft Security Council Resolution; these documents have now been published as Command 4113. Her Majesty's Government believe that this is a significant step towards the complete elimination of all biological and chemical methods of warfare, which the United Nations Secretary-General has urged in his recent report I am hopeful that urgent consideration will now be given to our draft Convention and we shall naturally take all appropriate steps to seek international support for our proposals.—[Vol. 786, c. 302.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Does not the recent accident involving the escape of nerve gas on Okinawa underline the urgency of the problem? I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's excellent work at Geneva, but why are harassing agents excluded from the bans he proposes?
    Mr. Mulley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind reference to me. We have not excluded harassing agents. We think that we would be more likely to make more rapid progress by dealing with the eliminating and banning of biological weapons first, and then we can turn to chemical weapons, of which harassing

    1231
    agents would be one of the more difficult problems. I have not in fact taken up the position, suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wood: Has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals to strengthen Article 3 of the draft Convention so that necessary action can be taken before rather than after any specific complaint is made?
    Mr. Mulley: I would be happy to look at that suggestion. It is extremely difficult to see how investigation could take place before a complaint is made because one of the problems in the past has been that there has been no investigation afterwards. It is impossible, because of the nature of chemical and biological weapons, to have an inspection before hand which would guarantee no possible illicit manufacture was taking place.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While welcoming the attention directed to this Convention, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has given careful thought to the fact that the Soviet Union is interpreting the present Geneva agreement in a different way from what the allies are doing? Has he called upon it to make a major contribution in this respect?
    Mr. Mulley: I have had discussions with representatives of the Soviet Union and I am assured that the matter is being closely studied in Moscow. I would not say that the Soviet Union is making a different interpretation from many countries. One of the reasons for the need for a new convention is uncertainty as to certain aspects of the existing Geneva protocol and the fact that it does not ban the manufacture and possession of the weapons, which is what I want to do.

    Youth Exchange Programmes
    Mr. Maddanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the comparative direct financial contributions which are being made by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom under existing youth exchange programmes under the Anglo-German agreement.
    Mr. Mulley: Her Majesty's Government at present provide £30,000 a year through the British Council which, I
    1232
    understand, is matched by an annual allocation of DM.300,000 from Federal German Government resources. Additional financial assistance is allowed by the Laender Governments on the German side and by local authorities and voluntary agencies in both countries but no figures are available.
    Mr. Maddan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bundestag has recently passed a resolution to spend £200,000 per annum on youth exchanges between Germany and the United Kingdom, provided Her Majesty's Government match that sum? When will the British Government agree to match it?
    Mr. Mulley: I am aware of the resolution but I think that I am right in thinking that no sum was mentioned. The resolution said that the Federal German Government should have talks with us about it. We shall, of course, be very happy to discuss it with the German Government with the objective of furthering youth exchanges. The British Government very much welcome exchanges not only with Germany but with other European countries as well. But I must also stress that we should not look at these exchanges as being only in the context of Government to Government financial subsidy. A tremendous number of young people cross the Channel each way under their own steam or supported or assisted by voluntary organisations and local authorities. I think that that is still perhaps the most important area for further exchanges.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Government's latest efforts to achieve a cease-fire in Nigeria and to assist relief work.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Our objective is an end to the fighting which would lead on to an agreed and durable peace and we are constantly seeking opportunities to help to bring this about. The Federal Government has repeatedly expressed its willingness to negotiate without pre-conditions. We will give any further help we can to obtain agreement on means of supplying relief and some progress has already been made.
    Mr. Lane: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us on both sides of the House are looking for a successful intensification of the Government's efforts during the Recess? In particular, will he make an opportunity in a United Nations context to try again for an international agreement to stop or at least reduce the flow of arms?
    Mr. Stewart: The fact that the recess is approaching certainly does not mean that Her Majesty's Government will relax their efforts in this direction. As I have explained to the House, an attempt to raise this in a United Nations context might encounter greater hostility from African States, which take the view very strongly that this is an internal matter. I am anxious to pursue this in whatever context is most likely to produce success. I believe that an African context is more likely to be successful than a United Nations one. If anything happened to make it right to alter that view, I would take account of the new situation.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that the O.A.U. has failed over the last two years to secure any success whatever either in respect of a cease-fire or of relief, will my right hon. Friend consider whether an initiative by the great powers which have permanent seats in the Security Council might not persuade the Assembly to take this matter up?
    Mr. Stewart: I have considered this repeatedly but I am bound to say that I think it is a matter for Colonel Ojukwu to ask himself seriously whether, in view of the general view of Africa towards this matter, he should not pay more respect to the initiatives which have been taken through the O.A.U. in Monrovia.
    Mr. Braine: Ten days have elapsed since both sides of the House expressed the deepest concern about the relief situation in Nigeria. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the latest position is about sending in relief by air and by river? In particular, can he say whether any special support has been given to the strenuous representations made by the American Government about the Cross River route?
    Mr. Stewart: There has been progress on all this. The International Red Cross and the Nigerian Government are, I think, now in agreement on how to proceed in this matter. There are flights pro-
    1234
    ceeding by Joint Church Aid. But I must say that, until agreement can be reached on land routes, the larger part of the relief problem will remain unsolved.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a loud outcry from world public opinion if the few relief planes going into Biafran territory are shot down by Federal forces? Will he make any comment about the fact that the United States has been asked to use its good offices to try to bring about a settlement of this terrible civil war?
    Mr. Stewart: Without further information, I could not comment on that second question. I think that everyone understands the difficulty which the Nigerian Government has with night flights—that they could be used as a cover for the supply of arms. It would be entirely possible for flights to go in by day. This is agreeable to the Nigerian Government and to the International Red Cross and I hope that it will be agreeable to Colonel Ojukwu.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: As the war is far from diminishing—both sides are claiming new victories and more people are being killed—will the right hon. Gentleman see that when his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets the President of the United States on his visit to this country, he tries to get an international arms embargo off the ground? He must know that the American Press is extremely hostile to the attitude of the British Government.
    Mr. Stewart: I cannot give a pledge in advance as to the content of the conversations between my right hon. Friend and the President of the United States. I have explained to the House that we have already made efforts to try to secure an international agreement on arms supplies and we shall certainly not set aside any opportunity to renew them.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will Her Majesty's Government ask Lagos to accept the Biafran proposal, which is backed by the United States Government and Joint Church Aid, for direct daylight flights from the three existing airports, subject to international supervision?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think that my hon. Friend is quite correct about that. But the Nigerian Government has indicated its willingness to accept these to

    1235
    a limited extent and for a limited time. I must point out that the Nigerian Government has taken the unusual step of being willing for supplies of food, drugs, medicines and seeds to be flown from its territory into the blockaded territory. If Colonel Ojukwu has any regard for the people whom he represents, he should accept this offer.

    IMMIGRATION
    Mr. Winnick: On a point of order. On 13th November, there was a debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I believe that I am right in saying that for many years that debate has been on the subject of immigration. Since 20th April, 1968, there have been eight debates on immigration and race relations.
    Over the weekend, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that he could not debate immigration in the House of Commons because the House refused to debate the subject. I have information from the Library—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the point of order. For the moment, the hon. Member has told me that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was debated last November. When it is debated is no matter for Mr. Speaker. He is now proceeding to attack a right hon. Gentleman. It has nothing to do with Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Winnick: My point of order is that since 20th April, last year, we have debated the subject eight times, including the main debate which I have mentioned. The country has been informed that the House of Commons is too cowardly to discuss immigration and race relations. It appears to be the case that we are not too cowardly and that we have debated the subject. For example, I have a cutting from HANSARD—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I can deal with the alleged point of order. The hon. Gentleman is saying that a right hon. Gentleman made a statement in the country and was inaccurate. I have remarked from the Chair from time to time that hon. Members and right hon. Members are often inaccurate. It is not, however, a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Winnick rose
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Winnick: I certainly shall not sit down until directed to do so by Mr. Speaker.
    The point I want to make is this: is it not an unjustified and unfair reflection on the House of Commons to say that we have been too cowardly to discuss a subject when, in fact, we have done so?
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares the feeling of every hon. Member that this is a free country, where men may speak freely, even when they have opinions which the hon. Member does not like.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order. If hon. Members are not to call each other liars as under the rule of the House they are not, is it not incumbent upon Members to be truthful in their assertions in the country?
    Mr. Speaker: It is not for Mr. Speaker to lecture the House of Commons on the opinions that it holds, or on the statements that it makes either here or outside, unless those statements are made in the House and are out of order.
    Mr. Molloy rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business.
    Mr. Molloy: You did say, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members can make statements outside the House which are contradictory. But the fundamental feature here is that the statement of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was made about the behaviour of the House of Commons, and it is right that that statement should be corrected.
    Mr. Speaker: An hon. Gentleman may correct a statement made by another hon. Member in one of two ways. He may make a speech in the country, as the right hon. Gentleman did, in free Britain, or he can raise the matter when the hon. Gentleman is making a speech in the House or when he himself is making a speech in the House.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [28TH ALLOTTED DAY], considered
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

  CIVIL SCIENCE
  3.41 p.m.
  Mr. David Price: I hope that the House will feel that this is an appropriate day for us to discuss civil science. The events of the last 24 hours have made us all feel very humble. The achievements of the Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin and Michael Collins are beyond praise. They are now the senior names in the annals of human exploration.
  We in this House—and I believe that I carry the whole House with me—salute them today, this day of their final success. We salute them for their courage, for their endurance, for their professionalism and, above all, for their own personal modesty.
  I believe that they have added a new dimension to man's long journey from the slime of primaeval poverty and ignorance to higher things. My hope is that our adventures beyond this planet—whether men on the moon or the penetration of the extra-galactic spheres by radio telescopes—will have a catalytic effect upon the conduct of our terrestrial affairs.
  It may be that the returning astronauts will tell us that Tennyson was right when he wrote this:
  "Hesper—Venus—were we native to that splendour or in Mars,
  We should see the globe we groan in, fairest of their evening stars.
  Could we dream of wars and carnage, craft and madness, lust and spite,
  Roaring London, raving Paris, in that point of peaceful light."
  I return to our debate. Our object is to have a wide-ranging discussion over the whole area of civil science. If my memory serves me right, this will he the first debate of this nature to take place during
  1238
  the course of this Parliament. I trust that the whole House will agree that we were right to use an Opposition Supply day to correct this unfortunate omission
  We decided to limit the debate to civil science, thereby excluding defence science. We realise, of course, that a substantial part of our national research and development effort is devoted to defence requirements, but we feel that defence science deserves a full day's debate on its own. Furthermore, we have the admirable report on defence research, produced by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and published earlier this year.
  I have no doubt that Departments will in due course present to the House their considered replies to that report. I trust that subsequently the House will be given by the Leader of the House the opportunity to debate that report and the Government's replies. I would not wish today to trespass into that debate. Nevertheless, I recognise the importance of defence research to the totality of our national effort in science and technology.
  As the opening speaker in the debate, my remarks must inevitably be in the nature of a general survey of the field. I start with the general proposition that science and technology are now in the mainstream of national life. Unfortunately, this is not always sufficiently acknowledged in our public discussions, whether in the Press or in the House of Commons. I must confess, too, that another place seems in these matters to be more "with it" than we are in the House of Commons.
  The influence of science and technology upon our national life will continue to grow, and grow rapidly. The accelerating pace of scientific advance offers immense prospects for raising both the material standard of living and also the worth of living to levels previously undreamt of. But it also offers greater opportunities than ever before for sheer destruction, for the suppression of individual liberty, for the establishment of efficient tyrannies, for the wanton abuse of our natural environment, and for rapid deterioration in the worth of living.
  If we look round the world today and extrapolate, George Orwell's "1984" is not an entirely remote nightmare. It all depends upon how the fruits of science are used. Science, the acquisition of

  1239
  further knowledge about how our natural universe is constructed and how it works is morally and politically neutral. As Sir Solly Zuckermann recently observed:
  "What we have to realise … is that in a world of conflicting power science is both the arsenal and instrument of power—but science qua science is always a neutral arsenal and a neutral instrument."
  That is why it is so important for Government and Parliament alike to understand what is happening in the sciences today. What primarily concerns us is the application of science in the form of technology, yet we cannot discuss technological change comprehensively without some understanding of the current developments in science.
  Science has always been international. It is, therefore, the totality of world effort, and not that of any individual country, which sets the pace. Yet, as never before, science is part of any country's national effort and, through technology, helps to determine its economic position in the world; but today the basis and the scale of scientific advance is daunting to a nation even of our size, because the world has experienced an explosion of scientific endeavour never before experienced in human history, and the Apollo programme is dramatic evidence of this.
  May I give the House a few crude figures to illustrate my point? It has been calculated that, of the total fund of scientific knowledge in the world, two-thirds has been discovered since the end of the Second World War, and of all the qualified scientists who have ever lived, three-quarters are alive and practising their science today.
  In such circumstances we are facing problems of an entirely new order. We in Britain cannot hope to make a major effort along the whole frontier of science. We have, therefore, to develop effective techniques of selection. What, and, above all, whom, should we back?
  This problem applies even more vividly when we come to "technological innovation". As the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology pointed out in its only report so far, that on Technological Innovation in Britain:
  "If there were anything like a law of averages, we should not expect any longer to contribute more than, at most, 10 per cent. of the world's new technical knowledge."
  1240
  This is a sobering thought to a nation which, historically, has been so rich in invention. Furthermore, we are finding more and more that important research work involves mixed teams across the disciplines. This is particularly true in applied research and development.
  In addition, it is a fact of modern life that the time lag between the discovery of an important piece of new knowledge and its application to a new commercial product is diminishing. Professor Gambling, Professor of Electronics at Southampton University, said in his inaugural lecture:
  "The half life of the technology of electronics is rapidly decreasing and is said to be currently about eight years. Some examples of the time interval between the development of an idea and its commercial exploitation are worth quoting "—
  and he gave these figures: the telephone, 56 years; radio, 35 years; radar, 15 years; television, 12 years; transistor, five years; micro-maser, three years.
  The lesson is clear. The traditional division between basic and applied research is decreasingly meaningful; so, too, is the distinction between the scientist and the engineer and the technologist. Quantum physics is as essential to the electronics engineer as are thermodynamics to the mechanical engineer. To my mind, we must adjust both our thinking and institutions to a more rapid feed-through from research to application, and the converse: the feedback from need to research.
  At present, as a nation, we are spending over £1,000 million a year on what is classified rather loosely as research and development, of which the taxpayer provides over half. Are we getting value for money? Do we involve ourselves too deeply in research and development? Some might ask—and I have often heard this question put—why should we bother about science at all? There are those who believe that the further pursuit of scientific knowledge is positively dangerous.
  Professor Dainton, in his massive report, warned us:
  "For many young people science, engineering and technology seem out of touch with human social affairs".
  I should like to outline briefly some of the reasons why I believe that it is right that Britain should be deeply involved in science and technology. In

  1241
  all my reasons I make the prime assumption that the survival of Britain as an independent nation is important to the people of Britain and that our survival is a valid aim of any British Government. I should like to suggest a few simple reasons why we must press on with science and technology.
  My first reason is that we live in a scientific and competitive age and that if we are to survive, let alone prosper, we must press ahead with relevant scientific and technological development. Put at its simplest, this is the long-term basis for earning our living in the world.
  My second reason flows from the first: science is changing the known world and if we do not adapt to change we shall not survive. That is the iron law of nature.
  Thirdly, through the application of the results of modern science we can, in Disraeli's famous phrase,
  "improve the condition of the people".
  This means not only the prospect of improving the material standard of living but of improving the worth of living because the options afforded to each individual can be increased and widened.
  My fourth reason flows from the third: through the increasing understanding which science gives us of our natural environment and ourselves as human creatures, we should be able to live and work together with greater understanding and greater sensitivity. Let me quote one example—the change which has happened in our lifetime in the attitude to mental illness. We now understand more about schizophrenia and, therefore, we no longer treat the schizophrenic as if possessed by the devil and chain him up in Bedlam. In other words, we should be able to increase the quality of human relations and social behaviour.
  My fifth reason is this. Science is an important part of contemporary culture. In a sense, science not only serves the purposes of our society but is itself one of the purposes of our society.
  Finally, by aiming at scientific, technological and industrial excellence, we shall be able to find for Britain her rôle in the world in the post-imperial phase of her history.
  1242
  Therefore, if the House accepts broadly my six aims, I ask: what are the main responsibilities of a democratic Government towards science and technology? I put this question because I do not think that we are always clear about how far the Government can or should be involved and, more specifically, where and how they should be involved. Apart from defence and national security, which are outside our discussions today, I suggest that the Government's responsibilities for promoting the six national aims in science and technology which I have just enunciated fall broadly into five areas of continuing responsibility.
  The first is the Government's rôle in stimulating, assisting and supporting the acquisition of new knowledge about our natural universe and about ourselves as part of that universe. Secondly, the Government have a responsibility to encourage invention and the more rapid and effective application of scientific and technological advances throughout the economy.
  Thirdly, the Government have a continuing responsibility to make better use of science and technology in fulfilling their duties and purposes. Obviously, the precise nature of the Government's proper duties and purposes will be a matter of continuing public discussion, but I hope that there will be no gainsaying my proposition that the Government must make better use of the appropriate sciences and technologies in their own work.
  Fourthly, the Government have a range of duties in the educational fields and in assisting to ensure a sufficiency of qualified scientific, engineering and technical personnel to meet the anticipated needs of the nation. Finally, the Government have a general duty within the general framework of a Parliamentary democracy to ensure that scientific and technological advances increase rather than diminish the opportunities for individual happiness and individual fulfilment.
  How precisely the Government fulfil their duty to the nation within those five areas of responsibility is not a fixed matter, or a matter which we should expect to be free from current political controversy. Indeed, I believe that it should be at the heart of contemporary political discussions if our discussions are to be relevant to the contemporary

  1243
  world. As I have said on other occasions outside the House, I am a strong believer in the concept of constructive conflict, provided always that the conflict takes place within the rules of good manners, sincerity and mutual respect.
  I should like briefly to go through those five heads of Government responsibility. If we turn to the question of public support for what is loosely called basic research, we find problems. We are here talking about two main streams of public finance: block grants to the universities through the University Grants Committee, and the science Vote, which comprises principally the research councils. For all the criticisms and imperfections of detail in this dual system, I believe that it has stood the test of time well. In view of other countries' experience, I am not encouraged to advance an alternative system. I believe that the heart of the nation's basic scientific research must remain in the universities. It therefore follows that if the nation is to do right by science it must do right by the universities.
  As we move into the world of big science, the case for sharing expensive facilities between a number of universities will grow. We have the experience of the Science Research Council in the field of high energy physics, with the Rutherford and Daresbury Laboratories which encourages us. But this will involve continuing discussion of mutual interest between the universities, the research councils, the U.G.C. and the Department of Education and Science. The Government cannot help being involved because of the scale of funds required, but the less the Government involve themselves in the respective merits of individual projects the better, because, with the best will in the world, they are not competent to choose.
  This is where the research councils come in. They provide the second source of public money to university science. This takes the form of earmarked grants in support of specific projects and specific individuals rather than of support of a general nature. The research councils also do important work of their own. I have in mind, for instance, the Agricultural Research Council.
  The principle, however, behind the creation of the research councils was that
  1244
  established long ago by the Haldane Committee, namely, that the control of research should be separated from the executive function of government. This principle was reaffirmed by the Trend Committee in 1963 and, in my view, we should be extremely careful before we depart from it.
  The question remains as to how Government should determine the amount of public funds to be devoted to the science Vote. I am of the opinion that this can best be done through a continuing dialogue between Government and the research councils. For this purpose, I include such bodies as the Council for Science Policy in the generic term of research councils.
  In such a continuing dialogue, I suggest that there are a number of guiding questions which should always be at the forefront of the Government's mind in determining their science Vote. I would like briefly to suggest what those questions are. First, what is the projected growth rate in the science Vote as recommended by the research councils, and how does it compare with the economy's current and projected growth rate? Secondly, are we providing sufficient resources to back our successful work? I am sure that the whole House would agree that we should back success.
  Thirdly, are there any obvious research fields on which we are not currently working or are working below the threshold level? If so, should we take the conscious decision to opt out? If not, do we try to accommodate the work nationally or internationally? We can also ask whether, in the balance of our research effort, we are anticipating foreseeable human needs in which our knowledge is weak.
  Have we outstanding British scientists in particular fields who are frustrated through lack of resources, and what are the consquences of their frustration? Is there any current work which should be abandoned? Are we doing too much proportionately in any particular field? Is little science suffering on the altar of big science? Are we devoting as much effort to research as our international competitors absolutely and proportionately, and what are the consequences?
  Are we playing a full part in the development of international centres of excellence? Are we trying to evaluate the

  1245
  cost benefit to Britain of greater or less participation in such international ventures? Finally, how does the science Vote compare with the many other calls upon public expenditure, having proper regard to the taxpayer and the state of the economy?
  The answers to these questions must come, in the first instance, from the scientists, but the ultimate responsibility for determining the size of the science Vote, like any other Vote, must remain the Government's; but, at least, let it be made in as much knowledge as possible of the consequences. Let it be recognised that if the Government do not support basic research, little basic research will be done.
  The undoubted benefits which flow from basic research are uncertain and long-term. Therefore, I suggest, there is likely to be insufficient private patronage available for basic research to supplement public funds. However, I believe that it should be our aim so to reform the fiscal system that alternative sources of finance to that of the State—namely, private patronage—are encouraged to develop. In the coming years, British science will need every penny that it can get, from whatever source.
  I move on to Government responsibility to encourage innovation and the more rapid and more effective application of scientific and technological advances throughout the economy. It is in this sector of responsibility that we find the greatest weakness in our current deployment of scientific and technical resources. As a nation, we devote a higher percentage of our gross national product to what is loosely classified as research and development than any of our European competitors, and yet they seem to be able to sustain faster rates in the improvement of productivity and faster rates of economic growth. It is, therefore, relevant to ask ourselves why this happens.
  The fault, I believe, does not lie in any failing in our basic research. On the contrary, a strong case could be made to support the view that relative to our population, the quality and scale of our scientific research is unsurpassed by any other nation. Nor, I suggest, is the problem a failure of British invention. During the past few decades, British scientists and engineers have chalked up an unusually large number of the more impor-
  1246
  tant technical inventions and developments of those years.
  Let me list just a few: penicillin, cephlasporon, radar, holography, the jet engine, gas-cooled nuclear reactors, hovercraft, variable geometry aircraft, Terylene and the float-glass process. And so one could go on.
  All too often, I suggest, benefits that have accrued from these technological breakthroughs have been exploited in other countries, and particularly in the United States of America. To my mind, all the evidence points to the fact that there is a serious exploitation gap in Britain between invention and the exploitation of its results. This problem of the exploitation gap is being increasingly realised, but it is also growing. I refer the House back to what I said about the half-life of technological invention.
  Furthermore, this exploitation gap is not peculiar to Britain. It is the general phenomenon in Europe, although it is more obvious in Britain. In his compelling analysis of the problem "Le defi Americain", M. Servan Schreiber observed thus:
  "That which threatens to crush us is not a flood of riches, but a superior understanding of how to use skills."
  What has gone wrong? In my submission, there has been a failure right the way through the system to understand the technological cycle, which I will compare to an electronic circuit. This starts first with basic research, the acquisition of new knowledge, and then moves on at the next nodule, applied research, where we identify projects which should go forward to development and production to satisfy a known or a likely demand.
  I would reflect on the words of Dr. Frank Jones, of Mullard, when he said:
  "Unfortunately, most of the applied research undertaken in this country is not part of technology at all, it is not coupled into the rest of the technological cycle—and, in particular, it is not under the vital pressure of the market place."
  Thirdly, we move on to development. The aim of development is to take a project through to manufacturing and commercial development. These three stages are all embraced in the general term research and development but they are clearly distinctive phases. They have different objectives and different time

  1247
  scales and they need different team mixes working under different managerial disciplines. The current distribution of effort in these three stages is, roughly, 10 per cent. on basic research, 25 per cent. on applied research and 65 per cent. on development.
  I quote again Dr. Frank Jones, when he said:
  "There is no doubt in my mind that a deliberate policy of reducing the Government contribution to research and development, whilst at the same time making tax concessions to industry, so that it can do more research and development in its own particular technological spheres would go a long way to meeting some of our economic troubles and putting the vital wealth creating part of industry on a firm footing."
  There is a great deal to reflect upon in that quotation.
  The fourth stage is production. Again, I suggest that production has too often been the Cinderella, whether in the private or the public sector, of our endeavours in these fields. Fifthly, there is marketing. The House will observe that I use the phrase "marketing" rather than "selling". I believe that all too often the couplings in this technological circuit are weak or totally absent, but, furthermore, there must be a complex of cross couplings between these five nodal points and, above all, between marketing and basic research, and constant feed back.
  How can the Government assist in improving this technological circuit and make it more efficient? In my own view, this takes us straight into the whole field of economic management today, because the right conditions for more rapid technological innovation are broadly the same as are needed for more rapid economic growth. The argument as to which comes first belongs to the chicken and egg category. I shall not pursue these matters further today, although they are vital to our economic future. No doubt, some of my hon. Friends will wish to pursue them in the debate. Suffice it only to point out to the House the importance of the Government creating economic environment in which risk capital gets an attractive reward.
  I turn now to science and technology in Government. If I am right in my view—
  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves
  1248
  this part of his speech, which has been most enlightening, I hope that he will say something about industry's opportunity to participate in the attaining of the benefits of research and the application of the benefits of research.
  Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman tempts me. I must confess to the House that in deciding what I would say today I realised that I could occupy at least three hours. I know that many of my hon. Friends want to participate, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow his invitation. He tempts me, but he would not get away with a short reply.
  To turn now to science and technology in Government, if I am right that the current need is to get more science into policy rather than to produce a single national policy for all science, then the whole ethos of Whitehall must change. It is my view that neither the present machinery of government nor those who operate it, whether politicians or senior civil servants, are wholly adequate to respond with understanding to the opportunities, the dangers and the problems thrown up by the advances of science and technology. I would quote the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, when he observed:
  "The element of the unknown in government increases with every step we are now taking to apply the fruits of modern science."
  This situation is more likely to deteriorate than to improve unless we take continuing measures to ensure that the machinery of government and those who man it are responsive to the product of modern science. The near-exponential rate of acquisition of new knowledge will decrease for each succeeding generation of politician and senior civil servant the relevance of that cumulative experience of previous generations which represents so much of the stock-in-trade of government. Precedent will become less of an inspiration and more of a hindrance to the making and execution of current decisions.
  I refer to the need to change the ethos of Whitehall. This, as I see it, is not only a matter of reorganising Departmental responsibilities, although some reorganisation is necessary, but it also involves the infinitely harder problem of getting each Department better equipped

  1249
  to understand and to use the science and technologies appropriate to the fulfilment of its own Departmental responsibilities and this must mean, amongst other things, that the whole of government must practise the techniques of modern management in the formulation and execution of public policy. It involves a more technical approach to the assessing of options and to the taking of decisions.
  I could develop this theme and it is tempting to do so—reorganising the whole Government—but I must defer it to some other occasion, and I move now to the next area of responsibility.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be better for all this process if there were more scientists and engineers in the Government?
  Mr. Price: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am at one with him on this, but I believe that my right hon. Friend, as a member of the Fulton Committee, will agree that the proposals of that Committee have moved some way towards the views which the hon. Member and I hold.
  I turn now to scientific and technological manpower and education. Central to any consideration of public policy towards science is the national stock of qualified scientists and engineers—Lord Blackett's Q.S.Es. We have been making encouraging progress in this field. Nevertheless, there seems to be general agreement that our national stock of scientists and engineers must continue to increase if we are to understand and to exploit the opportunities which modern science offers us as a nation.
  The twin questions of what rate of increase we should aim at and what should be the pattern of growth for the various scientific and engineering disciplines are more open to argument, but, clearly, the determining factor will be the flow of young scientists and engineers into active life, and this, in turn, takes us straight into educational fields.
  The health and vitality of science and engineering must depend upon an increasing flow of well-qualified candidates from the schools into the science and engineering departments of our univer-
  1250
  sities and technological colleges. If I am right that the organic association of fundamental research and higher education makes the university the best location for fundamental research, then the quantity and the quality of university staff is vital for the future of British science, and, whatever is done to encourage more scientists and engineers to enter other fields of employment, the universities must be in a position to attract their share of top minds in science and engineering.
  Furthermore, I think that there is general agreement that an important factor in bridging the exploitation gap between the British and American economies is the quality and quantity of trained manpower in industry, commerce and transport. This is especially true of industrial management. We need more trained scientists and engineers in British industry, I think the House will agree.
  There are also the needs for the schools. Dr. Dainton and his colleagues have drawn our attention to the growing problem of science teaching in the schools. Among their many recommendations they have called for "more graduates of high ability" to be recruited into science teaching in the schools. I believe that there is a crisis building up in science teaching in the schools. It is my opinion that this may well be the crunch issue in the 'seventies, and I should like, in support of my argument, to quote Professor Swann's admirable analysis:
  "Over the next decade the secondary school population is expected to increase by about 50 per cent. and those in school aged 16 or over by 115 per cent. Yet almost one-quarter of the graduate science teaching force will reach retiring age over the next decade."
  I cannot impress upon the House too strongly the importance of this issue. Science teaching in the schools is the base of the whole of our scientific and technological society. We must get it right, and, on present trends, it is going very far wrong.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: How are we to attract science and mathematics teachers into the schools unless teachers' salaries are improved, and local education authorities are prepared to accept that the salaries payable equate with those obtainable in industry?
  Mr. Price: The hon. Member, as a Liberal, has produced the market solution to this question. I have no doubt that in the debate his proposal will be followed. I will leave it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who speaks for us on these matters, to reply in detail.
  Mr. Neil Marten: Would my hon. Friend say whether he thinks that also it would be very nice if we could get a few scientists to come into the House of Commons, particularly in view of his argument that the views of scientific Members and peers would affect what the Government of the day do?
  Mr.
  Price: I would agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and, by implication, I answered, when I answered the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), that that was my view. I think that, in practice, engineers would find life here rather more agreeable than scientists, if one may make a distinction between the two, but I have already postulated that the distiction is not as great as some would have us believe. I see the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn) here. I do not know whether he calls himself a scientist or an industrialist, but, anyway, he is personally very welcome.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Price: I have given way sufficiently and I must conclude my speech.
  I turn briefly to the fifth continuing field of Government responsibility, which is to ensure that scientific advance and technological change increase rather than diminish the opportunities for individual happiness and fulfilment. To some, of course, it is axiomatic that scientific advance and technological change increase personal opportunities. We can compile an impressive list of improvements in material and social welfare which have flowed from advances in science in the last 25 years, let alone in the last 100 years.
  Nevertheless, I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen agree that there are many people who have a real but often inarticulate disquiet as to where science is leading us. I suggest to the House that their fears are not entirely without foundation. For instance, there
  1252
  is a constant danger of modern man abusing his natural environment. Certainly, we are getting enough warning from the biologists and the ecologists. We have major problems of pollution on our hands—atmospheric pollution, river pollution, coastal pollution, sewage, and the waste of our modern consumer society which litters the countryside.
  But I draw the attention of the House to some remarks made in the famous study by the Hudson Institute of New York, "The Year 2,000", published last year. I will quote one passage:
  "Technology raises issues of accelerated nuclear proliferation; of loss of privacy; excessive governmental power and/or private power over individuals; of dangerously vulnerable, deceptive and degradable over-centralisation; of decisions becoming necessary that are too large, complex, important, uncertain or comprehensive to be left to mere mortals—whether public or private; of new capabilities that are so inherently dangerous that they are likely to be disastrously abused; of too rapid or cataclysmic change for smooth adjustment.…"
  The message is clear. If the democratic values are to continue to flourish and persist, then democrats must master our rapidly expanding knowledge. If not, democracy may prove itself increasingly to be either incompetent or even irrelevant to handle the opportunities and the dangers of future scientific and technological development.
  I apologise to the House for detaining it for so long. I hope that I have said enough to indicate the importance of civil science to our nation, and yet I am far from content that we in the House spend enough of our time and energy on the many matters which I have been describing. At present, our main instrument is the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It is still a young Select Committee, but I know that it has more than justified its establishment. I pay tribute to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Bristol, Central, under whom it has been my pleasure to serve, and to all my colleagues on the Select Committee. I trust that the House will see fit to support that Select Committee by ensuring that it has a sufficiency of resources to fulfil its work.
  I trust also that the House will come to realise that science and technology are in the main stream of national life and that, therefore, they should be in the main stream of Parliamentary life. The

  1253
  House ignores science and technology at its own and the people's peril.
  4.25 p.m.
  The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I, too, should like to say how glad I am that we are having a debate on science policy in the House. It is the first since I have been Minister of Technology, over the last three years. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) on having ranged so widely in considering the subject, for it is very tempting in science to concentrate on some detailed aspect and to omit the wider questions. I am sure that he helped the House to broaden out the debate by the manner in which he opened it.
  I, too, should like to add my tributes to those which have been paid to the American astronauts who landed this morning on the moon, having given me, and no doubt other hon. Members, an all-night sitting without the benefit of the Chief Whip. It was an all-night sitting which I shall never forget as long as I live. As I am sure that the House would wish, I have sent a telegram to Dr. Paine, the administrator of N.A.S.A., paying tribute not only to the astronauts themselves but to the huge pyramid of scientific and technical achievement—workers, skilled and unskilled, managers, designers, technicians and scientists, numbering some hundreds of thousands in all, upon whom the astronauts relied for their capability and, of course, for their safety.
  Almost everything that can be said about this achievement has already been said. But my view—and I believe that others will feel the same—is that when we reflect upon it we shall see that it is the management capability which has been built up by N.A.S.A. which may turn out to have the greatest spin-off of all. For man has fashioned under the leadership of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration a system capable of co-ordinating and integrating the work of hundreds of thousands of people on a tight timetable in order to execute an objective, and mankind may need that instrument for other pressing problems. It reinforces my feeling that man, armed with scientific knowledge and engineering, can do almost anything that he wants to do and that he has removed the limitations on man's ability which have
  1254
  cramped his freedom since the beginning of time.
  This, in turn, brings into the forefront the fundamental question: what does man want to do with science? What do we want to do with the power which we have acquired? How shall we use this new-found freedom? As between a thousand options—it is no longer a choice of sword or plough share—which shall we choose? These are the fundamental questions. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who said that Parliament must discuss them not only in this debate but increasingly as the years go by.
  We cannot, of course, debate them in the way in which scientists would debate science. I should like to see more scientists and engineers in the House, but we should be interested in them not because of the expert knowledge which they have, but because, against the background of their expert knowledge, they would contribute towards the wider decisions which we have to debate.
  It is not as experts that we meet today, nor could Parliament ever meet as experts to discuss science. It is the organisation of science, its purpose, its control and supervision, and its social and political institutional implications which ought to involve everybody and which everybody is inherently able to discuss and debate, if people are too modest—and many are—to join in a debate about these questions, because they have no scientific qualifications then they are absenting themselves voluntarily from participating in the central questions of the time in which we live.
  For our generation this is the central power source comparable with the ownership of industry in the 19th century or of land in feudal times, and those who are not concerned with the use of scientific power are abdicating their political functions. I take it that that is what the hon. Member meant when he said that as a Parliament we must address ourselves to these questions even more systematically than in the past.
  It is one of the most curious, but, I think, highly significant paradoxes of our times that at a period of history when science has opened up these enormous new options—options which are both collective and personal—so many people feel that the range of their freedom is

  1255
  being progressively restricted. This alienation, which is very much a part of public discussion, is very widespread and it is in part—only in part—due to the fact that people find themselves surrounded by more and more things which they do not understand and feel themselves ill qualified to contribute to a discussion about. Therefore, if we are to reassert human control over this power, we have to start by having the confidence to discuss it even though we may not have technically any knowledge to contribute to the development of individual projects which lie within it.
  I hope, therefore, that this will be a wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Eastleigh invited the House to range broadly in discussing this matter, and I hope that, in doing so, hon. Members will contribute to what I have detected to be a rapidly changing public attitude towards science, a subject to which I now come.
  I believe that the public view of science is changing much more rapidly than is frequently realised. The uncritical acceptance of what may emerge from science—this process will be accelerated by the achievements of the astronauts—is beginning to give way to a more conscious desire to shape the future through the use of this power more than may have occurred at any previous time.
  This certainly characterises the new contribution to science policy thinking which the Government have sought to give during their years in office. We have sought to try to give science policy something of a new direction. Five years ago we decided that science could not, and should not, be confined to a particular sector of our national life; to grammar schools, universities, research establishments and prestige projects to be handled under special procedures that reinforced its separateness and made it appropriate for a new élite.
  We decided that the process of reintegrating science into everyday life was sufficiently overdue as to justify our trying new instruments of Government to control it. In so far as the debate gives the House a chance to review Government policy, this major decision which I have described and which, in part, lay behind the establishment of my Department,
  1256
  must necessarily come under examination.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend comment on what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) said about a crisis of mathematics and physics teachers?
  Mr. Benn: I think not, because my hon. Friend, who will speak later, is the Minister responsible for science in the Department of Education and Science.
  Indeed, when my hon. Friend intervened I was about to say that some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh lie within the responsibilities of my hon. Friend. Since, as he said, there is so much to say on these issues, my hon. Friend will deal with them. She will be talking about university science, technical college and schools' science, the work of the research councils and her responsibilities in the sphere of qualified manpower.
  The Ministry of Technology was set up to concern itself with the uses to which science must be put to meet our personal and national objectives. We should be judged by the objectives that we have identified and by the extent to which we have succeeded in realising them.
  There may be some hon. Members—as occurred in another place, when science policy was recently debated—who still argue about the so-called division between the two Ministries. These arguments will be familiar to the House, but I hope that if they are raised the exact nature of the division will be brought out accurately. This is not a division between pure and applied science. Nor is it a division between long-term and short-term, so-called applied science and applied technology.
  The scientific work done under the auspices of D.E.S. is not limited to pure science. It finances a great deal of education in the application of science, and this trend is continuing. Similarly, in the Ministry of Technology research establishments a great deal of fundamental work is being done, and will continue to be done, because it is central to our purpose.
  The division between D.E.S. and MINTECH represents the different purposes of the two Departments and the different methods by which they are funded. D.E.S. is concerned with science and

  1257
  science education as part of its academic objectives—I use the word "academic" in its broadest sense—to enlarge the area of knowledge and to educate people qualified to move and work in the new territories that science has opened up.
  The total sums are allocated according to the priorities the Government determine within the range of approved public expenditure. The decision as to what is the right sum is a central Government policy function and each must make its claim against other claims for our national resources. This allocation is entrusted to scientists, who are given the freedom to decide their own priorities. Although my hon. Friend will be speaking about this, I suggest that this seems to be a valuable consequence and inevitable method of dealing with this side of the subject.
  MINTECH, by contrast, sees scientific work as one aspect of the human and material power available to the community generally for whatever purposes seem most necessary. There is no conflict between D.E.S. and ourselves. Indeed, we regard the two as complementary.
  Within MINTECH, however, we have developed new priorities after very full discussion, and I will explain what they are. First, we have set it as a major objective of our policy—I am speaking of my Department—that science should he harnessed to the job of earning our living as a nation and overcoming the curse of a continuing balance of payments problem that has afflicted this country, under all Governments, for many decades.
  Looking at the consequences that have flowed from this, I am sure that this is the right approach. We have, therefore, adopted a frankly commercial approach to our funding of science, and I make no apologies for having done so. It is absolutely no good spending hundreds of millions of pounds on self-generated science projects or those which earn Nobel prizes and world acclaim if industrial competitiveness is neglected in the process, with all the restrictions on domestic growth that we know that to involve.
  Indeed, industrial stagnation inevitably leads to the curtailment of science spending, just as industrial success allows its growth. Thus, even in this area of taking
  1258
  a commercial approach to science we are making possible the opening up of options which are of benefit to science.
  This brings me to an important point which the hon. Member for Eastleigh rightly made. This involves the development of a capability for making judgments involving new techniques that have not previously been available to government. This is why we have set up the Programmes Analysis Unit, which does good systematic forward analysis forecasting. This is why, in evaluating aircraft projects, for which we are accountable to the House, we use extremely complicated D.F.C. calculations based on forward market analyses of a kind which are as good, if not better, than those to be found in many firms ad industries. This is why the techniques of value engineering and the other methods which have been developed in the better companies are now in use by the Government.
  This is certainly not to say, of course, that pure or fundamental science, designed to meet long-term needs, is irrelevant. Science seen as an arm of economic advance must be demand-orientated and not self-generated. It may he that, as a result of having a demand put on one by industry or by the Government, it becomes necessary to cater for certain fundamental problems. However, that is different from regarding this as an extension of the academic process which we think later might lead to some application.
  If I have disagreed marginally with what the hon. Member for Eastleigh said on this issue, my disagreement would be about starting an innovation with invention. The innovation process may start with demand. For example, when President Kennedy said, "We want to land on the moon", that was the innovation that made the rest happen. I am not certain whether the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh reflected what I am saying.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: Without being critical of MINTECH, which has done an extremely professional job in the years since it was established, does not my right hon. Friend feel that there is a contradiction here? He has justified the division between the D.E.S. and his Ministry and has then spoken about the need to establish not just certain scientific ideas, but to look at certain other

  1259
  needs, of which the Kennedy example is one. Is not this another reason for bringing the two Departments close together and having them under one roof? In other words, we should say in scientific development, "This is what we want. Work to achieve these aims," whereupon MINTECH would have sole responsibility for decision-making.
  Mr. Benn: I do not accept that. I do not accept that the present links between the two Departments are not close. Nor do I rule out the possibility—this has been proposed and to some extent it has happened—of some joint funding where there are divided responsibilities between the two. Indeed, a case is now being discussed.
  But it would be an absolute disaster if we rejected a project on the grounds that it was not economic and then got it approved because it was interesting. Once we get the blurring of this harsh decision that has to be taken, I think that we shall find ourselves slipping into all sorts of difficulties. But the links between pure and applied, between long term and short term, between academic and industrial orientated research are capable of being dealt with in the existing set-up.
  We have brought to the task of formulating civil science the many thousands of qualified scientists and engineers who work for and under the supervision of the Ministry of Technology. These people—there are 9,000 qualified scientists and engineers, including 6,000 working in 22 establishments—are a priceless national asset and we have tried to make it our business to refocus their effort more directly than in the past to meet our primary economic objective. The policies which we have developed to achieve this have reflected some very important and significant changes in emphasis, and I want now briefly to deal with them.
  First, we have tried to reinforce the Government's general policy decision to relate defence spending to our general capability by securing a shift from defence research to civil research. In 1963–64, defence research done under the auspices of Departments that now come in MINTECH cost, at present-day prices, £266 million while civil research cost £123 million. By 1969–70, this balance has
  1260
  tilted to give expenditure of £169 million on defence research and development and £180 million on civil research. Thus, this year, for the first time, research and development expenditure within the Ministry of Technology exceeds on the civil side the amount that has been spent on defence.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In that last figure on civil research, has not the big increase been in launching aid for civil aircraft?
  Mr. Benn: I will come to that point in a moment. It is certainly true that on the aircraft side there has been a shift between civil and military. This is, in part, reflected, but the fact is that, for the first time, this balance has tilted in favour of civil research, its industrial applications and marketing possibilities.
  The second shift of emphasis has involved moving away from the old exclusive Government support of aerospace and nuclear work—both of which are, of course, products of defence—towards a far wider range of industries upon which our economic future depends. A country of our size cannot aim to do everything; if it tries to do so it will store up difficulties for itself. Choices have to he made, and we have been making them, painful as some of them have been.
  For example, in the nuclear field at Culham we are cutting down fusion research by 50 per cent., just because its pay-off is so far ahead, if it ever comes, and we cannot spare the funds or the people for it.
  Similarly, in the aeronautical research programme we have cut back hypersonic work sharply for the same reason, and the support which we had previously given E.L.D.O., as a European rocket project, has been deliberately transferred into the much more industrially and commercially significant application satellite work. This will ultimately come under the auspices of the new combined European space organisation.
  It may seem slightly odd that a Minister should highlight the things that he has stopped so as to illustrate a positive policy, but a positive policy must mean concentrating on where we can succeed and not in dissipating our efforts in the endless financing of work that is undertaken simply because it lies within the intellectual capability of the scientific community.

  1261
  The third change of emphasis has been from intramural to extramural research. This has been done wherever it has been appropriate, because Government research establishments—and reference has been made in broad terms to them—in part reached their present size to compensate for the research deficiencies in British industry. As the I.R.C. and the Ministry of Technology have worked on the restructuring of British industry, we have helped to create units big enough to run and finance more of their own scientific research capability.
  As this happens, the rôle of Government intramural establishments will tend to change, and we must be ready for that change. Some of the work will be so specialised, so occasional, so expensive or so fundamental that it will need to be done outside industry. But the problems of transfer from innovation to exploitation, and the problems of making research programmes responsive to market needs are immensely more difficult if research is conducted under auspices separate from the needs it meets. The best transfer of technology is by the transfer of people or the establishment of joint teams, jointly funded, and this we aim to achieve.
  Mr. David Howell: The Minister is on a very interesting point, and one with which I am very much in sympathy. Is the implication of his belief in the need to transfer research activity to industries which are on their feet that he would also back proposals for fiscal changes to encourage more private research as the public research programme runs down?
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is moving into the area of taxation, which manifestly takes me far from the responsibility of my own Department, but I would say that one of the functions of the Ministry is clearly to provide an input into Whitehall thinking from industry over very particular types of problem, some of which may be beyond the direct departmental responsibility. I will leave it at that, rather than be drawn into the tax aspects in which the hon. Member is interested.
  The final shift of emphasis we have set ourselves would carry me a little outside the outer limits of this debate, but I must refer to it to complete the picture. It is a shift away from research to the exploita-
  1262
  tion of science in world markets, because here is where we have failed dismally over the last 100 years. A recent study has compared the development of gross national product per head of population in the major industrial countries from 1840 to 1968. It shows this country well ahead of its competitors until America overtook us in the 'nineties.
  The next to get ahead of us was West Germany, in the 'fifties. The author of the study, Angus Maddison, has suggested that projections on the basis of growth rates over the last 10 years indicate that by 1983 France could be well ahead of us, itself having been overtaken by Japan, with Italy edging up almost to the United Kingdom level.
  For a country like Britain, with an almost unrivalled scientific record, to accept a steady relative decline in its economic position is almost inconceivable, if not absolutely intolerable. But if we were to find out why this has happened and could continue—and it is a trend that goes well back into the 19th century, far beyond current political controversies here about the handling of our economic affairs—I am sure that part, at any rate, of the answer would be found to lie in the science policies of past Governments over at least a century.
  If I say a word about such Measures as the Industrial Expansion Act, which, I know, are controversial in the House, it is because we think that it is the task of the Government, facing competition from other countries which may subsidise their industry through defence and space programmes of the kind we are mentioning, to put a lot more effort into the exploitation side, and not to think that research, however well-organised, can solve our problems.
  In the past, we have allowed science to develop in a watertight compartment manned and guided by an élite, and we have, for a long time, failed to recognise in our schools and universities that science must be a part of life spreading across the whole industrial field and applied intelligently by millions of people who are not Ph.D.s but technicians and even semi-skilled workers, by managers and market men, designers and production engineers, to raise our living standards and open up fresh options by creating new resources we can use as we think best. Here is where the rôle of the

  1263
  technical colleges, which being institutions with porous walls, has a notable contribution to make in this field.
  It is also the policy that I have been describing that led us to try to reintegrate science with industry by, amongst others things, reorganising the nuclear industry to put our research programme under the management of committees upon which industrialists dominate, to keep within the overall manpower strength in our civil establishments and run down the strength of our defence establishments.
  This is why we gave the Atomic Energy Authority freedom to move into non-nuclear fields like desalination, ceramics and non-destructive materials testing, started industrial applications units at Farnborough and Malvern, and sponsored industrial units in universities as at Strathclyde; to build bridges between science and industry.
  Anyone who thought that this would have a bad effect on the morale of scientists has been proved completely wrong. My case is that the morale of a scientist, like the morale of everybody else, ultimately depends on whether he feels that his work is wanted. The old doctrine that one must keep scientific teams together, even if necessary by thinking up new projects, is totally wrong. We will get the best out of people not by that method, nor by telling them what to do, but by engaging their interest in a problem that has to be solved. It is the function of Parliament, the Government and industry to see to it that our needs are formulated and presented so that scientists can help us to solve them.
  I wish to say a few words about the development of our own research policy. First, I will look ahead to see how we can use the men and facilities in the A.E.A. and our own civil establishments now that the design construction companies have been set up, the fuel company is to be started, and now that Harwell has so successfully broadened its capability. It is too early to say exactly what form we shall adopt, but over the years, talking to people who have faced the same problem in other countries, it has become clear that the relationship between civil scientific research and the needs to which it has to be put is increasingly being seen as one embodying
  1264
  a contractual relationship. The customer, whether it be Government, local government, nationalised or private industry, pays for what it wants and, by paying, shapes the research programme itself and thus acquires an added interest in applying its results more quickly.
  This has certainly been the strength of some American practice and a lot of thinking is going on in Europe on it. Ministers in Communist and non-Communist countries are beginning to think in this way and it has certain self-evident attractions for us. Whatever the framework might be, and whether the customer is a Government Department that may be interested in the problems of pollution or noise, or a firm that might be interested in hydrostatic transmission or carbon fibres, the idea of paying for what you want done would certainly provide some form of methodology and clarification. It would simplify some very important and difficult questions of research management.
  I hope that the House, in debating this, will contribute its thoughts to these matters. Certainly, as a Minister who has appeared three times before the new Select Committees—twice before my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central and once before the Scottish Committee —I warmly welcome their creation and greatly value the work they have done. They have played a very commendable part in cross-examining Ministers in a way less easy for Ministers than Question Time, when Mr. Speaker may well call the next Question just in time to save those who have to answer, whereas the three-and-a-half hours' grilling under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend is an experience which may not be comfortable for Ministers but is very good for Parliament. The work of the Select Committees has been a most useful innovation and I pay tribute to it.
  I wish now to say a few words about international technological and scientific issues to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh referred. It is characteristic of the world in which we live that science has broken down to a very large extent the frontiers which used to divide us. The international community of scholarship in science is, of course, very old. This has been true in the science field. Exchanges of scientists is an integral part of the process and undoubtedly we have

  1265
  an embarrassment of riches with the amount of discovery going on all over the world. This in itself is a new aspect of science policy, the collection, evaluation and dissemination of information which has become a matter of vital national and international priority.
  There is a commercial side to the information explosion, because the marketing of brain-power may well turn out to be one of our most valuable exports. Certainly, it would be very foolish if, when we could exploit know-how ourselves, we left foreign companies the exclusive right to buy our scientific information, incorporate it in their systems and sell it back to us for foreign currency. We have to be alert here to the opportunity which is open to us to see that we use the invention we have. Not only to exploit it here. We may have to buy other people's ideas, and to do more than that, to help to market abroad what we have invented, because our inventions are natural resources as much as North Sea Gas, coal or resources found under our land.
  I should like to say a word about the brain-drain. In an international world of movement we must expect people to go and get what is beneficial to them to give them experience. No one in this House would wish to stop them going to work in a particular laboratory. What must concern us is the loss of scientists—even more, of qualified engineers—who go because they feel a lack of opportunity here and who are prepared to go almost anywhere in search of opportunities. The lesson which stands out a mile when we look at the figures or lists of people in America who would like to come back to work here—and many would like to do so—is the difficulty of placing them here arising from a reluctance in industry, and maybe elsewhere, to give people responsibility.
  It is responsibility more even than money which determines where a man wishes to work. It is still broadly true that most people in this country—this is one of the reasons why there is a sense of constriction to which I referred earlier—are not being stretched to the limit of their capability. Their talents are not being used to their full extent. There is prime responsibility in industry and civil organisation to use people and give them the responsibility which they want.
  1266
  I must come to the end of my speech. I wanted to refer to international collaboration in this field. There is much that I could say. I shall confine myself to commenting that it is our view that international scientific projects should be evaluated with the same critical criteria as national projects. That a thing is scientific and international and glamorous does not acquit us or anyone of the responsibility of seeing that what we want to do is right before we spend money on it. This is a contribution which this Government may have made, not always against a very sympathetic response elsewhere, when international projects have been discussed. I am sure that this is right and that international science must meet international needs in the same way as national science meets national needs.
  People are not prepared to see science handled separately and divorced from areas thought appropriate for public discussion, funded unquestioningly, shrouded in mystery and decided by self-appointed leaders. They are coming to see that science is part of life which concerns them intimately and they want to make it work for them. They are interested in the social consequences and they are dimly beginning to realise how revolutionary those consequences are.
  It is still broadly true that this country and every advanced country tries to run itself with the help of institutions which were devised and formulated and reached their final stage of development long before the forces which have come into play in the last 10 years made themselves evident. I do not dissent from the argument by the hon. Member for Eastleigh with reference to Fulton, Donovan, Redcliffe-Maud, the Select Committees and the re-examination of our national institutions, which is probably the greatest contribution that this Government could make to see that science, which will shape our future, shapes it with our consent and not, as so easily it could, without consulting us at all.
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The debate has started on a very high level, yet one which is realistic in the days in which we live. I want to join the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) in the tribute they paid to the

  1267
  achievement of the Americans last night. All of us would prefer a moon sitting to an all night one at any time, because it is much more interesting.
  What has been said in the House today has done much to redeem some of the rather snide articles and observations which have appeared in various journals and which have been written by some very distinguished people in advance of this great event. I want particularly to say how much I deplored the article by Bertrand Russell in The Times on 15th July and the headline given to it—
  "Why man should keep away from the moon."
  I find it almost impossible to understand a dessicated, cosmic Canute, saying, "Stop". In matters of this kind man cannot stop. It is in man to want to do these things.
  When it comes to deciding whether philosophers or technologists have been of more value to the world, I wish I were more convinced that the philosophers could claim a monopoly. I am convinced that the contribution that technologists and scientists, particularly technologists, have to make in these days is far more important than what the philosophers can contribute. We have the philosophy handed down to us over centuries. The technologies are new. It is the new technologies being interpreted by those who hold varying philosophies that will decide the world's future.
  I am not worried in the least about the sort of philosophy that Britain adopts. What I am worried about is whether we make the best use of the technology of which we, too, are capable, and apply it in the philosophies that we adhere to. That is what this debate is about. I have never for one moment assumed anything but a dedicated approach on the Minister's part to the political duties as he sees them of his Ministry and of he himself as Minister. I am sure that he is dedicated. Whether we agree with quite the way that he does these things is another matter.
  Although we have for some time adhered to the great Haldane principle, to which I shall return, we have still got the continuing need, whatever we say about the application of the principle, to have somebody in government with sufficient time on his hands to be able to
  1268
  sit back and see things in their grand perspective. Nothing has worried me more about the Minister's Department than the fact that, because he got landed with so much aerospace responsibility, he must be finding it more and more difficult to do what the old Lord President was able to do—sit back and see things in their grand perspective and have no demanding responsibilities.
  I know that the Minister is served by Parliamentary Secretaries—and they are very dedicated, too. However, there is still an importance in government in having somebody able to sit back and see things in their grand perspective in science and technology. This cannot be safely left to the universities; nor can it be safely left to any committees; nor can it be safely left to a court scientist such as Sir Solly Zuckerman sometimes sees himself, if others do not. It must be in the hands of a Minister.
  I believe that that Minister should not be bogged down in day-to-day detail and that he should be someone who is not necessarily a great scientist himself—in fact, God forbid that he should be one—but should be a man who is in sufficiently close touch with the various aspects of science and technology to know whether the advice that he is getting bears any relation to the sort of things which he knows are going on outside. The picking of men is perhaps the most important rôle of all for the man who must oversee Britain's scientific and technological effort.
  I turn to the question of the Haldane principle. In a very important speech at the annual luncheon of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee in 1968 Sir Solly Zuckerman dealt with this matter at some length. I know that it is not normal for us to refer to speeches made to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, but at the annual luncheon the speech is made public, so I hope that I am at liberty to refer to Sir Solly's speech.
  What Sir Solly emphasised was the changing nature of the Research Councils themselves. Having just presided over a sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which has been looking into the Natural Environment Research Council, I am anxious today not to forestall a report which I hope will shortly be laid before the House. However, in the light of

  1269
  Sir Solly's remarks and of my own impressions which have been gained elsewhere, I think I am entitled to say that Sir Solly put his finger on something which is becoming of increasing importance.
  Whereas in the past research councils were set up to promote science in the universities more than anything else, they are inevitably becoming more and more involved in practical application. Because of this, there is a blurring of the old Haldane principle whereby these matters were decided purely by the scientists, and inevitably more and more political decisions are being wrapped up with scientific decisions. This will be perhaps the biggest problem that Parliament will have to consider in the coming years.
  As I see it at the moment, a somewhat speckled picture emerges from the activities of the various research councils. I do not think that it can be said that any one of them is typical. In some of them, and in some of the disciplines covered by some of them, there is definitely an emphasis now on application rather more strongly rather than upon more basic research.
  The moment we move into this field we are blurring the edge between university and industry. What is definitely emerging from the picture as I see it—we shall have to talk about this much more in the future—is the need to get industry closer to the universities and closer to the Government Departments that are taking the decisions upon which the universities as well as industry will operate.
  There must be a bringing together of industry, of the universities, and of government. I would go further and add further education and primary and secondary education. The whole field of education comes into it. All the sectors must be brought in. There must be a widespread realisation that all of us are involved.
  One of the biggest jams we have got ourselves into is that in recent years we have been producing far more scientists than industry really needs or perhaps requires or thinks that it requires. We have nothing like a sufficient number of engineers.
  One of the biggest mistakes was the conversion of colleges of advanced tech-
  1270
  nology into universities. The reasons for the change were themselves not entirely sound. One of the reasons why the C.A.T.s were turned into universities was that the teaching staff at the C.A.T.s thought themselves inferior beings to the dons at universities. I think that they were gravely mistaken, if any of them ever did think that.
  We may live to rue some of the things that Lord Robbins recommended to us. We shall find, too, that we must delay the age of entry into universities and give people a chance of going out and finding out how the world ticks in industry and elsewhere before they go up to university. I believe that they themselves, when they get to university, will make a bigger contribution to the universities as a result. They will also get more out of them.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I ask this question in no hostile spirit. If the C.A.T.s had not become universities, what in my hon. Friend's view, should they have remained—that is, should they have remained within the local authority sphere, or should they have continued for a longer period as direct grant institutions?
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I would have said that with the job they had to do, we should probably have had to relieve local authorities of financial responsibility. Whether we left them there or not, it was not inevitable that they should automatically be changed into full university status. What matters is whether or not this country will get enough engineers which industry needs. We are not getting them and we shall not get them until we look at the whole of this business again.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) is far more knowledgeable than I of how the educational system is organised, but educationists in particular have got to be made more aware of the needs of industry. The more we hold these seminars, as some of us do, and listen to what the university and industrial representatives say, the more we realise that there is a generation in industry and education which is simply not thinking on the right network if they are to solve the problems of the modern world.
  It is these things for which Ministers have a heavy responsibility. It is the

  1271
  right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science upon whom the burdens most lie. I say to them both and to the hon. Lady the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, who is to reply to the debate, that however sincere they are—and I do not doubt that they are sincere—they have got to ensure that their own Departments are properly equipped to enable them to do the job that Parliament expects them to do. I do not believe that either of those Departments are properly equipped to do this job at the moment.
  I still believe that this country has an immense contribution to make in basic scientific thought, and one of the things which encouraged me most when I accompanied the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to the United States was the number of people who said how the United States still rely upon us for the basic thinking which they are better able to exploit. I still believe that we have a rôle to play in this respect. Could anything have shown better how true this is than what has happened with the moon shot? Has there ever been a better or more superlative combination of the utmost peak of modern technology designed to pursue basic research into what they bring back from the moon? These two things are absolutely inseparable. Universities can no longer sit back and say, "We do all the basic research." Industry can no longer rely on its own research or upon Government research. It has got to be universities, industry and Government—the whole lot. Let us hope that we can make some improvement very soon.
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Those of us who attend debates on this subject, though not perhaps strong in numbers, are very strong indeed in our interest and devotion to the subject. The trouble is that we tend to cross and re-cross our own tracks without always making any great headway. In saying what I have to say I shall not claim any particular originality but I might succeed in bringing a slightly new slant to the points which I shall raise, and that, I believe, is always a valuable contribution to a debate on this kind of subject.
  1272
  In looking at the defects of the present system of Government administration of science and at our hopes for the future, I hope we shall not overlook the progress that has been made, not just in the lifetime of the present or the previous Government but during the course of the present half-century. An enormous amount of progress has been made. If we go back further, say to Greenwich Observatory, and follow this through the foundation of the National Physical Laboratory to the creation of the Ministry of Technology and to institutions such as the Science Research Council or the Atomic Energy Authority, we can see how much progress has been made.
  This is a self-generating process and I think it is driven on by two impulses. One is curiosity—the curiosity to understand the true nature of the environment in which we live and in which we are created, and its laws. The other impulse is to live better. I do not mean that necessarily in a purely material sense but in the sense of the quality and dignity of living being enhanced.
  That means applying scientific knowledge. It means the technical ability to increase wealth. I prefer the phrase, "technical ability to increase wealth" to "improved productivity" although that is the modern jargon phrase. It seems to me that the human, or divine, curiosity is the sphere of science. To help mankind live better is the sphere of technology.
  It is interesting to note that in the very modern world, science is often regarded as the basis of technology. Yet the fact is that technology, through much of its existence from the discovery of iron, or bronze before that, to the steam engine and beyond, lived and advanced without the support of science in any organised or recorded fashion. Technology moved on all the time but there was little science in any organised fashion at all. I have no figures, but I would think it certain that in the 19th century the amount spent in this country on the development of technology, not through government or government agencies necessarily, was immense in relation to organised scientific spending. There could have been no comparison at all between the vast amount of spending say upon technological development and science.
  The same applies also to the numbers involved. There must have been far

  1273
  more people in the 19th century, in the age of great engineers, involved in technology and engineering than could possibly have been involved in science or research. Yet, as I say, we now have a situation where science research and development are regarded as the necessary beginning of a long development process which leads to technology. This thinking should now be re-examined.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I believe the hon. Gentleman is right in what he is saying. In the last century there was only one scientific laboratory in this country, and that was the one in the Royal Institution.
  Mr. Palmer: Yes, I believe the National Physical Laboratory was built at about the turn of the century.
  Since the last war particularly there has, been a steadily changing relationship, which is really disturbing and goes to the root of much of our trouble, or at least is the explanation of many of the paradoxes that arise—that there are about twice as many post-graduates studying science as study technology.
  Therefore, we get the extraordinary result that while the United Kingdom spends more in relation to population on research and development than even does the United States—certainly more than European countries, and more than Japan—the growth in our actual production, the improvement in our practical technology and our ability to create fresh wealth is considerably lower than the other countries just mentioned.
  Science policy today must be related to the vast cost of modern research and development. Even allowing for the change in the value of money, the cost of the apparatus which Faraday used must have been quite small. The circumstances were so different; he was starting on a first principle, or an early principle. One compares that with, say, the 300 GeV nuclear accelerator. It is to be made to satisfy the curiosity of modern researchers, in the same way as the small, primitive induction motor of Faraday was constructed to satisfy his curiosity; but in cost there is no comparison between the two.
  I take what my right hon. Friend said as right in this connection. We can no longer realistically divorce science from
  1274
  technology. It cannot be done. This has been proved to us in at least two major investigations conducted by the Select Committee. The point is coming out all the time. I think of the investigation which we conducted into the reorganisation of the nuclear reactor industry, and the investigation into defence research. Hon. Members who served with me on the Select Committee will recall that we had the experience of going to a Government research establishment where we discovered that, in order to give engineers a proper rate of pay which would attract them into the establishment and keep them there, they had to be called scientists. That was the only way in which they could properly be paid.
  The Swan Committee discussed the Ph.D. and its prestige value. They thought that it helped a man to pay—or not pay—his grocery bill if he is a Ph.D. The title "Doctor" does not count for quite so much in this country as it does in Germany, but it counts for something. Swan suggested that an arrangement might be devised by which working professional engineers could be dubbed "doctor". It was felt that not only would such an arrangement help them to win more respect from grocers but we should probably induce more people to take up engineering and rather fewer to take up science.
  Our major problem in this country now is no longer science as such—I am not suggesting that it has no problems, but our research is reasonably well done and we should not be ashamed to say so—but the need to bring science back into a realistic relationship with technology and engineering. If we are to get the thing right down in industry itself, we must start right by making things consistent from the very top.
  I noted that reference was made to that sacred cow of Government administration of science, the Haldane principle. I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) was bold enough. He toyed with the idea, but he felt that probably we must continue for the time being as we are. Everyone sticks at that point. Everyone thinks of cutting the throat of the Haldane principle but stops without really coming to it.
  I do not deny that progress has been made in the twin Departments of

  1275
  Government represented science here tonight, but it is a curious arrangement that we have our research councils under one Ministry, we have technological improvement under a second Ministry, and industrial training under a third. One can never be quite tidy and rational in the organisation of Government, but one should always try to be a little tidier and rather more rational if one can. Moreover, it would be a symbol if we avoided the split between science and technology which, I believe, has roots in the past which no longer give us the substance which we need.
  Things were different at the end of the last war. Even 25 years ago, there was, apart from military technology, no great interest in technology within the Government or in the country generally. There was great interest in science. An honorary Committee much connected with the House which we all know is the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It is now very much connected with technology, but it was called the Parliamentary and "Scientific" Committee when it was founded about 25 years ago.
  At that time, when science had arrived at Whitehall, even if technology had not, wearing a magic robe, it was natural enough to give it to a high mandarin in the Government such as the Lord President. It was felt that he was suitably aloof, he had no Departmental responsibilities, he normally had nothing to do, and he could, therefore, supervise science with proper detachment and decorum. That was a system which corresponded with the spirit of the times. But now that scientific research has been handed over to a branch of a busy Department such as Education, which, heaven knows, has enough to do in education itself, the mystery has gone out of it. It is no longer something for a high mandarin or the Lord President. It is a work-a-day branch of a normal straightforward Government Department which can make errors just like any other Government Department.
  We are right then to ask the question: is it the right Department? Are we setting about it the right way? Are not we trying to maintain a principle which might have been sound 20 years ago in circumstances which are very different today? Both science and technology are losing by their division.
  1276
  I talked of cutting the throat of the Haldane principle. I modify that and ask the question: Is the Haldane principle relevant today? I am not sure that it is. It is not for me as Chairman of the Select Committee to try to anticipate what the Committee may decide as to its future subjects of investigation, but it is open to any hon. Member to suggest a subject, and I offer the thought that one such subject might be the whole organisation of science and technology in relation to Government.
  Mr. Lubbock: Too big.
  Mr. Palmer: I hear the hon. Gentleman say that that is too big, but no subject is too big for the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
  Having said that the need is to get the thing right at the top if it is to be right below, I suggest that in industry today, in order to draw more students into science and technology in the first place rather than into arts, and afterwards to give special emphasis to applied research and technology for graduates—it ought for a period of time to be the law of the land that every large industrial undertaking, private or public, should have a proportion of engineers on its board of management. That might well be done just temporarily, as an expedient, perhaps, but I am sure that it would have an invigorating effect. Not only would it be good for the boards but it would make it clear to young men and women who are anxious to earn a good living with decency and responsibility that the engineer is a man or woman who is regarded as of importance and more certain to be on a board of directors than the accountant, the lawyer or the general administrator, as so often happens today.
  A new initiative could also be valuably applied at the highest level of the scientific decisions of Government. What happens when an important decision on high Government scientific or technical policy has to be made, when all the committees and sub-committees have reported, have fought and contradicted each other, when there is no escape for the people at the top, when they must make the decision—as about the 300 GeV. European accelerator, for example, or the decision to cut back on nuclear fusion research at Culham.

  1277
  Who gives the advice on priorities to the Government? This is a mystery. We have tried to probe it in the Select Committee and have not had a great deal of success so far. Is it the Scientific Research Council or the Council for Science Policy? Is it the personal adviser to the Prime Minister? Who does give the final advice to Government on the big decisions? In the end, despite what my right hon. Friend said, I suspect that it is the Treasury which makes the final decision. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State could throw a little light. It would only be a little light I fear.
  Some reference has been made to the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I say this with humility, but it was an enormous step forward when the House decided to establish it. It was a symbol that the House had now recognised the importance not only of science and technology to Government but of the obligation of the House of Commons to make the executive accountable on scientific and technological matters. There was a time when the business of Parliament, in the words of the old song was only "to pass laws and put down crime", but today Parliament must do much more and this House in particular.
  We all know that Ministers, either at that Box or in Papers and Estimates, say that something has to be done or must not be done and that they have had the very best scientific advice. Whether they have had consistent advice is arguable, but how is the House to check such statements? Ministers are laymen, but their alibi is that they have had the best advice. If the House is to do its duty in modern conditions, it must, even at the sacrifice of much time and effort by hon. Members, try to give these matters a close scrutiny, which is best done through the kind of Select Committee which we have established.
  I hear one or two rumours—they are only rumours—that there is to be a grand grouping of Committees. I hope that any such arrangement, whatever its merits, will not include the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which, by its terms of reference, is not specifically concerned with any one Government Department and chooses its own subject. Its terms of reference are to look at science
  1278
  and technology and report. That means that we can pursue matter wherever it is to be found, because that is the range of science and technology. Since we are not tied to any Government Department, we make a habit of taking evidence from industry. We have established close relationships with private as with public industry.
  If we should now go back on this development and retrace our steps, that would suggest to many who are working hard to make this country the advanced industrial country which its history and the talents of its people demand that the House of Commons had given up the struggle and was prepared to remain behind the times. So I suggest that the work of this Select Committee is a symbol of the desire of hon. Members to make Governments accountable for scientific and technical policy and spending; a symbol of the desire of this House to be in the twentieth century and to remain there.
  5.36 p.m.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). Having been a member of his Select Committee on Science and Technology for the first two investigations on atomic powers stations and defence research establishments I endorse what he said, that this is very valuable work. Although responsibilities to a trade association have forced me to bow out in the current year, this is in no way because I have lost my enthusiasm. In fact, I come away with even more intense enthusiasm. This is a very important part of Parliamentary life.
  If this matter comes up in Government circles, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind, particularly in view of the fact that this experimental Select Committee started only two years ago, the fact that it would be regrettable if it were not given the full support of this House, to which it is entitled. I hope that the Government will fight any tendency—the hon. Member for Bristol, Central referred to this—to try to centralise all Committees. It is important that one or two Committees should be able to push the searchlight of responsibility into various corners of the Government machine. It should not then dissolve itself and start on something else

  1279
  but should reserve the right to go back to see what action was taken as a result of its deliberations. I pay tribute to all those—many of them are here today—who have taken part in the dedicated work of this Committee. I hope that they will go from strength to strength and will not be denied the facilities of the House.
  The Minister said that it was his job to inject technological thinking into the Government and into industry. Some of his injections seem to have been rejected, because the figures which he gave suggest that there has been a reduction in research and development in these five years. The spending on R. and D. for defence in 1963–64 was £266 million and has now gone down to £169 million, a reduction of £97 million. He told us also that spending on civil R. and D. has risen from £123 million to £180 million, an increase of £57 million. Therefore, there is a net reduction of £40 million on those two figures.
  The latter figure, of civil R. and D., shows that the great increase has not been over the whole field of civil applications but has been concentrated almost entirely on launching aid for civil aircraft, which has, to some extent, been necessitated by the wholesale cutting of our military aircraft programme and the decision to buy overseas. It has become imperative to give launching aid if aircraft firms are to continue as they are or to improve their contribution.
  I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that now he feels that his job is to harness technology to the problems of Britain earning her living. That is absolutely right. But I think that our anxiety would be as to whether Whitehall as at present constituted has the right machinery for calculating what the potential market would be in those sectors that he wishes to select and support. I do not believe that, at the moment, Whitehall has the proper machine to carry out the market surveys. He said that it was now demand orientated. That means market orientated and it is desirable. But if there are not the trained people to be market orientated, they may not make wise decisions.
  Mr. Benn: I did not say that I regarded it as our job to select projects but when
  1280
  projects come to us for support from industry we have the manifest duty to evaluate them and consider whether they appear to justify support on the basis of the markets identified for them. There is nothing in what I said to indicate that we say what should be done but that we must respond intelligently and professionally to the requests for support which come to us from industry.
  Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) distinguish in his remarks between Whitehall, which has not the capacity to make the kind of decision to which he refers, and the programme analysis unit set up at one remove from Whitehall for this very purpose?
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I think that it is true that if one can gather a team of specialists for this function one can so distinguish but the machine of Whitehall is not and is not intended to be market orientated. I would be the first to say that the Minister is dedicated, as we all recognise, to the promotion of science and technology to the greatest possible extent that his Ministry can influence it. I am sorry that the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, has left. Unfortunately, as this subject has been selected for debate at relatively short notice, I have a commitment outside which means that I shall miss the rest of the debate until she replies.
  I want to refer to the subject of the Dainton Report, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) in his admirable opening speech. It is no good our continuing to discuss the promotion of science and technology and the innovation of processes and the need to get ahead in every industry and in scientific endeavour if our secondary schools are to be starved of the maths, physics and science teachers essential to sow the seed. This is the seed corn of our nation. The Dainton Report was quite firm. It said that, in the absence of other methods, we must surely provide a special incentive for mathematics and science teachers in our schools. It is the job of the Government—although an unpopular job, I admit—to take on the N.U.T. The Government must say to the union that, where there is a shortage detrimental to the long-term well being of the country, there is

  1281
  no alternative, whatever the union may say, to paying more and attracting the necessary experienced people to teach in our schools.
  We had to do exactly this in the Defence Departments when there was a shortage of doctors and dentists in the forces. Some people asked, "Is it sensible to pay a doctor or dentist in the forces more than we pay air marshals and generals?" We replied, "We are sorry but we have to pay the rate for the job". The pay of doctors and dentists was then related to comparable pay in civil life. The same applies in our schools. We should really pay maths, physics and science teachers up to the earning capacity they would have in similar jobs at a similar age in industrial and civil life. If the Government do not do that, we shall be risking the future viability of the nation.
  I add my tribute to the men on the moon. Many of us saw them early today. I can only comment, having sat here at about 3 a.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of last week, that I felt that the moon landing was much better entertainment and one of the most enthralling and exciting scenes I have ever witnessed. It was well worth the loss of sleep compared with our deliberations last week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman mistook the achievement in saying that the lesson was management. I would say that one lesson of this achievement is to pick the objective and then aim at it. This is why, surely, during the war science and technology and engineering in this country made such tremendous progress. Our objective was simple—to win the war. The Americans decided to put a man on the moon, and they did. I think that it was the defining of the objective which was the important factor, although I concede that the disciplines which have brought it about are very valuable.
  This is why I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has persuaded the Cabinet not to abandon the Concorde. I know that this is a smaller objective but it is not a prestige symbol, as was suggested in 1964. It is a pioneering objective which has been market surveyed and I am sure that it is viable. It would be a desperate shame, after so much has been cancelled, if the Government cancelled this one supreme example of ad-
  1282
  vanced technology and, incidentally, of international co-operation. I am only sorry that perhaps the Whips—not the Treasury this time—may prevent Members of the Select Committee from visiting Concorde on Thursday. There would be a balance of Members on both sides, so that voting would not be affected. I hope that we can go despite intervention by the Whips.
  I want to say something about ocean space. Our oceans cover five-sevenths of the world's surface. Of all nations, we have the longest maritime tradition. Of all nations we are most vulnerable and most dependent on the sea. We have relatively few raw materials left in our own country. There are probably immense sources of raw materials on the continental shelf and the ocean bed. As recently as 15 years ago, we had not even heard of North Sea gas. Now it is harnessed and operating. There are other potential sources as well. I feel that here is an area which we must not neglect.
  It is the same with fish farming and fishing. Again I believe that there is an enormous source of food to our nation which could be cultivated as our farms are cultivated, and I am attracted to the possibility of fish farming projects alongside nuclear and other power stations where the spill-over heat is immediately available to breed and feed fish and encourage growth and other processes. This sort of fish farming would again make a tremendous impression on the half of our food supplies which currently have to be imported. Perhaps some of this percentage could be found around our shores.
  Another reason is defence expenditure, of course. We are unique in having had our people nearly starved twice through submarine warfare. We have learnt the lesson and a great deal of attention is given under all Governments to antisubmarine warfare. We therefore have the defence reason, the food reason and the raw materials reason for harnessing and nurturing ocean space to our needs.
  What is being spent? In his foreword to Cmnd. 3992, the Lord President of the Council says that we are sending £13·4 million a year on ocean space and of this £6·01 million is on hydrographic survey. This is a specialist and traditional operation. Only £7·42 million is being spent on a whole range of subjects. One wonders whether enough

  1283
  impetus is being put behind any of them. They include fisheries, mineral resources, marine transport, coastal protection, pollution control, defence and the underlying scientific disciplines of physical oceanography, seabed biology and geophysics and marine biology. The money is fairly thinly spread and I wonder whether it is a correct sense of priorities to spend only £7 million over the whole range when so much is at stake.
  Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I share his enthusiasm for this sector of activity. However, is there not a certain obligation on him to say what sum of money he would like to be spent? Some of his colleagues are repeatedly calling for lower taxes and lower public expenditure and those of us who have particular enthusiasms have a duty to say from where the money is to come.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: That is a standard intervention by a Government supporter in the speech of any Opposition Member. I have heard it constantly throughout the 19 years I have been here and I do not propose to take up the challenge at this time. The question of priorities is a matter for the Government and I am suggesting certain priorities. I understand that we are about to spend £300 million on the Channel Tunnel and I wonder whether that is a wise investment compared with perhaps £20 million a year on ocean space. I wonder whether the dividends on the latter would not in the long run be greater than the dividends on the former. But it is for the Minister, who has responsibility for an enormous Government programme, to consider the priorities, as he himself said.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I, too, share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm. What more could the Government do to promote or encourage civil science research and development?
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I hope to answer that later. I want now to deal with organisation.
  Just as I believe that one Minister should be responsible for space, I believe that one Minister should be responsible for ocean space. When this matter was debated in the House of Lords, the Government spokesman drew attention to the introductory remarks of the Lord Presi-
  1284
  dent of the Council in the White Paper when he said:
  "Because of the diversity of interests in marine science and technology, it would be impracticable to make the whole of this field the responsibility of one Minister and one Department."
  I am sure that that is not the sort of argument which would persuade the Minister of Technology. I put a Parliamentary Question to him on the subject and I was staggered, as he may have been, by the list of his responsibilities. I will not bore the House by reading the list, but it includes 40 subjects starting with explosives and fireworks and going on through steel tubes, iron castings, non-ferrous metals, agricultural machinery, metal working machine tools, pumps, valves and compressors, industrial engines, textile machinery and accessories—and that is only the first third. If he can be responsible for these things, why cannot one Minister be responsible for ocean space and marine biology and technology?
  Mr. Benn: We have had a similar argument about air space. If science is to be integrated with its demands, the amount of work done should be dictated by the customer, and customers vary. There is the educational customer, the defence customer, the transport customer and so on, and I am a customer. The links between research and the purposes for which it is needed ought not to be separated. One has only to think of a Minister in charge of technology on land to appreciate how dangerous it would be to separate research entirely from customer interests. That is the reason for not having one Minister.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: My experience of Government is that nothing gets done unless the responsibility is harnessed to one Minister and he is a Minister powerful enough to bang the table in Cabinet.
  In America, the National Aeronautical Space Agency was launched many years ago and one of the lessons was that there should be over-riding responsibility. In 1966, a similar organisation was formed, the National Council for Marine Resources and Engineering Development, which was directly under the Vice-President of the United States, so that there was full concentration under one senior Minister. This kind of organisation is essential if we are to make progress.

  1285
  In another place, the Government spokesman listed the various advisory committees, but they are only advisory committees and not dedicated whole time to the work, and I wonder whether multifarious committees, important as they are, are able to give the thrust needed.
  It is also significant that none of these committees includes any representative of industry. It was said that such representatives might be included on an ad hoc basis, or invited to serve for a short time, but industry must be brought into these problems at the earliest possible stage. Engineering will be of vital importance to the extraction of minerals under the seas, not just their discovery, for discovery has often already been made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether industry cannot be brought in now.
  When the Select Committee visited the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment, we were tremendously impressed by the work going on, but when we asked how many open days it had had during its distinguished career so that industry could come and learn the technology, the answer was none, that it was in touch with a number of firms which were specialists in this work and there seemed to be no need for an open day. This is retaining knowledge which has been gained.
  I repeat that I am tremendously impressed by the American philosophy in this connection, which is that knowledge created by public funds should usually be made public. I cannot help feeling that the same applies to other defence research establishments, that there would be a civil spin off of which industry could make a healthy use. Since our criticism, there has been an open day and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage this interchange, not just with specialist firms, because sometimes firms which are not specialists can provide new and original ideas.
  I am attracted by the idea of the creation of an authority. In the U.S.A. two authorities have been created, one for space and one for ocean space, and the same has been done in France. We had the same plan in this country with the Atomic Energy Authority, which achieved important results, although admittedly with large capital investment by the taxpayer. A similar authority for the
  1286
  application of satellites and another for ocean space might produce, better results than the conglomeration of diverse interests.
  If we are to bring industry into the picture, development contracts with industry ought to leave enough money in industry's hands for it to undertake risk operations. Even in the current year, industry is finding it increasingly difficult to make profits. Most firms have to make loans to the Government at no interest in the form of S.E.T. or import deposits, and even, with the engineering industry, training board levies. Large sums of money are at risk and, although in due course we get the money back, we have to finance the operation and we have to do so at very high rates of interest.
  So much money is being siphoned off from industry by the Government in various forms of taxes and levies that I am not sure enough is being left for industry to back its hunches in the research and development sphere, and in the long run this can have a very damaging result on the profitability of innovation.
  Lastly, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said in his opening remarks. Look at the financial incentives. The Americans give encouragement to private persons to come together to sponsor scientific development and innovation in partnerships, and any loss which is made is offset against taxes. If this is necessary to get an innovative process, or to encourage it, surely this is worth looking at in this country. Financial incentive is the equivalent of personal sponsorship of the arts which was prevalent in past centuries but which is obviously not possible in today's economic climate. But incentives can be given to private persons and interests to operate in this way. We should reject nothing which would harness the innovative aid inventive genius which exists among our people. Unless we do this, we shall not make up the deficit and we shall not pay our way in the world.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I intervene in the debate because I have perhaps the longest experience of the spending of money on research and development by the Government. It was my privilege

  1287
  after the war to be the Minister of Research and Development in the Ministry of Supply. This was an education for me both in science and in finance.
  As has been said, during the war men had a purpose, and scientists were working overtime to invent new gadgets. No sooner was the building of an aircraft started than it was obsolete or obsolescent. During the war so many aircraft were being destroyed that inventions could be embodied in new aircraft, but after the war it was not possible to produce aircraft merely to use the inventions of the scientists. I had to tell them that they should go on inventing but that they should not expect their inventions to be incorporated in new aircraft.
  There must be a balance between the rate of invention and the rate of absorption. One of our problems since then has been that our scientists produce new inventions which engineering and other firms are unable or unwilling to develop. There are many inventions made in this country which have not been developed and many that have been developed on the other side of the Atlantic.
  The National Gas Turbine Institution probably had the most advanced knowledge in the world of gas turbines. Its science and knowledge of aircraft were used to build new aircraft, and in this sphere we were in the forefront of the world, but the Institution was brokenhearted because industry was not interested. When I became Secretary of State for Scotland I discovered that the firm of John Brown, Clydebank, was going to Brown Boveri of Switzerland to buy information for the development of gas turbines which was far behind what was available to it in the gas turbine establishment on its own doorstep. It is necessary to link invention with its eventual purpose.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) spoke of space research putting a man on the moon. I agree with the Astronomer Royal that putting a man on the moon as a justification for the employment of some of the world's best scientists is perhaps a lot of bilge—I think those were his words. What is interesting is that the technological fall-out of this purpose and of these inventions will change the face
  1288
  of the world. The miniaturisation of engineering which has been necessary to put a man on the moon has developed at such a rate that nobody quite appreciates the change it will make in the technological structure of industry.
  The reduction in weight through miniaturisation can be illustrated by the production of a complete ball bearing which is the size of a small fingernail. There is also the printing of perhaps 1,000 electric circuits each the size of the point of a pin on a small strip of silicone. These circuits are replacing the cumbrous valve sets which used to be the basis of computer systems. Computer systems have jumped ahead to such an extent that the systems of five years ago have become almost obsolete.
  The speed of this development has been enormous, and it will affect almost every aspect of the engineering world from now onwards. If this country does not go ahead with this new development and this new revolution, we shall fall off the bus and the world will pass us by.
  Nevertheless, I agree with the Minister that there must be some relation between the effort which is given to this and the effort given to other matters. On the other hand, the excitement of taking a penny off beer or off cigarettes would not be justifiable if the result were to deprive our country of funds to carry science forward.
  It might be said that a great deal of the effort spent on getting a man on the moon was a waste. Some people might say that the Concorde was a waste. But I disagree entirely with this. In any scientific research there is bound to be some waste; every egg is not hatched, but the egg which is hatched may revolutionise the world.
  The Australians discovered that sheep on one part of the ground were healthy, whereas those on another part of the ground died off like flies with pine disease. The Australians asked the Animal Research Institution in Edinburgh to find out what was causing this. After research, the Moredun Institute discovered that this was caused by a deficiency of cobalt. Much of the money spent on the Moredun Institute has not brought results, but that one discovery has probably repaid to mankind all the money that has been spent on research

  1289
  in agriculture. The number of human diseases which have been eliminated by the discovery of deficiency-caused diseases has been phenomenal in advancing the health of the nation. The result of spending money on research cannot always be measured because no one knows what will happen.
  The money spent on Concorde will have a technical fall-out for this country. During the war a Select Committee had to decide whether money should continue to be spent on the type of engineering done by Rolls-Royce. The development of Rolls-Royce put this country in the forefront of the world in technical engineering. This has provided industry, and income has been brought to the country by the export of Rolls-Royce enginees, which have been put in nearly every aeroplane which has been built anywhere. It was no waste to build Rolls-Royce for a few wealthy people, although Lord Hives said to me that actually the biggest order which he had was for 20 Rolls-Royces for the Scottish Co-operative Society for taking passengers who never complained to their las tresting place. The making of that engine put us in the forefront of engineering in the world. The same has happened with our research in aircraft engineering.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, North did not appreciate that we have a unique set-up in this country in which the Government co-operate with industry. Take Farnborough and the gas turbine establishment. The Government subsidise establishments which are common research reservoirs for the best scientific knowledge. Industry can derive benefit from them free of charge. People do not realise that in this country industry and the Government co-operate in such a way that it makes all the talk of the Opposition about Government spending and Government waste ridiculous. Industry could not exist without the Government. There is hardly an important industry which does not depend on the Government.
  When we talk about Government spending money on research, we must bear in mind that this is part of the nation's development. Industry is the nation's industry. The fact that some individuals run it as private enterprise does not mean that it does not have a responsibility to the nation. How we
  1290
  run it is a matter of expediency. People in agriculture are supplied with technical knowledge by the universities and the agricultural colleges. In Scotland farmers sit on the doorstep of the Government establishments for the latest advice and knowledge in agriculture. It is impossible to divide industry into compartments and say that private industry is independent of the rest.
  The flight to the moon is not a very dramatic change in the technology of the world. Going to the moon will not revolutionise anything in our development. The man who discovered how to make fire probably created the greatest revolution in man's history and enabled people to go all over the world and made possible the discovery of America, which was probably the beginning of their trouble. We have passed through a great many revolutions since then. There was an agricultural revolution for 500 years because it was discovered how to provide winter feed. The industrial Revolution swept this country to the forefront of the world industrially. Then we had the oil age and the electrical age. Now we have taken a further step forward and have fuels which were undreamt of a few years ago. The computer is taking over in many sectors of industry.
  What is the purpose of all this? Merely to invent things is an object in itself for the man inventing them. The scientist loves to work at science. This can involve a great waste. A friend of mine went into one of the biggest industries of this country. He was in a room in which there was a highly qualified degree scientist who did nothing but mark up dots on a statistical chart. Some big firms are waiting for people to take their university degrees and to employ them. Whether they employ them properly is another question. Some of them should go back to the schools to teach and prepare the future scientists.
  The great benefit of science is to give man greater control over his environment. One great benefit is not in the technical field but in the medical field. The man who discovered that contaminated water caused disease was a scientist. The man who made it possible for people to enjoy pure water was a benefactor of mankind. The man who discovered electricity lengthened people's day. They did not have to go to bed when the sun went

  1291
  down. The men who invented television and wireless provided entertainment for peoples' leisure. Medical science has made it less necessary for people to spend a great portion of their lives in beds of sickness. In my life, medical science has made it possible for men to live over 20 years longer, and women even more, than was the case 60 or 70 years ago.
  The life of man has been altered by scientific developments. Technology has made possible the production of things which removes hard work. The sweat of a man's brow is hardly apparent even in industry where there are fork lift trucks, cranes and other appliances which make hard work unnecessary. In the home, women used to tear themselves to bits scrubbing floors. Now they have washing machines and soap powders which take the dirt out of clothes and make them whiter than white. There are coffee grinders and tin openers which prevent women from injuring their hands. There are clothes which do not need ironing. Women now have more leisure time and can bring up their families without being slaves. This sounds amusing, but these are the benefits which science has brought to ordinary men and women, and I question whether they appreciate it.
  This is a struggle between East and West. It is a struggle between Africans and other people because the Africans do not have these things. If we are so blasé that we accept them without thinking about them, that is not the case with the 2,000 million people at the other end of the world who are starving and who have none of these advantages. We must ensure that some of our achievements are extended to people who do not have the benefit of them.
  Lloyd George once said that if we got the Chinaman to put an inch on the tail of his shirt there would be a boom in the Lancashire cotton trade. If the people in the East were able to buy our goods we should soon solve the exports problem. But we cannot export to people who cannot afford to buy—unless we do it by way of gift and aid.
  Shall we use our scientific manpower intelligently and well? We cannot concentrate all our scientific manpower on gadgets. The TSR2 was a gadget. It was a lovely thing for the scientists. But
  1292
  nearly all the scientists in the country would have been involved in making this wonderful instrument of war. We must therefore decide whether we can afford to use all our scientists on one or two projects. I favour the Concorde because I think it will eventually prove useful and will be a step forward in aircraft development. I had to take part in the decision whether to build the Brabazon. The Brabazon never flew, but from it came the Britannia. It was quite clear that if the Brabazon was not built, the industry would not go forward. This country has made such a success of aircraft and such a success, I believe, of Concorde that it must go forward with this great achievement.
  Where are we going from here? Two or three hon. Members have mentioned the serious problem that technological advance is going at such a speed that trade unions, employers, governments, local authorities and anybody else cannot keep up with it with their institutions. There will be a terrific conflict somewhere before those institutions crack and bring themselves into harmony with the speed of technological and scientific development. Therefore, if the advance goes too quickly, it may to some extent bring disaster.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister that there must be measurement and costing of technological advance. The scientists themselves must cost their own efforts and see whether they are justified. There is bound to be waste. Not all scientific eggs hatch, but from them we get eggs which may revolutionise the world. We have a large number of scientific achievements which are not fully developed. Some of the scientific effort should be taken from the invention of new gadgets to the development of those which have proved themselves—for example, the hovercraft and the fuel cell.
  Industry in this country is backward. One firm which developed an automation computer arrangement for machine tools, which was ahead of America and every other country, was nearly broken-hearted because it could not get British industry to take it up and adapt it. The industries almost wanted the firm to give it to them for nothing. This is one of the tragedies that things are lying there and industry cannot use them.

  1293
  There seems to be some scoffing at the Ministry, but it has a department—it had one after the war—which advises firms on methods—which sometimes are as important as machines—on machines and on the proper use of technological equipment. There is no question that a large number of firms, especially small firms, have benefited from this. If we are to be efficient, we must have modern methods, and not only modern machines but modern minds.
  Many firms distrust university graduates and scientists. Where I worked, if anybody applied who looked like a university graduate, he was immediately suspected as someone who would come in and try to teach his grandfather how to dance. No scientist was appointed to that firm except in the laboratory. It was one of the foremost firms in the use of science, but outside the laboratory anybody with degrees who came along wanting to boss the place was at once suspect.
  Industry is conservative. I do not blame the party opposite for that. It may be part of the general way of thought. Industry does not like scientists. The foundry trade set up a scientific laboratory for research but it died of starvation because nobody would support it. That is one of the dangers. As long as people are getting on all right, they want to stay put. The late Sir Stafford Cripps made an offer to one of the most advanced so-called firms in science to establish a scientific industry, but because the firm was getting a dripping roast from the Admiralty and had been doing so for about 50 years, it was not interested in getting money from the Government to establish a new, up-to-date scientific industry. How are we to get industry to think in the right way?
  The Clyde shipyards thought about these things only when they were facing a black-out. People must think before that stage is reached. It is the Government who have been the stimulant, and my right hon. Friend's Department has been projecting firms to think in this way. I congratulate him on what his Department has been doing. It has made a spendid job of it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Debates on the Motion for the Adjournment tend to be rather wide, but I hope that this will not encourage more long speeches. There
  1294
  are many hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: I will certainly heed your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about making a long or too-long speech. It is dangerous to be repetitive in a debate like this, but that is difficult to avoid.
  I should like, first, to congratulate both my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and the Minister for their excellent expositions of various aspects of Government policy on science. They have referred to the great event, the gigantic technical effort and the marvellous attention to detail of N.A.S.A. in the recent moon exploration. I am rather afraid that nations which do not have those great resources and cannot employ them may get some kind of inferiority complex, but that need not happen and I do not think that the exploitation gap should be increased on that, account.
  If one looks at our attitude to America in general, the Financial Times today has an annual review of industry and gives an account of the average load factors achieved during the last three years by nuclear power stations. The Minister will probably know why I refer to this and that I have an interest in the nuclear power industry. The average load factor achieved for British nuclear power stations has been 87 per cent., and the average for United States power stations has been 78 per cent. Therefore, at this moment of congratulation of the Americans on their tremendous effort, do not let us get too world-weary about these matters and think that because we do not have the same resources as America we cannot achieve very great results as well. As one of my hon. Friends has said, let us get it right at the top and then we can do it. That is the most important thing.
  I wish to talk briefly about Government research establishments and also about certain matters connected with education. I should like, however, to raise a staff side matter, to which the attention of the Minister of State should be drawn before she replies to the debate. I am not speaking this time about Culham, which I usually raise, although I assure the Minister that I shall be keeping a sharp eye on whether the long-term effort

  1295
  of the country in thermonuclear fusion suffers as a result of his decision and whether it was the Treasury which actually took it.
  The matter to which I refer concerns the Science Research Council, which has an important responsibility for pure science and, therefore, an important responsibility to look at the human aspects of the staff. The staff side of the Whitley Council is very concerned—the Minister knows that the Rutherford Laboratory is in my constituency—about what happens concerning the 300 GeV accelerator. The staff side takes the view that plans are still required for future facilities at Rutherford whatever happens. If the 300 GeV accelerator does not get off the ground, what will happen?
  The staff side has put certain alternative proposals, which I do not propose to go into now, to the Science Research Council which I hope will be considered, but I should at least like to hear a reassuring statement about this. The staff side are entitled to consideration of their views.
  One of the points with which I should like shortly to deal is the need for more qualified people in industry. All the recent reports have been exhaustively discussed, and I do not think that we need any more committees on the subject of manpower. My hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have, however, pointed out that one thing that stands out is that while we are top in pure science, we are low in economic growth. This is the real crisis we face. Certainly one symptom of it is the proportion—in this we are bottom—of graduates who enter technology. All this has to be looked at in the light of our spending £250 million a year on British universities, and hon. Members are right to point out that there is, obviously, a correlation between our poor economic growth and lack of technologists in industry.
  I do not want to try to say exactly where the fault lies. In my view, there is a good deal to be said for what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has said about the attitude of industry—and I am in industry—to scientists. I think there is no doubt that much of British management is deficient in scientific
  1296
  knowledge, and this exacerbates the cultural divide in this matter, but it is equally true that universities could do a lot more to stop people thinking that industry provides no intellectual challenges. This is simply not true, and universities should stop discouraging people by making that sort of statement. I am often depressed by this ill-informed comment in universities about the prospects for young people in industry. But when we have said that, progress is being made, although it is for too slow. Output of qualified scientists and engineers has greatly increased, and this is true of those who move from universities into engineering industry, and there are some, although not enough.
  There are certain things which the right hon. Gentleman will agree can now be done, and I raise a subject which I do not think has been raised this afternoon, and certainly ought to be raised more often, and that is that if we are to marry up, as he wishes to do, progress between production and research we must do something about pensions and make them transferable. This comes up in every debate we have here on this subject, but we really have got to take some steps towards a national scheme on those lines, and there must also be a satisfactory redundancy payments scheme for scientists and engineers in the Civil Service if we are to have satisfactory transfers. It is also interesting that the salaries paid by universities to their graduates have a very small differential with those paid in industry in this country at the moment, and I am not sure that industry has not to look at the sort of salaries it is prepared to pay. Unless the leaders of industry and the teachers forget their prejudices there really is a serious danger that we shall become notorious as a brilliantly inventive but ineffectual nation, and this none of us in the House wants to see.
  I am very much against dogma in these matters, especially in regard to the future rôle of public research and development and its administration. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire need not fear I am going to advocate the sort of policy which he had in mind of deliberately cutting Government research expenditure for its own sake. There must be some industrial payoff, and there is some waste, as he indicated, in Government research. I am afraid that

  1297
  some of my hon. Friends who are not here today have been heard to say, and many middle-sized firms have ideas on this subject, that we can transfer a great deal of research now done in Government establishments to private enterprise. I think they are very optimistic and unrealistic in many of the things they say. The Minister made a speech recently—about 18 months ago I think—when he said that industrialists had advocated this in the same way as King Henry VIII showed such passion in destroying the monasteries.
  This point of view, which is a prejudiced point of view, I hope is not going to be taken on this side of the House, because I certainly do not share it, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) does not share it, either.
  Certainly, no one engaged, like myself, in the nuclear power industry would take this view when we are beginning to realise how much designers must be supported by the research done by the Atomic Energy Authority. The reorganisation, to which the Minister referred, of the design and construction group is a great move forward. It is also true, of course, in other fields, where pioneer work is being done by the Government research establishments. I refer particularly to carbon fibres, of which we have heard something this afternoon. I was on the Sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which went into these matters, and this is a very good example. The announcement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman that I.C.I. is to go into this work is very welcome to the House. For those who think that all can be done by private enterprise I suggest that they see what R.A.E. and Harwell—which, I should say, is in my constituency—are doing. Of course these establishments are not involved in production, and success in this does depend on private enterprise, but neither can do without the other.
  I think the industrial pay off to which I referred has greatly improved. I was unfortunately unable to attend the Maurice Lubbock Memorial Lecture this year, which Dr. Walter Marshall, the head of Harwell and director of the research group of the A.E.A. gave. I believe it was extremely interesting. He was reported to have said that 25 per cent.
  1298
  of Harwell's budget—£4 million—and 30 per cent. of his staff are now engaged on industrial projects ranging over a very wide field. I hope that this will go on. I find it of enormous value to industry. There are now 300 firms working for Harwell, and they hope to sign one substantial agreement each week next year, according to Dr. Marshall's report. He instanced tangible commercial benefits—the right hon. Gentleman referred to this—of joint development on the programme with Weir Westgarth on the multi-stage flash distillation system of desalination, which has greatly improved Weir Westgarth's exports. I am glad the Minister referred to that. I think the cash returns to Harwell in the form of royalties will increase, but no one doubts that the work of such establishments should be kept under continuous review, and I think the Minister is doing that.
  I should like to conclude by asking how these reviews should be conducted and whether Ministerial committees and Ministerial control are the best way.
  The Minister pointed out in a recent speech at Imperial College that the barriers separating research from production—and that is the speech I referred to before—should be broken down, and he also said that it would be quite wrong to undertake work inside Government establishments for its own sake just to keep scientists and engineers employed. I do not think the House will disagree with that. But can co-ordination and future progress best be done by the Minister or by an independent authority? This is not a new argument. I have heard it in this House over a great many years. I think the problem really is: Can one really bring industry into an independent research authority, and can one thus co-ordinate more easily? On the whole I think this is true. I think such a research authority would need an operational analysis unit such as the programmes analysis unit at Harwell, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) that the traditional Whitewall structure is not the best way. I am sure it is not the best way of formulating joint industrial and Government programmes such as the hon. Gentleman himself envisages.
  There is a case for an independent research authority which should be

  1299
  studied further. It is not easy in the short time available in the debate to say much more about it, but I am referring to establishments administered by the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry and by the A.E.A. We should need to know what were the original terms of reference when we studied the rôle of these establishments, whether their missions have been accomplished and whether the terms of reference were for projects which needed a temporary home and which have now become permanently installed, as seems to be the case, judging from our investigation of defence research establishments.
  In particular, the work done by Government research establishments, should in my personal view, be work which cannot be done by universities and private industry or which may be done in financial partnership with them. I think that my hon. Friends were right to point to the lead for some taxation incentives to be provided to help industry to do more research, as Dr. Jones suggested. I am in favour of decentralising to a considerable degree control over the spending of the Government research establishments and giving them much more independence.
  The Minister was slightly surprised when I commented upon the rôle of the N.R.D.C. in the carbon fibre programme and said that it was acting as middle man. I realised that that was an over-simplification, but I ask whether it would not be much better if the Government research establishments had more direct responsibility in their dealings with industry and a much wider degree of financial authority. Whether that could not best be done by having an independent research authority co-ordinating their activities rather than Ministerial control is a matter for debate. I am beginning to favour that view.
  This is an issue which we can shirk no longer. I do not think that there are any extreme solutions. Indeed, I am against extreme solutions in this field. But if we do not find some answer, Britain will be admired for brains and pure research but the danger is that she will be regarded as ineffective. There is no reason why that should be so. We have the industry and the science. It is
  1300
  for politicians and the Government to decide how it can best be organised.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: We have seen very fine technological forecasting by the Opposition in planning this debate for a Supply Day so soon after the landing of men on the moon. Like other hon. Members, I can only say how grateful we are that they have been so fortunate in their forecasting and how grateful we are that they have given us this opportunity to debate civil science.
  This is a magnificent achievement by the American Government, scientists and engineers. Every stage on the way to the moon has been a triumph for science and the spirit of adventure. Both these aspirations have been met at the same time.
  On a personal note, my four-year-old son is convinced that this is all part of a great birthday present which I have given him over the last few days because he is taking all the television programmes and the references to his own domain as a situation which I have created for him. In fact, it is much bigger than I can afford and much bigger than my right hon. Friend could afford!
  My right hon. Friend said that although it is always difficult to explain to people who are anxious to know why so much has been spent by the American Government, one pay-off lies in the critical nature of the value of management systems. Quite apart from the objectives achieved, there is a spin-off factor; there is a clarity associated with going for something and achieving it. But there is also all the business associated with a good, efficient management system bringing together a great deal of experience; and that will not be lost, and it will carry through to many other projects in the United States. I hope that we in this country will learn something, too.
  It is ironic that, although Parliament has many channels for the discussion of scientific matters, it is several years since the subject was debated on the Floor in the way in which it is being debated today. Hon. Members have raised various aspects of scientific and technological progress in Adjournment debates. I have raised the subject of European collaboration, and the hon. Members for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) have

  1301
  raised other subjects in debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill. There has been diligent questioning of Ministers in the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology at the appropriate Question Time. But the main discussion of any continuous or creative nature has taken place upstairs in the Select Committee, in the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, in the Labour Party's Science and Technology Committee and in the Conservative Party's Science and Technology Committee. That is rather ironic, and I welcome this opportunity of a broader canvas for debate today.
  I hope that hon. Members agree that the quality of British science is not in dispute and that Britain has a high record of achievement. As Professor Blackett said, "In the European league table of scientific eminence, Britain is now right on top". Whether one takes Nobel prizes as the criterion or our achievements at this level, we have cause for pride.
  I have two questions to ask. First, are we getting the best value for our science budget and are we directing it towards the levels of innovation fast enough and efficiently enough? Secondly, is the Government structure for dealing with science and technology the most suitable structure? An eminent Russian academician said,
  "Science is satisfying your curiosity at the expense of the State".
  It is certainly a major industry of the technologically advanced nations of the world. In Britain it costs about £1,000 million a year. Admittedly, about a quarter is on military research, but it still reflects a large budget.
  It needs to be said that the excellence of research and development does not by itself guarantee national prosperity. A few figures make this point plain. Civil research and development throughout Britain absorbed about 1·6 per cent. of the gross national product during the early 1960s, while in the decade up to 1965 the growth of production was 33 per cent and the growth of exports 37 per cent. In the United States over the same period the comparable figures were 1·5 per cent. of G.N.P. devoted to civil research and development, with 48 per cent. production growth and 41 per cent.
  1302
  export growth. In Germany only 1·2 per cent. of the G.N.P. was spent on research and development, and that must be contrasted with 85 per cent. production growth and 166 per cent. export growth. In Japan, 1·5 per cent. of the G.N.P. was consumed by research and development but over that decade production rose by 274 per cent. and exports by 377 per cent. I apologise for giving the figures rather briefly.
  We can all argue that special circumstances are associated with Japan and Germany, but after we have analysed all the differences and group motivation, the fact remains that there is clearly no correlation. Indeed, if there were correlation Britain would be much higher in the league in terms of productivity.
  Because of the cost of modern science and because the ultimate pay-off is likely to become more uncertain and more complex, it is essential that the Government work closely with industry to aim at ways of minimising risks and with other countries on collaborative projects. This would enable the risks to be spread, and at the same time it can help to build links with Europe. I regret that my right hon. Friend did not pay as much attention in his speech to this important sector of scientific and technological collaboration as some of us would have liked. I know that he shares much of the anxiety about collaborative projects, but he cannot ignore the importance of Europe in all these matters.
  After the breakdown of the Government's attempt to join E.E.C. in 1963 and last year, it became apparent that one of the most serious consequences of our failure to get into Europe was the setback to Europe's chances of achieving anything like a competitive status in the science-based industries. A deliberate attempt was made to set in motion ad hoc schemes of collaboration between Britain and E.E.C. countries on specific projects rather than on a grouped or structured basis. While E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. have not been major successes, it is clear that the Government will make economies on these group projects rather than on their own national projects. This makes the case for Britain's association in E.E.C. all the more urgent. If anyone doubts this, one can see that the cost of maintaining science cannot be isolated from Government procurement policies and from technological forecasting, and

  1303
  that a number of countries are collaborating on scientific, technological and industrial levels.
  For example, a recent study in the United States by the Department of Commerce shows that only one-quarter of the cost of launching the average invention into industry is absorbed by research, development and design. The remaining three-quarters is taken up with solving the engineering problems, with setting up the tools of production and with marketing expenses. In other words, the development of inventions is only a small part of industrial activity. Thus, it is essential to look to outside R. & D. for greater product reliability, better quality and increased productivity.
  This demands a closer link between industry and the universities and research bodies. Not enough of our research teachers are sensitive to the needs of industry, and even fewer are prepared to work to improve the links. From my experience in universities before coming to this place, I assure hon. Members that some, but only some, university staff are inclined to feel that industry must come to the universities to discuss their problems. This is an unfortunate attitude. The need to provide university staffs with opportunities to meet industrialists is an important matter on which I hope the Minister will comment when replying to the debate.
  I do not know that I want to get involved in the earlier argument about whether or not the C.A.T.s have enhanced their position by not becoming technological universities. Suffice to say that this is not an important point at issue. Somehow we must show university staffs, and particularly those at universities with industrial-based departments, that if they want to have the right to do industrial research, they must make an effort to get at industrialists in advance of projects being set up.
  It is in this connection that I have certain observations to make, and an important one is the need for collaboration among nations. When I refer to "collaboration" I mean genuinely meaningful collaboration. When the word "collaboration" has been used, both inside and outside the House, I have often wondered whether the speaker is distinguishing between co-operation and
  1304
  collaboration. I have no doubt that scientists know the difference. They have been able, as a result of exchanging correspondence and making visits, to get in touch with colleagues working on comparable projects, but this has not needed the support of Governments.
  We have today been examining ways in which we can make the greatest possible use of our scientific know-how; and this demands looking at the practical ways of achieving this aim. The basic requirement is collaboration with other countries and, on a more modest scale, collaboration between firms.
  As for collaboration between the universities and industry, I have referred to the importance of this at the individual level. Again, one can see the experience of other countries. For example, in the United States the universities have, in attempting to deal with this problem, appointed research secretaries whose job it is to handle inquiries from private firms and put them in touch with the respective professors and others who can advise on the general feasibility of a project, though not on its technical competence.
  At the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich an industrial-research institutes association has been formed. Its value lies in the way in which small firms are able to seek help when they would otherwise have been unable to do so or unable to afford scientific advice. There is collaboration among research associations. Britain is unique in this respect, with the 47 research associations we have covering a wide range of industries. This enables research to be concentrated in industry, and this has been extremely successful.
  I return to the original question: Are we getting the best value from our science budgets? I think that we are, due to the innovating and professional attitude of the Ministry of Technology. However, I have two reservations to make, although I have hinted at them. One is the tendency to withdraw from collaborative projects, particularly in Europe. This is an unfortunate omission because, clearly, in terms of large-scale exploitation it is in Europe where we must make a real effort to have collaboration.
  Tactically, I do not think that the Government have always used their resources wisely. For example, we consider the case of the 300 GeV. Here

  1305
  was an opportunity for high-energy physicists in Britain to enhance the quality of their techniques by collaborating in a venture in which a great range of skill was to be concentrated. We withdrew. Perhaps we shall think again; I hope we shall.
  There is a simple lesson to be drawn from this. Whether in high-energy physics or in molecular biology, concentration of resources counts. There is a tendency for effort to be fragmented, with the result that we are likely to achieve less by dispersing our resources, and at a time when money is scarce there tends to be the view that no project is on. This is regrettable. It is the voice of despair.
  My second question concerns the suitability of the Government structural machine in dealing with science and technology. Briefly, I suggest that the present structure is not the most efficient. My right hon. Friend said that we should be specific when criticising the present structure and that we should show exactly where the responsibilities should lie in one Department or another. I will aim to let him have this information at the earliest possible moment, but to do so demands time to assess the necessary breakdown of responsibilities in the Ministry of Technology, and the Department of Education and Science and the Board of Trade.
  I will go some way towards offering advice in this connection. Science has not always involved Governments in political decisions, and this, in part, is why the present structure is not as good as it might be. Science was formerly of minor importance in the economy. This point has been developed and restated by hon. Members frequently enough for me not to deal with it today. The lapse of time between laboratory discoveries and the practical application of those discoveries was so long, and the application so restricted, that the idea of deriving advantages from scientific research did not occur to Governments.
  More important, for a long time international co-operation between scientists of different countries was confined to correspondence, publications and exchange visits by individual scientists. Governments were hardly involved, and the political implications and repercussions of scientific policy and co-operation did not
  1306
  emerge more clearly until 1945. Scientific co-operation was to be directed towards certain ends primarily of direct interest to Governments instead of, as previously, to science alone.
  The new industries with a strong science base will not fit into the Government structural machine to be found in Britain, despite the enthusiasm of Ministers and officials in MINTECH and the Department of Education and Science. For example, consider the information industry. There is a great deal more to information and data processing than the computer. Since the computer first appeared in 1940, an information industry has been what one might call a certainty. However, we still do not have the means to build an "effective system". Nevertheless, the tools to create an information system may exist—the communication satellite, microfilm and rapid printers to reduce material to a permanent record—and this industry offers tremendous employment opportunities. Thus, we are moving from the development of such a system into the problems of staffing and exploitation.
  A quite conservative estimate made in the United States suggests that by 1975 one million computer programmers will be needed. At present the United States has only about 200,000 such programmers. In Britain the scale will be less, but this highlights the sort of need and urgency that exists for co-operation between the system and the man. I have referred in this one example to a subject which involves not one Ministry but three. One can highlight many other examples to show that the need will be more difficult to implement, for the reasons I have given.
  A great deal of interest was caused by a report published in Europe arising from a meeting of Parliamentarians in the Six and in this country. Some of the industries suggested as being worthy of exploitation in the late 'seventies would all involve more than one Ministry, the very point which I am conveying to my right hon. Friend.
  It is not sufficient to say that the structure is right, in view of the changes that have occurred and the criteria that my right hon. Friend has employed; that of sheer need and the aim of projects being market orientated. We shall find that development from the educational stage

  1307
  —from the Department of Education and Science—to the innovation level will be so rapid that the Government structural machine must be more flexible.
  There may well be good will in two or three departments but we are talking now about good will in about six departments. Among the examples quoted here are cybernetics, lassers, composite materials, oceanography, and vertical take-off and landing. Here we have industries which are worthy of exploitation, but we want careful selection. Just as the United States has decided to concentrate on two or three industries for the utilisation of its resources, I believe that we should do the same.
  This is not to say that the present system prevents us from doing that, but I should like to feel that we were beginning to look at the structure of the present system and beginning to realise that we want a much more flexible system for the future. It is against these fundamental changes in rôle and policy that British Governments for the past 15 years or so have had to wrestle with the new and growing areas of decision making, and increasingly important decision making, in view of the vulnerability of our political and economic state.
  I agreed with the hon. Member for Eastleigh when he said that science and technology are very much in the mainstream of our social, political and economic life, and there is a very strong case for taking the logical next step. We want to recognise that in the main street and talk about it without embarrassment. After all, we are talking of science and technology, not of sexual matters, so let us hope that the new liberalising influence will spread to science and technology. That means that we ought to take this next step, and take the whole science sector away from the Department of Education and Science. Here, I can assure the House that there has been no collusion between my right hon. Friend and myself; he has already indicated that he would be loth to disturb the existing structure.
  That would be the logical step, and there would be no feeling of outrage in the Department of Education and Science, whose main orientation is rather down the age range and on the substance of education. MINTECH would need to adapt
  1308
  to this extra responsibility by losing some of its commercial and informational tasks to the Board of Trade. The structure which could take account of the economic, industrial and scientific needs of the nation would be two ministries—one for industry and one for commerce. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite have not come in on this, because they have been challenged by my right hon. Friend to say how far they would want to see structural changes in Government. We must do some homework on this matter to show exactly where the better system of government could be implemented.
  I agree with what has been said by both my right hon. Friend and the Member for Eastleigh, that our economic future rests upon advanced technology which itself depends on science. We must not neglect these areas. We should aim at the achievement of a solution to the problem of research activities, to the problem of co-ordination—because this will grow—and to the problem of industrial liaison, where a great deal has been done by MINTECH. We also need a solution to the problem of co-operation between nations, particularly the nations of Europe but spreading further afield.
  I urge the Government to concentrate their energy and resources here. The Report of the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology on "Technological Innovation in Britain" put it rather well when it stated:
  "What we have to achieve is a new balance, both overall and in particular cases, of the deployment of our technological resources."
  Any debate dealing with civil science must realise that that is what it is all about.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am very glad to be assured by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) that we can talk about science now without shame. The country at large would have lost a lot if the reporters had been sent out of this interesting debate which has enlightened both sides of the House.
  As one who is not a trained scientist, I might be somewhat shy about pontificating about it, but having been connected with industry for about 30 years, and finding my interest in science and technology growing with the years, and having for the last three years been the manager, which is the equivalent of being a director,

  1309
  of the Royal Institution, which still has the laboratories of Faraday, Humphrey Davy and the Braggs, and of which our present director is a Nobel Prize winner, and rubbing shoulders with scientists every week, I find it an enlivening experience for a politician.
  I agree that the subject is divided into two parts: pure science—dealing with the fundamental questions of the truth and knowledge of the universe—and applied science leading to technology, to provide things which make life better, easier and more abundant for all of us here.
  The scientist can have and does have large ideas and new designs. He makes calculations and so on. But when he has done that, he can move to another problem and leave it to the engineer to translate his ideas into practice. That is what is so very difficult to do, and what the Americans have done so extremely successfully in the last few years. Unless one has huge resources and, like the Americans, has enough engineers for them to be able to work a three-shift system, 24 hours a day for five years on the problem, my experience is that it is a very long job to translate the scientist's idea into practice.
  I am at present trying to help an engineer build a rotary automobile engine which may yet be a rival to the German Wankel engine, and I have to say quite frankly that I have found British industry unco-operative and unimaginative over this little exercise. Every part of the new engine is a one-off part, and one finds it difficult to get British firms away from their mass production to make a one-off part. Small innovators find things very difficult.
  We have been wrestling with people at the rather lower levels of industry, and finding that they did not make things according to specification. Just the other day, a firm of piston ring manufacturers making some sealing rings was not only three months behind with the delivery of what is required, but, having told us that they would be even further behind with delivery, then found that they had made these particular sealing rings three months before but had failed to deliver them to us. It is this sort of annoyance that innovators and engineering specialists are up against.
  1310
  I suppose that one of the greatest breakthroughs in science and technology in the next few years will be the manufacture of fresh water from sea water. Considering that 50 per cent. of the world's population lives within 70 miles of the sea, what an enormous advantage that will be to all the countries on the north coast of Africa, in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and so on. Scientists can desalinise at the moment, but not cheaply enough. The problem is how to do it more cheaply.
  I believe in the division of labour between the nations. The U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are specialising in rocketry, and other things. We have been concentrating on radio astronomy to such an extent that we can tell the Russians more about what their rockets are doing than the Russians themselves know. I suggest that this country can continue vigorously with desalination of water schemes for which there will be a huge demand all over the world. That would be a contribution to the benefit of the globe almost as great as the Americans are making with their rocketry at present.
  The Science Research Council makes grants to post-graduate students for special projects at universities and spends about £45 million a year. I ask whether the Council has worked well. I believe that broadly speaking it has. Judgments on these projects are made not by civil servants or outsiders but by scientists themselves. Scientists being judged by their peers, the right decisions have generally been made by the Council, but I have heard two criticisms.
  The first is that big science, prestige science, schemes of £250,000 or over go with a certain amount of panache to the Council and the Minister and have a fair chance of being accepted, but tiny schemes which cost only £1,000 and perhaps concern a machine required by a sub-contractor for a very big scheme are found difficult to get through the sub-committees of the Council. Such schemes very often have considerably less chance of getting through than the very large schemes because the sub-committees have used up their allocation on other matters.
  The second criticism I have heard is that when a project of the Science Research Council looks like becoming practical it is taken over and grabbed by

  1311
  the Ministry of Technology. This is disappointing to the S.R.C. I agree that there has to be a certain amount of overlap, but this is a point which the Minister might look at to see whether it might be more encouraging to the Council if it could keep some of its practical schemes a little longer.
  Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Member agree that a third difficulty sometimes arises? This is in the case of multi-disciplinary proposals across the boundary of research proposals. They may be for the S.R.C. for the M.R.C. and there is difficulty in deciding to which Council an applicant should make his proposals.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I can well believe that is so. Between the four or five research councils there must of course be some overlapping and a difficulty in deciding to which division a particular project belongs.
  I now come to my main point.
  It seems that one of the greatest troubles in the country at present is the division between those who are pro-science and those who are anti-science. There is a real intellectual division between science and arts. I find this in the House of Commons. A large number of people are neutral or uncommitted with reference to science. There is a lack of understanding in the nation about science. I heard Malcolm Muggeridge talking the other day in the "The Pick of Tomorrow's World" and making great fun of science and technology. There is a feeling that science means a broiler house society. I do not think it need be that.
  Continental businessmen and politicians on the whole have a greater appreciation of science and technology than have their equivalents in this country. The Continental businessman has done science at high school up to the age of 18 and a certain amount at university, even if he was not to become a qualified engineer. Even the salesman on the Continent knows more about science than most of us. I believe that behind much of the student unrest there is this anti-science feeling, a feeling that it is identified with war, defence, rocketry, poison gas and pollution of the air and water and also that it is identified with boring things such as washing machines.
  1312
  Students say that there is no culture in science and nothing to excite the younger generation, no vision of idealistic life such as the arts can provide. There is the drop-out of undergraduates from science after they have done science at school. I remember talking to an Oxford undergraduate about this. He had trained as a chemist at school and took the science preliminary at Oxford and then went over to economics and politics. I asked him why, and he said, "What could be more boring than being a chemist merely going to work to improve toothpaste for the rest of one's life?"
  I make two suggestions with a view to countering this divisiveness in the nation. I am glad that the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science has returned to the Front Bench. Perhaps the time has come when all sixth formers should take some general science so that everyone could be given an interest in science and technology. They may be encouraged to read New Scientist or the science paragraphs in The Times.
  Looking at the matter at its lowest, we are not very advanced in this country in many ways. For instance, two of our great industries started in this century 10 years after other countries had started them. Otto Benz and Daimler made a motor car 10 years before we made one in 1896, and that one was a copy of the Daimler. We pride ourselves on flying, but 10 foreigners flew before any Englishman did so. There were the Wright Brothers, Bleriot, Henri Farman and Santos Dumas and all the others. As the Minister said, we have been going down in some industries ever since the 1890s in comparison with the rest of the world.
  My other suggestion is that we might seriously consider whether we should project science as something beautiful and wonderful by itself and popularise the spread of truth and knowledge of the universe without a technological angle. There is no need to pollute the air and water and so on. For this projection of science we might use a vehicle such as the Royal Institution. I declare an interest as I am connected with the Royal Institution. It is famous for its Friday discourses and its Christmas Lectures, its lectures for 20,000 school children, businessmen and civil servants, but the Royal

  1313
  Institution in Albemarle Street serves only London. I should like travelling lecturers to go to Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Liverpool and even to non-industrial towns such as Edinburgh, York, Norwich, Exeter and Brighton. A scientific council on the lines of the Arts Council could be created with very little money, perhaps about £50,000 a year, for these travelling lecturers to go round the country in favour of science.
  I was born and bred in the South of England and until I went to the North of England I had no appreciation of the value of science and technology. I am certain that millions of people who have no connection with industry equally have no appreciation of the great importance that science plays in every part of their life. There is a case for establishing something like the Arts Council in a small way to project science as something with a culture of its own which is of great importance and worthy of the attention of all youth. If every boy who goes to sixth form could be given some knowledge of science and if we projected the culture of science throughout the country we would be taking a great step forward.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The House is indebted to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Technology and to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) for the manner in which they opened the debate and presented some of the problems facing society in its handling of civil science.
  Everyone who has spoken has pointed out that this debate is taking place on the day on which the American astronauts set foot on the moon. It is right to point to the success of this venture, but if we come back down to earth, and if we walk less than a mile up the road to Charing Cross Hospital, we can walk into a research laboratory where the most wonderful work in the world is being done in absolutely disgraceful conditions.
  For this each and every right hon. and hon. Gentleman must accept a share of responsibility. I am talking about the Biochemistry Department at Charing Cross Hospital which in the not too distant future is to move to new quarters. It is a disgrace to our society that this
  1314
  wonderful team which is doing wonderful work and probably leading the world in biochemistry, has had to work for so many years in such appalling conditions.
  In a sense, this sums up our attitude to civil science and medical science, because if this research department succeeds further in its work very significant contributions, purely in the realm of biochemistry, may be made to help countless thousands of people now suffering from mental deficiency and mental diseases. We do not need to go to the moon to see this wonderful work. It is being done a short walk up the road. There, Professor Davison and his team, drawn from all parts of the world, are working in conditions which the House, for all its complaints about Members' facilities, would find truly bad. That leading scientists have to do wonderful work in such conditions, and have their lunch round a washbasin and boil water for tea on a bunsen burner, makes a laughing stock of all the polite words we utter about civil science. In the end, it is not our words but our deeds that matter. We can talk until we are blue in the face, but in the end it is what we are prepared to vote, what we are prepared to give, that matters.
  The work that Professor Davison is doing is advanced by any standards. I was very impressed by the degree of collaboration which exists between the Professor and the hospital consultants. Regrettably, such a degree of collaboration does not always obtain. Regrettably, there are medical people who stand upon their professional dignity and say, "We will have no part of the technologist as an equal."
  There are many occasions when a patient can receive no further help from the medical authorities but can receive a tremendous amount of help from technology. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science knows of a wonderful but simple piece of technical equipment called "Possum" which can bring relief to countless thousands of people.
  Mention has been made of development and innovation and of the gap which there is in the application of technology. The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked what sort of rôle Britain

  1315
  could play in the post-Imperial era. It could play a vital rôle in taking the lead in assisting disabled and handicapped people. We already have the technological lead. What we severely lack is the ability to apply that which is known to bring relief. I am talking, not of a thousand people, but of the possibility of helping millions of people throughout the world.
  Although science can be generous, it can also be harsh. I have here a very well written but rather hurriedly prepared report from the United Nations Economic and Social Council on the Problems of Human Environment in preparation for a world conference in 1972. The report poses some startling problems. The hon. Member for Eastleigh will doubtless agree that this is another way in which we could set an example to the world.
  That which science destroys science itself will in the end have to try to recreate. Man cannot go on destroying his environment ad infinitum and expect to survive. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) will refer to the benefits of oceanology and marine biology. I tell him now that if no control is imposed over oceanographic pollution we may not get the rewards of which he dreams. We should be tackling this problem energetically.
  Earlier this month The Times ran three articles on "the polluters". The first article struck a warning note which has not been taken sufficiently seriously by anyone. Dr. Kenneth Mellanby, the Director of the Monks Wood Experimental Station of the Nature Conservancy, made would doubtles sheartily agree if I were certain observations. Hone. Members to say that nitrates for the land are very good, and they step up food production, prevent starvation and give us a better diet, but the truth is that we then become lavish with that which nature has given us and do not realise sufficiently quickly, of the over-use of nitrates.
  I quote from Dr. Mellanby's article:
  "Nitrate in water is relatively harmless to adults but young babies turn it to nitrite which is highly poisonous and deaths in Europe and America have been attributed to this cause. If we trebled our nitrate dressing to grass in areas which serve as catchments for water
  1316
  undertakings the water would need to be carefully monitored"
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) referred to the need for desalination of water. He will be intrigued by this observation by Dr. Mellanby:
  "It has been suggested that if fertiliser use is increased it will be safest to give babies in such areas only pure bottled water"
  In our squandering method of trying to get the maximum from the soil we could easily pollute the very water which we need. If there is to be any sense of urgency, it should be in this direction. Scientists should now be working very hard upon the problems of the very overuse of the benefits of science. We can pass Bills until we are blue in the face, but it will not alter the pollution. This is something which we have to take into account on the advice of the scientists.
  I hope the House will not think me flippant when I give the next example. The name that I shall mention is purely coincidental with that of the astronaut, Aldrin. I have not chosen it. I live in an area where it is very difficult to grow carrots. As soon as one weeds the line of carrots, the carrot flies come in and the carrots have gone. For eight years I tried to grow carrots in Wrexham, North Wales, and failed completely. Suddenly on the market appeared a product called Aldrin. We had the finest carrots that one ever saw in one's life. Unfortunately, Aldrin turned out to be toxic. The carrots were good in appearance but deadly in the taking.
  That was some years ago. Apparently, despite warnings, there are still areas in this country where farmers are using Aldrin dust to step up their carrot crops. It may give them a good cash return but it could be fatal for us. That is the sort of thing that I am asking the House to bear in mind.
  My second example is this. None of us likes to think that the sheep in the field are going to be insect-ridden. Nowadays there are some extremely good dips, one of which is Dieldren. It was used as a sheep dip in an isolated field, and four years later it appeared in a reservoir. It had seeped through the ground through several miles, retaining all its toxic properties. The purpose for which it was

  1317
  used was good but the results were extremely dangerous. We really must be on our guard. As I say, science and nature are generous but they can be terrible enemies in the end.
  I should like to refer to the three areas of pollution which are worrying the serious scientist. First there is pollution of human settlements—the township, the village and the hamlet. It is possible to pollute the rivers and the atmosphere. One can also pollute the drinking water supply. Secondly, there is pollution of territorial areas of the water around our coastline, such as that part of the coast in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West is interested. But in the end it is the third factor which is most important. I refer to the global problems which arise from the squandering application of technology and science. It is this which we ought now to be taking notice of.
  I have taken up the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh and I gave an example of what should be our post-imperial rôle, namely to try to help disabled people in a technological sense. I should like to think that my right hon. Friend will make quite sure that in the World Environment Conference in 1972 to which reference has been made the civil science and technology of this country will have a major and important contribution to make.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has raised two extremely important aspects of civil science in his references to the need to help disabled people by means of the newer technologies which are becoming available, and the serious and almost frightening problem of the pollution of the environment to which attention has so recently been drawn in the United Nations report.
  These are matters which might well be considered by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Indeed, that Committee has already looked at one limited aspect of pollution in its report on the "Torrey Canyon" and the measures which could be taken to prevent releases of oil by large tankers and hence the fouling of the coasts of Britain.
  That was only one limited aspect of the problem, and the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to some others which
  1318
  are of even more far reaching importance because they affect human life—the effects of organo-phospherus and organo-chlorine compounds in the treatment of crops, which have been discovered to be an extremely dangerous measure. These compounds remain in the soil for many years and can be disseminated to such an extent that their residues are even found in the bodies of penguins in the Antarctic. This illustrates how widespread can be the effects of compounds which are used even, as the hon. Gentleman says, by the domestic gardener on his own crops without thinking how they are likely to affect the environment in which man has to exist.
  I agree that much more could be done in the application of technologies to assist the disabled and handicapped. With the tremendous growth in mechanical handling equipment for industrial use and the remote handling of compounds that are toxic, new methods are being discovered of amplifying and assisting the movements of the human body which could be of very great assistance to those whose limbs are disabled or, indeed, who have no limbs at all, such as the unfortunate sufferers from the thalidomide tragedy. These technologies which have been developed for other purposes might have applications here, and I hope this is being looked at by the Ministry of Technology.
  What has been said by the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, by other speakers such as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman), who referred to the need to discuss European collaboration in advanced technology, illustrates how difficult it is for the House, when we have debates of this kind so seldom, to cover the ground properly. We have to eschew discussing a variety of fields and limit ourselves to only a few aspects of the problem which are considered to be of the greatest importance at the moment.
  Every hon. Gentleman who has spoken has referred to the landing on the moon earlier this morning, and I must do so even if I have to repeat some of the tributes which hon. Members have already paid. This is the most spectacular most breathtaking and most momentous achievement in the history of humankind. One has almost exhausted the superlatives in trying to describe it. My impression as I watched it on the television was wonder at the superb training and skill of these astronauts and their

  1319
  immense courage. As one looked at it one felt that one was sharing the adventure with those men in a very personal way, as we saw their first steps on the moon and we heard those calm and unruffled exchanges between the astronauts exploring the moon for the first time in the Sea of Tranquillity and Mission Control at Houston, Texas. I thought that these were pages of science fiction coming to life before our eyes.
  Two general considerations occurred to me after I had been watching that programme. I am not in any way minimising the importance of what the Minister said of this subject, that we could learn quite a lot from looking at the management of an enormous enterprise of this kind which he thought was more significant than the technology itself. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) said that to him the most important thing was the selection of an objective by President Kennedy some years ago and the determination of the American people as a whole to stick to that objective and see it through, although it cost them many thousands of millions of dollars.
  The thoughts which occurred to me were slightly different. Of course attention has been rightly concentrated on the achievements of the astronauts themselves—Collins, Armstrong and Aldrin—to whom will always belong the glory of having been the first men to journey to another celestial body, but the honour should go equally to the brilliant engineers who made this achievement possible. The Minister said that there was a huge pyramid of achievement behind the three astronauts. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said that the significance was not in the journey itself so much as in the technogies which had had to be developed for it to be possible.
  I should like to emphasise what those two right hon. Gentlemen and others have said. Without the computer revolution, it would have been impossible to nagivate over a quarter of a million miles of space and land within a few hundred yards of a pre-determined point on the moon's surface. It would have been impossible to control and monitor the thousands of systems in the spacecraft so precisely as was necessary, because
  1320
  even the tiniest error would have led to disaster. Without the materials revolution, the Appollo capsule could never have been light enough for even the mighty Saturn rocket to hurl it all the way to the moon or for it to be returned safely to orbit.
  I have been told just now, I am happy to say, that the moon craft has taken off and is back in orbit again, although the lunarnauts have not yet joined up with the command module—that will not be until 22.36—but they have safely achieved the ascent stage, which was one of the most critical parts of the whole operation.
  Without the revolution in data transmission, the millions of bits of information accumulated on this historic flight could not have been returned to earth and neither could we have shared the wonderful experience with the astronauts as it actually happened. This is one of the mose remarkable aspects of it. Without the British invention of the fuel cell, which has been developed further by Pratt and Whitney at a cost of 28 million dollars, there would have been no electrical power source available for the command and lunar modules. Without the development of exotic metal forming processes, such as explosive welding and electro-magetic metalworking, the designers of the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn rocket would have been severely restricted. I do not say that it would have been impossible to make the rocket, but it would certainly have taken much longer without these processes.
  All these innovations, which have been given a tremendous impetus by the U.S. space programme, will have a profound effect on everyday life in the advanced countries. I appreciate that we must be very careful in considering how these technologies will be used by the Americans and ourselves and the nations of Western Europe and Japan, to consider also how we can apply them for the benefit of the developing countries. I understand that there is a lobby this afternoon on aid to the developing countries. Several of my constituents have been to see me, but unfortunately I cannot go and discuss the problem with them, but it would be appropriate for us to emphasise, in a general debate on this question, the need not to lose sight of the way in which Britain might be able to help the Commonwealth and other developing nations by transferring some

  1321
  of the technologies which we have accomplished in this country to those overseas countries which really need jacking up and bringing on a level more like our own.
  Of course, Great Britain and the countries of Western Europe and Japan could never afford to embark on the prohibitively costly space programme which the Americans have undertaken—I am told that they have spent £15,000 million through N.A.S.A. over the last 10 years—but, equally, we cannot afford to neglect the engineering implications which I have mentioned. That means that we must have the engineers who are capable of exploiting the new discoveries, or we shall lose out commercially. I will follow up later what the Minister said about the commercial attitude of the MINTECH.
  The second thing which struck me was the accelerating pace of technological advance. It is not so many years ago—certainly since the last war—that the Astronomer Royal of the day pronounced that space travel was "bunk". The men who stood on the moon this morning have proved him wrong, and one may begin to wonder how many other developments which have been unthinkable outside the pages of Arthur C. Clarke or Fred Hoyle may become realities before the turn of the century. The Minister went so far as to say that a man can do anything he wants, and there is a certain amount of truth in that. I believe that before the end of the century man will be able to synthesise life itself from elementary hydrocarbons—
  Mr. David Price: He can already.
  Mr. Lubbock: Not from elementary hydro-carbons.
  I believe that computers will be controlling most industrial processes and streamlining the flow of information. I believe that power by thermo-nuclear fusion will be a practicality, in spite of the fact that the Minister has reduced expenditure at Culham by 50 per cent., which may prove a short-sighted decision. In medical science, I believe that artificial hearts will be inserted in the human body as a minor routine operation almost. I believe that unlimited supplies of water from huge desalination plants will enable us to grow food in the deserts and that
  1322
  techniques of under-water engineering will enable us to recover valuable raw materials from the depths of the ocean bed.
  If this seems too much like a flight of imagination, one may recall that only a few years ago the same might have been said about a journey to the moon. I have quoted that remark of the Astronomer Royal. Our biggest problem over the next 30 years to the end of the century will be not keeping up the pace of technological advance but controlling the unstable behavioural forces which threaten to ruin the golden age which our children have every right to expect.
  That man can abuse his domination over the environment as easily as he can profit by it is a fact; the hon. Member for Eccles gave some illustrations. The technologies which we develop are themselves neutral, but they can be perverted to destroy the human race just as they can liberate all the human race from poverty and want.
  I have said enough on a philosophical basis and should like to turn now to one or two practical aspects of the civil science policy, and want to start with some of the things which the Minister said. I have seldom heard a speech from the Government Front Bench with which I more heartily agreed. I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the commercial approach of the MINTECH. I approve wholeheartedly the transfer of resources from defence into civil research.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in general in putting out more research to industrial companies, having more extra-mural and less intra-mural research, but research on this must be a controlled process, and in many respects it may be preferable to have co-operative research programmes going between private and public organisations, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), which have been undertaken by Harwell. He was right to mention that example, and we should consider how this can be extended, because a great deal of pioneering work has been done in this field. By that, I do not mean so much the character of the projects, exciting though those may be—the techniques of non-destructive testing, heat transfer fluid flow and, of course, the desalination programme.

  1323
  What I mean is the development of new types of machinery for co-operative ventures between public and private enterprise on a far more flexible basis than we have managed hitherto. I think that the hon. Member for Abingdon was right to pursue the Minister's thoughts in this respect and to see whether one could extend the techniques of management developed by Harwell into these areas.
  The hon. Member spoke of the possibility of having an independent research authority which would manage these programmes on behalf of the Ministry of Technology and I should like to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Atomic Energy Authority, shorn of its reactor responsibilities and of its fuel production and processing side, should be the nucleus of such an independent research authority which would be engaged over the whole spectrum and not just on the nuclear side.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely that we should consciously direct our programmes away from pure research towards exploitation. Again, I think that the Atomic Energy Authority has been very successful in this respect as one looks at some of the programmes which have been going on at Harwell.
  But if we are to do all these things, very important problems will arise. Where are we to get the manpower? One of the tragedies of this House not having paid very much attention to scientific problems in the last few years—the right hon. Gentleman said that this was the first occasion in which he had participated in a debate since he became Minister—is that three reports on scientific manpower—the Jones, Swann and Dainton Reports—have not been discussed together. The Jones Report was on the brain drain, the Swann Report was on the flow into employment of graduates in science and technology and the Dainton Report was about the flow into higher education of candidates in science and technology.
  In this House, the Swann and Dainton Reports have not had an airing. The other place has debated the Swann Report. Neither House has ever tried to look at these three reports together. This is a serious lacuna in the approaches we have made to the problem of science policy, because these three reports are
  1324
  very closely connected. One cannot talk about the flow of candidates from sixth forms to university and from university into industry and, later on, the migration of scientists and technologists to other countries, particularly the United States, each of them in isolation. There must be a very close connection between the three phenomena as the Swann Report, the last of the three, explicitly recognised.
  I want to refer to a remark made by Professor Swann when he addressed at Nottingham University a conference organised by the Liberal Party Science and Technology Committee. We talked there about these three reports together. We were privileged to have present Professor Swann, Dr. Dainton and Dr. Jones. Professor Swann said:
  "… as you will see, I will refer back frequently to both of these other reports because all three are fairly closely related and …it is a good thing that the Liberal Party is thinking about all these simultaneously because, as far as I know, nobody else has done so and in reality they should be considered as a sort of three-pronged attack on a rather large central problem."
  It is a pity, therefore, that, over the whole period since these three reports were published, we have not found time in this House to debate them together and that another place has only debated one of them and we have debated one of the others. We cannot separate these problems and treat them in isolation.
  We made some suggestions at the conference to which I want to draw the hon. Lady's attention. I will not go through all the recommendations because there were quite a number of them but will speak particularly about recommendations we made about research councils, because I understand that she hopes to deal with this herself in her reply.
  First, we thought that the research councils ought to reserve a certain proportion of their funds to be spent in individual universities on projects initiated by the councils themselves as distinct from expenditure in response to proposals initiated from the universities, which is the procedure most commonly adopted at present.
  Secondly, we thought that academic representation on research council committees should be broadened so as to include more junior scientists and engineers and more people from newer universities. I would largely agree with what the hon.

  1325
  Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) said—that science research councils function very well in general—so in what I am saying I do not want the hon. Lady to think that I am being hypercritical. I only suggest some steps which might improve the decision-making machinery even further.
  Thirdly, we consider that research councils should have some meetings in public when important policy changes are being discussed. That must not mean necessarily that all the subsidiary committees, of which there are many, should meet in public, but the main committees and the councils themselves should give some thought as to whether a proportion of their meetings could be open to outsiders. For example, it would have been interesting, since the 300 G.V. accelerator has been mentioned, to have had some open discussion on that issue. A report was published later on and it is available to the House but I think that some of the arguments leading up to it would have been interesting to those who had to consider it later on.
  The fourth recommendation I mention as a follow on to the speech made by the hon. Member for Billericay, who is disappointed that we do not have more time to spend on international collaboration. We think that the research councils should have regard to work outside Britain and make awards jointly with corresponding bodies abroad in respect of expensive projects. One of the examples we thought of was the case of radio telescopes which, of course—to make a pun—are astronomically expensive. Thus, there may be some good arguments for the research councils to have discussions with grant-giving agencies abroad to see whether we cannot extend collaboration.
  The fifth recommendation arose from our finding that inter-disciplinary projects are sometimes caught in demarcation disputes within and between research councils. We think that the machinery could be improved so as to avoid this. What we had in mind, roughly speaking, was the process whereby a proposal goes out to the S.R.C. A month later, it is decided what body should pass judgment on it. Then a lot of time is wasted with that research council saying that it is none of its business but should go to another research council to see whether it could
  1326
  give a grant. If we had joint committees looking at inter-disciplinary projects, all this delay and the resultant frustration of those making the applications could be avoided.
  Sixth, we thought that some of the mission-orientated work sponsored by the councils should be transferred to the control of the appropriate Ministry. I do not make too much of that. It would free a certain amount of resources of councils to do the kind of things they should be doing. I mean all the councils, but the S.R.C. is perhaps the most important one.
  There was no total agreement on it at the conference and I put forward with diffidence the proposal for a cost-benefit study of the machinery for making grants to university research, and in this connection it is for consideration whether one council would be preferable to the present cluster of councils or whether dangerous monopoly powers outweigh the possible cost benefit advantage. If one had a single research council giving all the awards, one would avoid all the demarcation problems, but some people in the universities think that it is helpful from their point of view to have a number of different agencies. If one gets turned down by one agency, one can ask another for the money. I put that forward only as an idea which might be considered and not for any firm decision about it at this stage.
  The eighth suggestion is that professional doctorates, which have been advocated in a recent paper by Mr. Stephen Bragg, the chief engineer of Rolls-Royce, should be awarded for justified original contributions by individuals to development, design, production and operation generally in industry. Such an award should be made under the aegis of the C.N.A.A. with the co-operation of the appropriate professional institutions, such as the C.E.I. or the R.I.C. We suggest that the C.N.A.A. should undertake this work because many of the universities do not believe that they should award doctorates for work which has not been done in association with them. Some do not take that attitude, for instance, London does not. But the University of Surrey insists that a proportion of the work done towards a doctorate must be done in immediate association with the university.
  Ninth, there is a well attested reluctance on the part of employers to release

  1327
  graduate employees for post-graduate and post-experience courses. We recommend that for a course totalling not less than three months duration in total and approved by a research council firms releasing employees should be entitled to benefit under the Industrial Training Acts in respect of their nominees. This is not now happening and it should be an incentive to companies to release personnel to undertake post-experience courses.
  Finally, we favour the practice, currently followed by several of the former C.A.T.s of a joint post-graduate research programme with industrial sponsorship in which the work is done predominantly or entirely in the candidate's firm and under two sponsors one of whom is appointed by the university and the other by the company. We think that this procedure ought to be considered by the joint committee which has been set up by the S.R.C. and the S.S.R.C. to develop broader forms of training for the Ph.D. which are more closely orientated to the needs of industry. By the way, we think that the work of this committee is not nearly as widely known as it should be. I know many people in industry to whom I have mentioned it and who have said that that was the first they had heard even of its existence.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will find these suggestions helpful. If I cannot have an answer to them this evening—and to expect an answer tonight would be a bit much, because of their complexity—I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss them at some other time.
  The Minister said that this was the first general debate covering the whole spectrum of science that we had had since he assumed office. He rightly went on to point out that we would be abdicating our political functions if we did not concern ourselves with these issues. There should be more broad debates of this kind ranging over the whole spectrum. There has been general agreement about the need for this kind of debate and I hope that it will be pointed out to the Leader of the House by the hon. Lady and by the Minister.
  But that would not be any substitute for additional time on individual science
  1328
  policy questions of great national importance. They should not be relegated to Adjournment debates or to debates on the Consolidated Fund. I have mentioned the scientific manpower position, and the priorities of MINTECH were mentioned by the Minister himself. There are also the various reports of the Select Committee, not all of which we have yet had time to debate, and the subject of the pollution of the environment.
  Unless we are prepared to spend as much time on these vital issues, which in the long run are of transcendental importance to the nation, as we do on the many minor issues which occupy us day by day, nobody will think that a word spoken in the debate was meant. "Science must be part of life" the Minister of Technology said. It must also be part of life even in the House of Commons.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Parkyn: This has been a wide-ranging debate on science and there have been some useful helpful and thoughtful contributions from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I concur with what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said about the fact that today man landed on the moon and one cannot speak in a debate on science on the day when man has first landed on the moon without making some reference to it. It is surely the greatest scientific management effort ever made, even greater than the development which led to nuclear fission.
  One sees it as a conglomeration of the vast co-ordination of many scientific disciplines and many other disciplines all working together under an overall umbrella of marvellous management. It would be churlish to say anything but that it is the most marvellous effort of science which we have so far seen.
  At the same time, politics is the language of priorities and one questions whether the use of these resources on this massive scale for putting a couple of men on the moon was justified. I know that this is an arguable proposition, because it is no different from arguing whether we should justify the 300 GV accelerator or be content with the Nina or the Nimrod. It is all a question of

  1329
  priorities and how much effort we put into any of these areas.
  My right hon. Friend—and this was also mentioned in the interesting and thought-provoking speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price)—spoke about technological innovation. One of my great grandfathers was an inventor, but without much knowledge for some time of technological innovation. He invented a lock which was ultimately developed and marketed by a certain Mr. Chubb and it became fairly well know all over the world. My great grandfather then invented an umbrella which was the first umbrella to be made having a steel frame. It was utimately developed by a Mr. Fox and it became fairly well known all over the world.
  My great grandfather then invented a new kind of printing press. Being older and wiser by that time, he found ways and means of manufacturing and marketing it himself and of getting some kind of return out of it for himself.
  I want to speak about technological innovation, because it is the most important of all the aspects of science today. If our generation were as successful at technological innovation as our Victorian ancestors, we should now be selling advanced computers all over the world, have the lion's share of all the nuclear power stations being built overseas and still be the largest shipbuilding nation in the world and we would never have been in the shameful position in which we were after the war when we had to import penicillin, a British invention, from the United States.
  We devote a higher percentage of our gross national product to research and development than any other nation except the United States and the U.S.S.R. An O.E.C.D. Report in 1967 gave the figures as being 2·6 per cent. for Britain as against less than 3 per cent. for the U.S S.R. and 3·7 per cent. for the United States. It is no exaggeration to say that a better knowledge of the problems of technological innovation, and applying that knowledge, would do more to give Britain a sense of purpose and to put us on our feet economically than anything else which the country could do.
  Technological innovation is "the technical, industrial and commercial steps which lead to the marketing of new
  1330
  manufactured products and to the commercial use of new technical processes and equipment". That is the definition given in the Report of the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology, "Technological Innovation in Britain" published last year, and I commend this report to all hon. Members. It should be required reading by every qualified scientist and engineer, every director of every company in this country, however large or small, and by the director of every research laboratory and establishment in this country. I also hope that every member of the Government will read it.
  It is a slim volume of some 20 pages but it is a tribute to Sir Solly Zuckerman and his eminent colleagues that there is more of immediate relevancy to the state of the nation packed into those 20 pages than all the pontifications of the economists puts together.
  At its simplest, innovation is the sequence of events which starts with the creation of an idea, develops into a new material, process or product and carries on through the arduous and costly phases of trial production and marketing until finally the new product or process is sold and starts to bring in a financial return.
  In spite of the outstanding record that the United Kingdom still has for developing new scientific ideas, comparable even with the United States, which employs five times the number of qualified scientists and engineers on research and development as we do, we are not nowadays so successful at exploiting new ideas and reaping a commercial advantage. So many British and European inventions have been rapidly and successfully exploited in the United States that America now has at least one-third of all world exports in technically advanced goods.
  Last year I paid a visit to the Lincoln laboratories of M.I.T. in America with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). One of the gentlemen whom we met there told me that if only England in the late 1950s had decided to go ahead with communication satellites we could have continued to dominate the world in communications, but we did not, we looked elsewhere. We had our priorities

  1331
  wrong, or someone in the Government or elsewhere was unable to see the great contribution we could make, We did not do it.
  There are many reasons for this delay and hesitation, of which the two most important are that we still as a nation try to cover the whole spectrum of scientific effort instead of concentrating our effort where it can be effective. To some extent the sheer cost of research has forced us to leave certain areas almost alone, for example, space research, but this is a negative way of arriving at a decision. It would be far better for us positively to select areas to commit our limited resources of Q.S.E.s where we can reasonably expect to reap a good financial return.
  The other factor is that we employ too high a proportion of our scientists at the beginning of the innovative chain rather than at the end, and this point is made in the slim volume which I commend to every hon. Member. No less than one-third of all our qualified scientists and engineers are engaged in pure basic research, objective basic research or applied research. As the report shows, Britain appears to use only about half as many professionally trained people as, for example, Germany in applying science and technology to production and marketing. In 1964, the graduate technical staff employed in British shipbuilding firms amounted to only 0·4 per cent. of the total employees, compared with 7·9 per cent. in a particular Japanese shipbuilding firm.
  We must also recognise, as the Americans undoubtedly do, that, given a decision to go ahead with a new development, a short lead-time is essential. There are two reasons for this. First, the shorter the time between the start of a project and its commercial fulfilment the sooner the commercial returns. Too many organisations still ignore discounted cash flow when assessing this problem. I am involved in the chemical industry which is capital-intensive and D.C.F. has long been recognised as essential.
  Secondly, a short lead-time is needed to keep ahead of competitors because, irrespective of patents, if an idea is good it will be seized on by firms all over the world, and they will sort out the
  1332
  difficulties later. The only way to make sure one gets a return from something which is good is to be the first person to market it, sell it and get a return on that product. One must be first; there is no other way.
  I had the honour to chair the carbon fibre inquiry of the Select Committee on Science and Technology earlier this year, and this was a splendid example of the problems of technological innovation, which was one reason why we felt we should look into the problem. One of our recommendations was that a major plant for the production of carbon fibre should be established in this country now. It is no good waiting until the demand is there. By creating at an early stage over-production, pressures are created and developed which will stimulate the demand and stimulate the effort which is needed on design work, on the development of the material and on the ultimate applications. This is what our great Victorian predecessors would have done with a good idea like carbon fibres, and it is what the Americans will certainly do if we do not.
  In view of the enormous potential of carbon composites, the Select Committee felt that at least with this great British invention we must not let this fish get away. Research, exploiting the research idea and finally selling that idea is ultimately a matter of motivation, as we know from Schopenhauer. He might not have been a particularly nice man, but I think we too often ignore what he was trying to say. We have a will, and we are determined by the will which we have, much more than by our intellect, and sometimes we have to decide how we change a person's will and motivate people so that they want to do things. This is what the exploitation of a good idea is all about. Sometimes research scientists must be motivated so that they are interested in what they are doing. Here the views expressed by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) in his interesting speech are of interest.
  He referred to the view of Dr. Marshall of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell and the methods by which he is getting collaboration between the research establishment and industry. This is wholly a question of motivation. He is motivating the people who are

  1333
  working on the product and developing the idea, so that they can see it right the way through from the beginning to the end when it becomes a saleable product.
  Another aspect of the views of Doctor Marshall which he expressed in the Maurice Lubbock lecture which I heard at Oxford University was the idea of monopoly. Monopoly still seems to be a dirty word in England; yet it was on the basis of monopoly that England became great in the Elizabethan era. If there is a shortage of risk capital—and we are short of risk capital in this country—and if people are to be prepared to risk capital, reasonable returns must be guaranteed before they will risk their capital on a project. The Government must be much more prepared to work with one selected firm on an idea. If that firm lets down the Government and society, the Government will know what to do next time, and it will select another firm. There is a great deal to be said for working with one organisation on something which involves risk, so that at least that organisation is prepared to put in capital and therefore get all the cream off the milk instead of getting just some of the milk without the cream.
  I end my brief remarks by quoting the recommendations of this slim volume which are so relevant to this country in its present economic state:
  "Wherever appropriate, both the Government and private industry should foster conditions which promote, both in the short and long term, effective technological innovation. The particular objectives which need to be achieved, where this has not already been done are—

  (a) The direct linkage of R & D production and marketing into a single interacting operation.

  (b) Planned programmes of innovation related to market opportunities.

  (c) Effective technological management.

  (d) Short lead-times"—

  which are absolutely essential—
  "(e) A balanced use of scientific and technological resources over all stages of the innovative process".
  8.20 p m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: I would pick up only one point which the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn) made; namely, his remark about satellites. What his American acquaintance was probably referring to was the user of satellites in this country; we went
  1334
  on with their development. The Post Office was very much against going over to satellites. It was very old-fashioned about this. It seemed to concentrate on ground stations rather than the use of satellites.
  I was glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned space, because I should like to remind the Minister of State that in all the five years of the Labour Government we have never had a debate on space in the House. We have been forced to slip it into debates like this one. Therefore, I should like to say a few words about space and take this opportunity of adding my congratulations to the astronauts, N.A.S.A., the American people and American industry. I will not say more because everybody has said it. But there is a lesson in it perhaps for our own space industry and programme, and that is this. The American people saw all this on television. The public relations of the space authorities was very good and the expenditure on space was brought right home to the American people in their homes. I wish that our own space industry would think much more about its own public relations and try to get across to the people of this country what it is doing. It is very bad at that.
  I wish to deal with only one question and that is achieving the right balance in our space programme, particularly between scientific and commercial projects. I wish to illustrate this point with perhaps a rather tedious illustration but perhaps the House will bear with me for about a minute and a half.
  On 5th December last year a scientific satellite was launched. It was the product of Britain—the British Aircraft Corporation—Germany, France and Belgium. It was supervised by the European Space Research Organisation—better known as E.S.R.O. This satellite was called H.E.O.S.1, which stands for Highly Eccentric Orbit Satellite. It had a highly elliptical orbit; the apogee, which is the furthest point of its orbit away from the world, is two-thirds of the way to the moon. Then it comes back round the world, very close in. It makes a sausage shaped orbit as it goes round the world.
  It is a small satellite of 108 kilogrammes and about 75 centimetres high. But it cost 16 million dollars between

  1335
  four countries. I am not sure how much of that we spent, but I imagine that it was a quarter, if not more. The feasibility study for the satellite started in 1964. The general objects of it are to investigate inter-planetary space during a period of maximum solar activity and particularly what are called "solar winds"—that is, the continuous flux of plasma (protons and electrons) from the sun, characterised by a velocity typically of several hundred kilogrammes per second under quiet conditions. I am sure that the House is completely with me so far and has understood every word I have said.
  However, on board this space craft were seven experiments. The first was to measure the magnetic fields in the range of 64 gamma. I am saying this in shorthand so that the House can clearly understand what it is in aid of. The second was to observe high energy cosmic ray protons. The third was to observe solar protons of low energy. The fourth was to measure both the energy distribution and angular distribution of the positive (proton) component of the solar wind. The fifth was to measure electrons, protons and alpha particles of solar and galactic origin over wide energy ranges. The sixth was to measure the spectrum of high energy cosmic ray electrons. The seventh was to eject a capsule containing a barium/copper oxide mixture which, when ignited, released a cloud of barium ions and atoms, which were further ionised by solar radiation.
  I hope that the House understands what that is in aid of—because I do not. I am sure that it is a very interesting and important experiment, but nowhere have I seen what it is in aid of. Four countries have spent 16 million dollars on putting up this satellite, with all these splendid objects, and this country is paying part of it. I imagine that the Minister, either directly or indirectly, authorised the expenditure of this money, and I would be prepared to bet her a dollar to half-a-crown that she could not tell us what these seven experiments are in aid of. I will willingly give way to her if she wishes to do so, but I will keep my ground because I am sure that she cannot do so.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): My reason for not intervening is courtesy and not necessarily ignorance.
  Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that.
  What worries me is this. What do we hope to get out of this experiment, and how does it fit in to our total space effort? Why did we agree to it? I do not say that it is wrong, but I wish to be convinced that expenditure of taxpayers' money of this magnitude is being used sensibly and not perhaps marginally wasted. I question, with the greatest respect, whether the Department of Education and Science is the right Department to authorise this expenditure. As the Minister knows, I have advocated, for as long as space developments have proceeded at the present rate, that they should all be placed under one Minister so that the purely scientific space effort and the industrial space effort can be brought together in harness in an integrated fashion resulting in, I hope, a more balanced space programme.
  The Prime Minister, when I have asked him to do this, has always refused to entertain the idea. But, as an alternative suggestion, the Government might consider setting up an office of advanced technology consisting of scientists, industry and the Government where all these things could be pulled together, examined, assessed and supervised.
  I wanted to say quite a bit about the desirability of having a national launcher of our own. The Minister of Technology has just re-entered the Chamber. As I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) has been waiting all day to speak, I will end by asking the Minister to consider the suggestion which I have just made.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: The whole House is indebted to the Opposition for giving up a Supply Day to discuss this most important aspect of present-day life. Like the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology struck the absolutely right note when he discussed in his excellent speech Britain's rôle in civil science.
  Civil science is to us our bread and butter. It is the way that we shall earn our living over the next quarter or half-century or longer. In an altogether different field, we have had the Duncan Report, which scraps a great deal of our existing diplomatic channels throughout

  1337
  the world and reorientates them to the proper business of earning our living. Similarly, in civil science it is the duty of science to earn this country its living.
  In a debate of this nature, one of the things that we perhaps tend to do is to look a little too much to the future and concentrate a little too much on the white coats in the laboratory and what they should be doing, either from the Government side or from the side of industry.
  Since I may have some critical things to say of industry and, perhaps, one or two sharp things to say to my right hon. Friend about the Government's attitude, certainly to marine science and technology, we ought at the outset to pay tribute to our science-based industries. That tribute should come from these benches.
  The chemical industry, for example—by which I mean not simply the technical innovators in their white coats, but everyone in the industry from the directors to the process workers—is our biggest export earner apart from tourism. It earns us more money abroad. The chemical industry has a most difficult task because chemicals are prohibited from many countries by the highest form of tariffs, in particular the United States, which is our most lucrative market. Nevertheless, the chemical industry is our highest export earner.
  The other industry in a similar category is heavy engineering, both electrical and mechanical—again, a science-based industry. These industries are earning the country its bread and butter in exports. Therefore, when we are critical, as I shall be—and as most hon. Members have been of one aspect or another of civil science—the record should be put straight in that respect so that, for once, we pat ourselves on the back for Britain's achievements in the scientific field.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), in an excellent speech, referred to marine science, which is what I wish briefly to discuss. We have heard of the moon landing yesterday, and, like all people in Britain, we are delighted and thrilled at the exploits of mankind. Is it realised, however, both in the House and in the country, that we know much more about the surface of the moon than we know about the ocean bed a mile from the shores of this coun-
  1338
  try? It is not from the surface of the moon that we can earn our living commercially, but it might well be that from the sea bed a mile from our shores we can earn a great deal of money commercially.
  As the hon. Member for Hendon, North said, we have the potential of exploiting those resources because as the result of our geographical position as an island and our historical association with the seas and the oceans, we know more about the ocean than any other nation. I hope that this will not be an instance of having that advantage, having the technique and the experience of generations, and throwing it away and allowing other countries to exploit those resources, in the same way as my hen. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Briar Parkyn) told us we had done in communication satellites.
  There is a great and exciting opportunity for civil commercial science industry to link together with the Government in the exploitation of the marine environment of Britain. The Government have a lot of motivation to do concerning industry and the public. One aspect of civil science and its effect upon the marine environment and its future exploitation is what my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) was talking about: the dangers of land based science ruining the possibilities of the development of ocean science by reason of pollution.
  We have only to remember what happened a few weeks ago when a very small quantity of chemical found its way into the River Rhine. Not only did all the fish in that river die, but a great deal of harm to human beings could have been caused had it not been quickly discovered. That is the scale of harm from pollution that a small amount of chemical inadvertently tipped into a river or finding its way into the ocean can cause to mankind. So that to begin with my right hon. Friend has got to alert industry to the dangers which might be created by exploiting its own resources in this respect.
  However, much more important than that is the possibility of what the ocean could provide for this country and for the world if we had a co-ordinated attempt, a vigorous, dramatic attempt, to

  1339
  exploit its resources which are all round us. I should like to know from my hon. Friend when she replies to the debate how many development contracts in marine science and marine technology we have with British industry. I know that in America most of the principal industries—Lockheed, General Dynamics, Westinghouse; all these great firms which have been involved so much with space exploration and moon exploration—are very much concerned indeed also with the exploitation of the ocean and sea bed. I wonder how many contracts we have with individual British firms on projects in oceanographic development.
  Second, like the hon. Member for Hendon, North, I cannot see why industry is not represented on the appropriate committee dealing with marine environment. Surely it is essential that it should have not only an ad hoc position from time to time but a permanent position on the committee. The hon. Member discussed how much money is spent on research. It is about £1,000 million. Half of that is taxpayers' money and half of it is industry's money. I should like to see a lot more of the taxpayers' money being devoted to marine science and marine technology, and I should even more like to see a great deal of the other £500 million, from industry, being devoted to research on marine environment.
  Third is the question of liaison with industry. I know, from a discussion I had only last week with the Minister of Technology, that we are now beginning to liaise with industry and beginning to interest various industries in marine science and technology, but I think a great deal has got to be done by the Ministry of Technology in showing industry the enormous advantages which would accrue—to industry—from spending resources on the exploitation of the sea and ocean bed.
  Let us take an example. When the exploration was going on for North Sea gas nearly all the drilling rigs were American. It was American technology which built them. The diving techniques—in which Britain leads the world—were imported from abroad; they were not diving techniques originating in this country, even though the Royal Navy's and British experience of diving techniques leads the world. The laying of
  1340
  the pipes from the drilling rigs to this country, again, was American technology, American science, American know-how. We recently, I believe, had exploration for alluvial tin off the Cornish coast. It was not a British firm which was engaged to do that; it was a South African firm. We have had also on the Cornish coast exploration of the under-water resources, and, again, it was not a British firm but an American firm which undertook that contract. This is in a field where Britain ought to be leading the world at present, and British industry and civil science ought to be leading the world, and doing so not only through research going on in Government Departments but through research going on in private industry as well.
  Some of the blame lies, I think, not with my right hon. Friend but with another Government Department, the Ministry of Defence, which really is too cautious in what it will or will not give from its own know-how to private industry. I refer particularly to the question of diving techniques. The Royal Navy knows a great deal about guiding technique. It has been expensively acquired at the taxpayers' expense. If that information were given freely and quickly to industry, which needs it for scientific research into a field which would be valuable and which is essential to Britain, it could bring enormous dividends for the country.
  I turn to the question of public relations. The whole of America and, indeed, of the world, not only this weekend but for the last month, has been excited at the prospect of men landing on the moon. The world has been told about it and has seen its advantages. But we have not given sufficient motivation to the nation in our exploitation of the sea bed. I ask my hon. Friend in her reply to tell the House how we are to alert young people, including those in the sixth form, to the importance of this exploitation.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. This is such a wonderful speech that it is deserving of a better-attended House. In order that more hon. Members may hear my hon. Friend's speech, may I call a count?
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  Mr. Oakes: I will be brief because I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have sat here all day waiting to speak in the debate.
  I was dealing with marine science and its exploitation. It is of advantage to the country commercially, of advantage both to the nation and to the industries which exploit this field of research. It is important to us in earning our living and in giving young people, including young scientists, a field of endeavour in which they can see that they will be of great use to the country. More important, it gives the country an opportunity to lead the world in a way possibly more important than men landing on the moon. After all, 75 per cent. of the surface of the Earth is ocean and two-thirds of the people on Earth are under-fed. In thirty years' time, by the year 2,000, the population on the Earth will have doubled.
  What a glorious opportunity for Britain to lead the world in a field of endeavour which not only will help us commercially but can help the world to stave off starvation. It could be far more important than exploits into space. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Technology will spend more money, and, even more important, will motivate industry to spend more money, on the exploitation of the marine resources around the country.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Silvester: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) will forgive me if I do not dwell on the subject of oceanography, although the issue about which I wish to speak and which has not received a great deal of attention today will affect oceanography since it is a central issue in the whole question of the development of civil science in Britain. I refer to the need for a sufficient supply of scientific skill.
  I am not in a position to provide the House with information better than that provided in the three Reports presented by Swann, Dainton and Jones. There have been hints of criticism about these reports in that perhaps they deal with a false problem. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can tell me—the number of scientists
  1342
  we will need to produce. Swann points out that the forecasts made by employers of scientific manpower have generally exceeded the number of scientists they have subsequently employed. Perhaps, therefore, the situation is exaggerated.
  I do not believe that one can exaggerate the position. Swann says that even if we take an optimistic view for the number of sixth formers taking science and technology subjects at our universities, we are still likely to have a growth rate in the immediately adjacent years of about 5 per cent. per annum in scientists and technologists compared with a growth rate of 10 per cent. in the last decade. Whatever argument one deploys, one cannot argue that we will need fewer of these people in the future than we have needed in the past.
  Another problem must be faced—it has been raised by several hon. Members—and that is the way in which we are seeking to introduce into British industry at all levels people with a knowledge of science who can respond to tie ideas, techniques and thoughts of science and technology. This is bound to place an increased burden on the education system.
  In addition to our local problems in the United Kingdom, there is the fear that we could fall substantially behind many countries. We each have our favourite quotations from Servan-Schreiber, but the one that brings the matter home clearly to me is his description of the situation by an American who said that some societies will develop in science and technology to such a degree—in advanced techniques of data processing, collection and storage and so on—that it will be almost impossible for them to converse with other nations which have not reached that standard of advancement.
  While we want to have enough scientists and technologists to met our basic economic needs, we must also be able to participate in the most interesting and dynamic developments in science and technology so that the United Kingdom does not become an inferior kind of society. If, therefore, we accept that the situation is not being exaggerated, we must consider the basic timetable. I hope, therefore, that we will approach this subject with a sense of urgency. Although many interesting points have bee made in the debate, many have lacked such a sense.

  1343
  If one studies the Swann and Dainton Reports one comes up against a frightening timetable. Dainton, for example, confirms that the major decisions about the nature of the subjects one studies at university are made in one's third or fourth year at school. The pressures at that time decide the nature of one's sixth form studies and may, in turn, decide the nature of one's university studies.
  The Swann Committee goes further. Adding together the developments which occur after someone enters university, it reckons that it can take up to 10 years before there is full development of any change of policy at any given time. If one also adds any questions of teacher training which may he involved in producing more scientists and technologists, one can quickly develop a time scale involving 15 or 16 years. In other words, we are talking now of a situation in which, if we agree with my original premise that we are in difficulty as regards the number and quality of people we are able to produce, a decision made today will affect the output of scientists and technologists round about 1979–80. That is a very long time ahead. There must, therefore, be a very considerable sense of urgency involved.
  I see that in the magazine Nature, the Intitute of Mathematics and Its Application said:
  "Britain's supply of mathematics school teachers will fall beyond the point of no return by 1970"
  I am not sure quite what it means by the phrase "point of no return", a somewhat odd phrase, but it is clear that those professionally involved are realising that we are facing a very difficult situation.
  There are a number of short-term solutions with which, in view of the time, I will not deal now, but one or two problems must be dealt with. They are those which concern the longer term production of more scientists and technologists from the schools. I emphasise that it is from the schools. The right hon. Lady the Minister of State may think that I am being too narrow in my reference but, as one understands the present situation, there are spare places at the universities for scientific and technological undergraduates. (I only wish that they were shorter of words.) It is not
  1344
  a question of providing more places at that level. The trouble is that there is not a sufficient supply of people from the schools to fill the places. We have to go back to that stage to get to the root cause of the problem we may have to face in the 'seventies.
  When we go back to that stage we see a number of very serious aspects. One, already been mentioned by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), is that teachers of science are older than others and soon they retire. This is true. When one looks at the statistics of teachers of subjects which they did not primarily study, apart from English, a higher proportion will be found in such subjects as technical drawing, mathematics, physics and science.
  Similarly—and I do not want to make a quick political point—if we extend the comprehensive schools across the country that tendency will spread the staff available over a much larger number of children. The figures for comprehensive schools show that there is a smaller proportion of scientific staff available per child than in the existing direct grant and grammar schools. I appreciate that there are other reasons for that change, which the right hon. Lady may wish to make, but if we are short in this respect at present, it may be wondered whether this is the right time to make the change.
  The present situation affects not only the universities but the colleges of education. One reads in the New Scientist, although the figures may not be its own, that at colleges of education the percentage of students with A levels in science fell. For example, the percentage in mathematics fell between 1966 and 1968 from 9·7 to 7·5; in physics from 6·6 to 4·6, and in chemistry from 5·4 to 3·3. That is not merely a percentage fall but an actual fall in numbers. There were a hundred fewer maths teachers, 180 fewer physics teachers and 109 fewer chemistry teachers. This seems to me rather a grave position which requires to be dealt with urgently.
  Some of the solutions will depend on the universities. A lot of criticism has been levelled at the schools, but a headmaster in my constituency told me that it had been his intention to introduce a

  1345
  course for A level engineering science. For four years he had tried at the University of London to get that course. For tour years he had failed. One of the reasons given by the University of London was that that work was already done in the university. This year some of his pupils will be taking a course in engineering science because it so happens that two years ago the University of Oxford adopted almost exactly the same syllabus. That is four years wasted. I do not know whether this is a situation which requires people to talk about it for four years when it is known that by doing so the solution will be postponed, not to 1980, but to 1984 and almost ad infinitum.
  The hon. Lady should note the attitude of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to oversized classes. He has said there is a specific problem which we can analyse locally in a number of different situations, which will have a number of possible conclusions, and that he would like to look at each case. The same sort of approach can be adopted to those places, schools and areas where the scientific problem is most acute.
  Some suggestions I wish to make have been well canvassed. One is that there must be discriminatory payments to teachers of science. There are two ways of getting more teachers to teach science. One is to deter them from doing anything else, such as, for example, going in for research at university, by means of loans rather than grants. The other is to make it profitable for them to go into science teaching. That may be a "hot potato" but it is something which should be looked at. One way perhaps would be to introduce a weighting on the Burnham Scale to give a bias to schools with an increased number of science pupil hours.
  An hon. Member for a Liverpool constituency has some evidence that there are some firms whose scientific staff has been with them for a large number of years and whose usefulness—perhaps that is the wrong word—whose fire as research officers for the company has been somewhat spent. He suggested that they could be used profitably in colleges of further education, and perhaps even in some schools. On such a man's retirement there could be movement from industry into education which in the short-term might be rather useful. Non-university
  1346
  establishments provide half the technologists with degrees and one-tenth of the scientists with degrees. It seems therefore that there is a great area outside the universities to which we should pay close attention for the production of more scientists.
  There is a great field of opportunity for people already in industry who could benefit from further contact. One example immediately springs to mind. There are management courses at universities and business schools which attract a high proportion of arts and social science students. Colleges of education are attracting the interest of science and technology trained students also interested in management. Ultimately, although the Government can do all these things, the success of any such campaign will depend entirely on the attractiveness of science and technology as a career for people to take up. One of the most difficult features, and one of the most attractive ways of improving this, will be found in the rewards for those who take up this life.
  That brings us to the realm of taxation. It brings us into the realm of preparing to let scientists undertake management as well as their own specialisms. These two matters—giving responsibilities wider than their own specialisms to scientists, and also the ability to reward them adequately—are the key to the current teacher problem.
  9.0 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: This has been a thoroughly useful debate. I share the feelings of pride and wonderment in human achievement which have been expressed by many hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) started his excellent speech with a quotation from Tennyson. At just before 4 o'clock this morning I was reminded of a quotation from the less known versifier but admirable historian of the French Revolution, J. M. Thompson. He once wrote a verse autobiography which ended with one of the finest expressions of the sense of human dignity that I know. I could not help being reminded of this couplet:
  "But to experiment, invent, explore;
  Having some light and always seeking more"
  That alone, to me, is the justification for this tremendous enterprise.

  1347
  For myself, I feel the tremendous importance in the contemporary world for scientific research conducted as a sheer matter of what our ancestors would have called "natural philosophy". Having said that, may I say that I have great sympathy with those many hon. Members who have reminded us of, if one likes, the darker picture of the contemporary world. At the same time as we celebrate this massive and unprecedented achievement, let us remember the areas of scientific work where there is still a hard slog. I am thinking, for example, of mental illness, where we are still patiently going forward making comparatively very slow progress. I am glad that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and Bolton. West (Mr. Oakes), whose speech I thought was rather pointlessly interrupted, referred to the abuse of the natural environment.
  Mr. John Ellis: The Minister got some support for the references he made to the purely commercial considerations, but is it not as well to remember on the other side that commercial considerations have unfortunately led in certain instances to man destroying his environment?
  Sir E. Boyle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall refer to this point towards the end of my speech. I believe that in our whole approach to science and technology, and, indeed, to the problems of British society, we must be both idealistic and hard-headed, neither forgetting the many eyesores and blots on our society that remain, nor at the same time being too tender-minded so as to forget the inescapable part which commercial considerations must play.
  I want next to come to the question of the organisation of civil science. This is one of the relatively few points on which I disagreed with some hon. Members on both sides. I greatly respect what is said in these debates and by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). None the less, I still hold the view that it would be wrong to split up responsibility for the universities and responsibility for university science. There is one purely practical point which I think that the hon. Lady the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science will confirm and which I have
  1348
  raised in the House before. It is the whole question of how the finance provided by the research councils ties in with the finance provided by the U.G.C.
  I quote some words of my own from a debate a few years ago:
  "As I think the House knows, when the Research Council starts up a university project, there comes a moment at the end of each quinquennium when this question has to be asked: should this work go on? If the university and the Research Council agree that it should, they have the choice either of asking the U.G.C. that the project should enjoy the same priority as the university's existing commitments or that it should rank among the university's new proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 757.]
  I think it is a sensible system which works well and it does point, I think, to the great difficulty of splitting up responsibility for the universities and responsibility for the research councils.
  However, on one point I should like to go a little further than the Minister went today. I felt that his speech suggested the need for a rather closer link between the Ministry of Technology and what were formerly the colleges of advanced technology and the technical colleges generally. It seems to me clear that where policy in the technical college sector is concerned, the Ministry of Technology ought to have a voice alongside the D.E.S. I am thinking not only of the very top-grade technological institutions, but of the polytechnics and, indeed, of the area colleges as well. I have always been particularly concerned about the area colleges lest they should become demoted as a result of the plan for the polytechnics. Throughout that sector I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman having a more recognised voice in education policy.
  Before I leave the subject of organisation, I should like to express my agreement with a point made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn), who, as always, made a thoughtful and agreeably unconventional contribution. He actually had the temerity to put in a word in praise of monopoly, as it were. One of the things which have always bothered me—and I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—is that there is a certain tendency for the rules of the game as laid down by sophisticated 19th century Liberal economics to be regarded as rather more relevant than they are in a

  1349
  number of cases. I think this is something of which a number of Government Departments, particularly the Board of Trade, are often guilty.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for passing me a copy of the lecture by Dr. Marshall from which the hon. Member quoted. I am thinking of page 191 in particular, where he speaks of the application of the principle of "maximum unfairness". In fact, the case he puts here for the A.E.A. working
  "with a single industrial partner with which we collaborate on an exclusive basis"
  is a very strong case indeed.
  I should like to make two other points before proceeding to my main points. The first is to take up what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said about the importance of a policy of science informing the whole of the Government's activities. This is something to which we attach a great deal of importance, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) during his years as Minister for Science.
  I also take up and agree strongly with the point made by the Minister when he talked about the need to give adequate responsibility early enough to those in industry who can justify it. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that is something which we felt strongly about in the Fulton Committee's Report. For example, in paragraph 117, when we spoke of career management we said:
  "It is in our view of the greatest importance that those who are really able should be appointed to Assistant Secretary and parallel ranks at an early age."
  We have got to get used to a number of people being promoted to jobs of high responsibility at a much earlier age than happened in the past.
  One thing which strikes me as wrong in Britain is that there is a tendency to feel that those of maturer years must, other things being equal, tend to be more qualified for the jobs than the younger ones. That is not true in the world of today. There are a number of highly responsible jobs to be done which will be most suitable for people of a much lower age than in the past.
  If hon. Members wish to see scientists playing their full part in Government service—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows what I am now going to say—that
  1350
  part of the Fulton Report dealing with arguments for a single grading structure is very relevant indeed. I am sorry the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who was my colleague on the Fulton Committee, and who felt strongly about this, is not in the Chamber at the moment.
  I should next like to turn to the question of the budget for the research councils, because I know the hon. Lady the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science will say something about the working of these councils when she replies. Today the position is one of a coincidence of a declining growth rate of the civil science budget and, at the same time, rising demand, and this is creating a number of problems for us.
  Already, the growth rate is so close to the sophistication factor that it is almost as though we were standing still. There is also a tendency for the sums available for domestic use to be eroded by international projects. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) who knows a great deal about this, on the importance of international co-operation, let us remember that there can be some unsound international schemes as well, and we should be chary of undertaking schemes which have little scientific merit although they may seem politically attractive.
  Then the large number of recruits in the universities of the 1960s are now at their most creative period. University expansion started at the end of the 1950s and gathered pace in the early 1960s. The original expansion plan announced in 1957—I speak from memory— assumed at that time an increase in university numbers from 89,000 to 134,000, most of them in science and technology, and it is many of those people who are now coming rapidly to their most creative period.
  There are other difficulties, too, which the universities have to face in their scientific effort. Pressure by the U.G.C. has resulted in diminishing unit costs, and the free money for research from the U.G.C. is positively diminishing now.
  Last, and equally important, university scientists are being asked to reorientate a number of their activities from science to engineering. This is much easier in a period when the budget is rising than one when the amount of free money is

  1351
  positively declining. Redeployment at a time of relatively stationary university numbers creates much more hardship than redeployment at a time of rising numbers. I am glad to see that the hon. Lady concurs.
  In these circumstances, what can we do? I agree with the hon. Member for Billericay in saying that, in general, the research councils give this country good value for money, and the U.G.C. pressure on unit costs has started to be effective. But I make one or two suggestions here. First, there is a good deal of pressure today for what one might call costly mission-orientated work to be undertaken by the research councils, work on such things as boring holes or work on the continental shelf. In the circumstances, at a time of financial stringency the research council should act as the agent rather than as principal, and this work should not bear too heavily on its budget.
  Second, I stress the importance of planning ahead. The lead time to which reference has been made often lasts from five to 15 years. It is important when planning scientific expenditure to be able to look ahead over a period. I hope that it will be possible to have rather longer-term planning of the scientific budget for the universities than has been the case in the past.
  Those were the points which I wished to make about the universities' science budget today, because I know that a good deal of concern is being felt.
  Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point about control over projects. What about control over some of the stupid projects one sees announced in the Press sometimes for which whole bodies of people are set up to investigate quite ridiculous things?
  Sir E. Boyle: If they are foolish projects, they should not be undertaken. But one must always exercise care in examining and probing such reports fully before accepting them on the basis of one Press report. On the whole, I think that the pressure of the U.G.C. has resulted in a good deal better value for money at the universities than in the past, although in a number of respects there is still a long way to go.
  For the rest of my speech, I turn to the important issue of science and edu-
  1352
  cation. Several hon. Members have pointed out that the crucial issue in the education of scientists is the supply of teachers, and I have one or two questions, of some of which I have given her notice, to put to the hon. Lady. First, how far are the polytechnics being used to train more science and maths teachers by providing short courses for mature students who have had industrial experience? They can play a part there. Next what about short courses or one-year courses for teachers of science subjects?
  On the general question of in-service courses, one would like to know how far they have been affected by the very severe stringency in the increase of rates of grant over the next two years. I should also be interested to know how the Government's advertising campaign for recruiting graduates has gone.
  With regard to the suggestion of several hon. Members that we should pay maths and science graduates differentially more money, I would suggest that we have ultimately got to decide whether we want educational salaries to go on being negotiated. So long as salaries are negotiated, the faculty for intervention by the Minister or by Parliament is bound to be limited. We can express our views strongly in the House, but there is a great difficulty here, as I am sure the hon. Member for Orpington realises. Teachers' pay is negotiated. The Department now—I think rightly—is in on the negotiations, but it is no good anyone thinking that the Department or Parliament has, so to speak, a large store of grand jokers which can be brought easily into play.
  The hon. Lady said on 23rd June this year that she was very concerned about the shortage of teachers of maths and that the Department had encouraged colleges of education and university departments to give high priority to the admission of potential teachers of maths and science. In that context, it is rather disturbing to notice that the percentage of candidates accepted by colleges of education having O-level passes in maths is declining. The proportion of men candidates with O-level passes in maths fell from 77 per cent. in 1965 to 72·5 per cent. last year, and the percentage of women with these passes has gone down from 59 per cent. to 55 per cent. over the same period.

  1353
  This is a serious trend and it is worth considering whether O-level maths should not be treated as a normal requirement for entry to teacher training courses and whether some maths should not always be taught in them. The article on this subject by Sir William Alexander had much to be said for it. Indeed, the whole question of teaching maths and science must be tackled right through the education system, from the primary school upwards.
  We would very much support what the Plowden Council had to say on this subject. It did not agree with those secondary school science teachers who feared that children would come to them "possessing all kinds of fragmentary, unclassified information, some of it inaccurate or unscientific". On the contrary, we believe that this must start in the primary schools.
  I should like to turn to the secondary schools and the possibility of seconding staff. The right hon. Lady the other Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), said recently that the Government would be glad to have people from industry but that they must be qualified teachers. I find that answer just a little pessimistic and unhelpful. Would the hon. Lady say something about the members of the Royal Institute of Chemistry who are now in the teaching profession? It seems absurd that they should be booted out as unqualified teachers.
  Again, what about the suggestions made by the University of London Appointments Board, in particular that a number of senior scientists no longer likely to produce new creative work should transfer instead to teaching. There can well be a certain number of redundant scientific civil servants, people who are burned out so far as creative scientific work goes, who nonetheless could make extremely good teachers. I was interested in the views of the Board, which seem worthy of consideration:
  "Throughout the world, it has been recognised for a long time that a proportion … of research scientists who have done excellent creative work in their early years go 'over the hill' at a comparatively early age.
  It has been a constant problem to know what to do with many of these highly qualified scientists in the 40–50 age group, who are unlikely ever again to contribute anything new … and cannot therefore be easily absorbed into other activities."
  1354
  It added that the main abstacle to their transfer to teaching was the provision of money. I would say here that surely we should try and get over that difficulty and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said, solve the difficulty over the transferability of pension rights, because I believe that we have here the possibility of valuable sources of supply of science teachers.
  I shall not say much about the Dainton Report in general except that I am sure that Dr. Dainton is right in principle to want to narrow the time gap between irrevocable specialisation and first employment. I am certain he is right in the point he makes that too many people give up mathematics too soon. I am a member of the committee of selection for Harkness Fellows, and two things have struck me. The first is the number of limes I am made to realise that what was work on the high peaks of knowledge ten or twenty years ago amounts to little more than the foothills of knowledge now. The second is the large number of people who would like to take up courses in business management but have not the mathematics they need to do so. I think that we should never forget the importance of students keeping up mathematics for longer.
  The last major suggestion I have on education is this: as I think the hon. Lady knows, I have considerable sympathy with those who question whether in higher education today the traditional bachelor's degree of three years' duration is not too much in the centre of the whole picture. I was interested here to see what was said by Professor Martin Trow in a recent article when he talked of
  "… the nature of the bachelor's degree of a high and approximately uniform standard throughout the system. … It helps prevent the emergence of a unified system of higher education, including vocational academic and professional studies, in a wide range of standards. It is enormously expensive in staff time. It contributes to the complex of factors hindering the development of post-graduate training on a large scale."
  I believe that there is much truth in those words. Professor Pippard of the Cavendish Laboratory has said very much the same thing. He has stated:
  "The rigid three year course and the tradition of deep learning for the intellectual élite constrain secondary and university science education into a strait-jacket of specialism which

  1355
  is increasingly seen, especially from outside, as menacing our future development, industrial and social."
  I ask the Government seriously to consider Professor Pippard's ideas. All students concerned with science or technology should, he suggests, spend two years on a course built around a general syllabus specifically designed to educate rather than impart professional skill. At the end of two years would come the examination for the bachelor's degree. Those who wished to receive specialised education, or training for a specific career, would compete for places, and aim for master's degrees, at any institution that offered what they wanted.
  Professor Pippard's 2-2-2 suggestion is worth serious consideration. Let me say that I know the three-year first degree course of uniform standard has played a great part in the past. We know what it has achieved by way of equalising standards and esteem as between Oxford and Cambridge and the civic universities. But I feel that today we want to look rather more broadly. It is my belief that "more" does not necessarily mean "worse". But it surely does point to the need for greater diversity of provision in higher education, particularly at a time when we want to achieve higher professional standards over a wide range.
  I say this about one of the articles in the document known as the Black Paper and entitled, "In praise of examinations". I agree with the author of the article about the importance of standards and of having qualifications that are accepted by the public as guaranteeing a standard; but it is surely possible to believe in rigour, and in standards, whilst at the same time recognising the need for greater diversity—diversity related both to the needs of students, and also to the national need for rising standards of professional education right across the board.
  I want also to mention the importance not only of higher education in the sense that I have described it, but also of technician training, of those at the diploma level—the section of the population for whom Lord Jackson—Sir Willis Jackson, as he used to be—speaks so ably both in another place and outside. I entirely agree with his views on this.
  1356
  We should never forget the number of technicians needed to back up the work of each top level technologist.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us tonight that the Government are as committed as ever they were in the time of Lord Eccles to the importance of the sandwich course. I hope, furthermore, that she will make it absolutely plain that we do not want the polytechnics to concern themselves too exclusively with the full-time sandwich degree courses. The idea that advanced work is all that matters should be exposed. To have a large number of small degree courses would be uneconomic in staff and equipment and would make it difficult to maintain academic standards. But, of course, a certain amount of research in the polytechnics is essential if good staff are to be recruited and held.
  Those are the points which I wished to make on the subject of education. Before concluding, I want briefly to comment on one or two other matters. One of them is the question of graduates and industry. We need the right attitudes in industry, in Government and, of course, among the graduates themselves. I was interested to see a speech which Lord Annan made in another place when he talked of the importance of not being trained in outmoded industrial techniques. He said:
  "The mechanical engineering industry is accused of not understanding the potentiality of its graduates because it is too much a conglomeration of family-run businesses. But even if we take a large company such as Esso, which has uniform international performance standards, why is it that 90 per cent. of the board in the United States are qualified scientists or engineers, that 50 per cent. of the board in Germany … but only 17 per cent. of the board in Britain?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 19th March, 1969; Vol. 300, c. 998.]
  Those are striking figures.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon who said that we must not be afraid of putting these things in national terms. The O.E.C.D. figures show this country as way ahead on pure research, and yet, as we know, we are nearly at the bottom of the O.E.C.D. countries for economic growth. I believe as strongly as any other hon. Member in what has recently been called the civilised society. I am sure that all of us who are here realise the importance of values, the importance of achieving

  1357
  economic growth for the sake of a more civilised and attractive society in which to live. But there is nothing particularly civilised about neglecting the material base of our civilisation, or underrating its importance.
  In a lecture which he gave to the Headmasters Conference, Professor Swann put this extremely well when he said:
  "… the left-wing caricature of Britain as a cosy upper crust, living within 100 miles of London, blissfully unaware that there is any such thing as productive industry, while existing parasitically on second class citizens further afield, who toil in less enjoyable surroundings to keep things going is not wholly without a grain of truth. I would ask you as Headmasters to brood rather care-fully on what becomes of your brightest and best boys. How many are in or trying to get, in the sort of industries on which the future of Britain depends? And how many are aiming at the professions, or queueing up for the B.B.C., or merchant banking, or accounting, or journalism, or all the other peripheral activities of a moderately affluent society?"
  In passing, may I say that as a director of a publishing firm I regard the word "peripheral" as a little unfair, but there is certainly some truth in what Professor Michael Swann said in that statement.
  I could not help thinking when I read that paragraph of a lecture which I once heard Mr. R. B. McAllum, the Master of Pembroke, give on the subject of John Stuart Mill. He said that Mill's Utopia might be thought to consist of a lot of Victorian professional men meeting on a Sunday morning, listening very deferentially to one another's opinions, preening themselves on their enlightenment at not attending church, and all taking it as axiomatic that there should be an army of servants cooking the midday meal downstairs. I wonder whether some people do not make an analogous mistake today.
  If I had more time I would have asked the hon. Lady to tell us about the recent Dainton Report on national libraries. This raises the highly important issue of the retrieval of information, and I hope that the hon. Lady may be able to say a word to us about that.
  I am glad the House feels that we should have more debates on this subject. I am not a member of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee nor the Select Committee, and I have no specialist knowledge on this subject, but
  1358
  anybody present today must surely have felt that Members of Parliament in all parts of the House were trying to understand this subject on its own terms. There is great admiration in the House for the inventive powers of British science and British industry. The question now is: how can we most successfully exploit the finest achievements of British industry?
  One practical suggestion I make to the House, speaking as one who is not a member, is that I sincerely hope that the Select Committee on Science and Technology will be given a longer run and will be allowed to remain in its present form. When I was Minister of State in 1964, I was a strong advocate of this Select Committee. I thought that this was one of the best areas in which to try out this new form of organisation. I think that the Select Committee, under the leadership of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central, and with the great help of Members like my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), has already done very good work, and I hope that the Leader of the House will notice the strong expressions about its future that have been made in this debate.
  9.31 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): Without doubt, we have had an extremely interesting debate, and I think the House has acquitted itself exceedingly well. I suppose that most of us who are here in the House this evening regret that we have not been able to recruit more of our colleagues into the study of science and technology. May the time come when there is a full House for a debate on what is perhaps one of the most important subjects has to consider.
  Before I plunge into the extremely wide-ranging set of questions and the many subjects that have been raised—and I cannot hope to answer them all in the course of half an hour, even supposing I were capable of doing so—I should very much like to associate myself with the remarks about man's first trip to the moon, both because of the marvellous achievement—and it now looks as though it will be wholly successful in the sense that the men who went there will come back, and perhaps that is the essential and crucial part of the achievement—

  1359
  and also because I was thinking when I was watching the television both last night and early this morning how this illustrates the exponential growth in scientific technological knowledge.
  I suppose there are many Members of the House, Like myself, whose parents were born into a world in which a car was so unusual as to draw them out of their nurseries and their rooms into the street to see one go by. Indeed, some were born long before the car was even heard of. Now, towards the end of their lives, they suddenly move on to the brink of a time when man is about to investigate the whole of his planetary system. This shows, in the course of a lifetime, how fantastic is the rate of change, and how little most of us, however hard we try, can begin to grasp it let alone control it.
  One of the most striking things al though it has not been mentioned this evening, is the fact that communication with the human voice could immediately be established from this earth to that outer small piece of rock, that lifeless desert, and that immediately one could get into contact, with any waste of time measured in mini-seconds, with the people who were standing for the first time on the moon.
  Perhaps it would not be excessive for me to mention that in this whole great experiment we have a small share, since it is hoped that part of the samples that is likely to be measured in tablespoonsful, will come to this country—incidentally, that will be the largest part to go any-where outside the United States—for analysis by 15 British research teams, I trust that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) will not regard that as being in any way a pointless activity.
  I turn to the first main subject raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It concerned where the division should come in Government machinery between the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology. There are many strong arguments for keeping the present system
  1360
  and many strong arguments for changing it. There is no natural division. In a spectrum which runs, and should run, from the primary schools through to the production of advanced technological equipment, any division is bound to be artificial.
  I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) said, but I do not agree with his view that there should be a division between scientific research and the schools. The debate has shown that one of the most disturbing things about the present situation is the fact that in the schools there has been a swing away from study and concern with science and technology. I cannot see that a sharp division between education in its most limited sense and research into science and technology would make a great deal of sense in trying to solve this problem.
  There was great deal in what the right hon. a Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said about the need for very close collaboration wherever the precise division comes between my right hon. Friends the Minister of Technology and the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Clearly, in education, post-graduate education and first employment there is a great deal to be said for knowledge of the whole situation concerning technology.
  One strain run through some speeches with which I must admit I had little sympathy. Broadly, the theme was that if a stream is running strongly and one's neighbour is tapping it, the most sensible thing to do is to dam up the stream. In other words, if this country has not gained all that it might have gained from remarkable achievements in pure and fundamental research, the thing to do is to cut that pure and fundamental research to ribbons. I cannot see the argument for this. Surely the point is how one so deals with fundamental research that one enables the great achievements to continue—this argues, to some extent, for the system of considerable scientific autonomy which we have at present—while making sure that we do not so bias the system that able young men and women choose against the application of science because they wrongly believe that their main responsibility begins and ends in the laboratory. That is fundamentally a manpower question, and I

  1361
  shall come to that in the second part of what I have to say.
  One or two hon. Members, although I was glad that several said something different, perhaps under-estimated the extent to which the research councils undertake work which is relevant in the short and medium term. May I give two or three examples. The Medical Research Council, in the work which it has recently done in immunology, has, among aother things, produced remarkable results in tissue typing and in the field of auto-immune disease. Both are in a field which is normally described as fundamental research. In addition, it appears that it may be possible to apply the work which it has done on protein structures to the haemoglobin cell in such a way as strongly to suggest methods not only of reducing but possibly of eliminating altogether the very severe attenuating illness known as anaemia in its various forms. By extension, this work may also be of the greatest importance for the prevention of leprosy and in respect of the 'flu virus.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said so sensibly, we must not neglect the effect of scientific discoveries on the developing world. To turn to another research council, the work done by the Agricultural Research Council in the genetics of animal breeding, in plant breeding, and so on, can be shown in the short term to have had direct material returns. May I mention just one figure? The yield per cow in this country has risen from 600 gallons of milk a year 20 years ago to 1,000 gallons of milk a year—and this is simply an average figure—largely because of work done on nutrition of animals and animal breeding. Already the A.R.C. is producing such plants as potatoes and tomatoes which are resistant to some of the main plant diseases. This, too has its great relevance to pollution of the environment, because a resistant plant is one which does not require the same dressings of pesticides that a non-resistant plant requires.
  Another example, from the Natural Environment Research Council, is work in environmental pollution as well as the directly economic work on the Continental Shelf in respect of shallow borings for natural gas. Perhaps I may give an example which comes very close to the field
  1362
  mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones).
  I have with me an article published on 5th October last year by Nature. It refers to the rapid speed with which a sudden outbreak of dinoflagellates in the North Sea last year, which led to the death of a great many fish and marine creatures, was plotted, discovered and traced back to its original causes as a result of the immediate work of scientists. I could give a great many other examples in that direction but perhaps, again, one will be useful.
  Finally, I should like to give an example from the Science Research Council, which is sometimes described, I think in ignorance, by some people at least, as working entirely in the very pure and fundamental fields. To give simply two examples, an S.R.C. supported piece of research has led to a control method for optimising the output of a sugar extraction plant. This resulted from work by a research worker seconded from industry, not for that purpose, but whose ideas and suggestions to the department led to this piece of work.
  Another example is of a completely automated scheme for hot steel rolling strip mills, which resulted again from an S.R.C. piece of research undertaken by a professor in the field of control mechanisms who did his work originally starting from the fundamental end of the spectrum. One could go on at length about this, including work: on high tensile materials and work on metallurgy and machine tools. All this is coming under the research councils as well as under the funding of the Ministry of Technology.
  Having said that, I should like to turn for a moment to the need for still greater emphasis of this kind, a need which, I think, is recognised but which the House would be mistaken if it did not realise has already gone a considerable distance. I should like to mention just two things in passing. One of them which is worth bringing out is that almost all the research councils have considarable representation of the appropriate industrial interests on them. S.R.C. has industrial interests on it. A.R.C. has working agriculturists on it, N.E.R.C. has industrialists on it, as has the C.S.P.
  It is not of course the intention of the research councils, or, for that matter,

  1363
  the Department of Education and Science, to divorce the scientist from industry in such a way that he is unaware of the needs of industry. This is already bearing fruit, not least in post-graduate awards. I agree with those hon. Members who have suggested that this process could usefully still go further.
  Already, however, we are getting specific awards in the field of co-operative awards with pure science, a field which is directly related to industrial needs. We are getting from the S.R.C. the science and industry awards, which are granted only to young men and women who have either worked in industry or have indicated their intention of spending part of the time in industry during which they are using their awards. Again, there has been a switch—I think that it could go further—towards post-experience awards in teaching as well as industry. This, it seems to me, would mean evolution, which is crucial to this country, becoming well aware of the point made by many hon. Gentlemen, the need of this country to harness science to earn its own living.
  On the subject of S.R.C. I make one mention of a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Abingdon about S.R.C.'s staff with respect to a decision by the Government about the 300 G.E.V. accelerator. I would like to point out to him there is no prospect, at least in the immediate future, of a rundown in its staff, because S.R.C. has indicated that it will maintain its high energy physics programme for at least 10 years in this field and therefore the problem which would arise would be more acute if we do join 300 G.E.V. which would envisage a rundown of staff. Meanwhile, with regard to Nimrod at Rutherford, that will be improved, and work on a new bubble chambr for use at C.E.R.N. would be built and also a new nuclear structure facility.
  Mr. Lubbock: Although the success of the research councils in promoting technologies is of tremendous importance to the nation, I made some positive and, I hope, constructive suggestions about the working of the research councils, and I wonder if it will be possible for the hon. Lady to make some comments on them in her speech.
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member ought to have bided a little in patience because I was just coming to him. I have a note on his points.
  The broadening of academic representation, I agree is important. On the possibilities on meetings in public, yes, this is now to be encouraged to a greater extent, though I cannot answer whether they will be direct meetings with research councils. S.R.C. and S.S.R.C. have already set up a joint committee in the field of the social consequences of science. As to international collaboration, in the Anglo-Australian telescope we have one example of international collaboration in science.
  I do not wish to be tempted very far by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) who is noted for trying to tempt Ministers near to destruction, but I want to say one thing about E.S.R.O. to the hon. Gentleman. The United Kingdom joined E.S.R.O. for scientific research by European scientists. The Minister does not approve individual scientific experiments; these are the responsibility of the scientists themselves who choose the projects. This is perhaps able to be described as the application of the Haldane principle on a European scale.
  I shall have to cut down some of what I wanted to say, because of the time, but before I get to the subject of qualified manpower I may make one point in passing, that in fact the expansion of the science budget has begun to slow down. In 1961–62 the scientific budget was £26 million, roughly identified with the present responsibilities for science work of the D.E.S. In 1965–66 that figure doubled to £54 million and four years later it had virtually doubled again to £92 million. The rate of growth at the end of 1965–66 was 12½ per cent. a year, and it has slowed down in the current year to rather under 6 per cent. So there has been a slow down, and I should like to make two remarks about that.
  I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Handsworth in what he said about the sophistication factor. A scientist would regard himself as ill-served if he had not nowadays an electron microscope. Twenty years ago he would not have expected one—he could not have had one. The degree of sophistication is many times greater than it was even five

  1365
  years ago and the sophistication factor alone will bulk large in the increase in the science budget, leaving us very little room for innovations in other fields which we know as yet little about. One of the crucial points about fundamental science is that we do not this year know what will come next year. In the crucial field of the natural environment, the degree of anxiety which has been expressed today, I doubt the House would have expressed 10 years ago. I turn to the question of qualified manpower. I will divide into three particular aspects this complicated but fascinating subject—first, supply; secondly, demand or employment; and thirdly, utilisation.
  On supply, despite the fact that Dainton pointed to a trend which, if sustained, would be extremely disturbing, the present position is by no means as serious as has been suggested. May I give figures which illustrate the point? An O.E.C.D. study of 1966 showed that of the numbers qualifying in science and technology, the proportion of the age group in Britain in 1964—the last year for which the survey was done—was 2·3 per cent. among university graduates, which was higher than in any other country except the United States and France and which compared with 0·8 per cent. in West Germany.
  Let us extend this to include graduates and people taking H.N.C.-and-above qualifications. The House knows that the range of American university degrees is roughly comparable with the range of H.N.C.-up-through-first degrees. These figures show that 4·2 per cent. of the age group in the United States held American degrees, whereas 5·1 per cent. of the age group in Britain held H.N.C., H.N.D. or degree qualifications. That is the highest figure in the world. The figure for technologists is 2·9 per cent. of the age group in Britain. The next highest figure is 2 per cent. for West Germany. The figure for the United States is 1·5 per cent.
  We should once and for all recognise that a great deal of the, I think, to this extent misplaced fear, not about the future but about the present position, arises from the fact that the House all too often, and advisory committees all too often, have concentrated on the universities as if further education did
  1366
  not exist. But it does exist, and it provides about half as many qualified people in these fields as do the universities.
  What is much more disturbing is the fact that among those going into employment the desire to enter research and academic life is still extremely powerful, so that far too few of our able young people go into industry; and, secondly, that the utilisation of much of our scientific manpower leaves a great deal to be desired. The misuse of technologists and scientists as technicians is one example.
  As the hon. Member for Wallthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) rightly pointed out, if the position in the schools for 1962 onwards were sustained, we should begin to face a crisis in five or six years' time. I am pleased to tell the House that this academic year shows the first sign of a turn-back towards a greater acceptance of science and technology. But I should be less than responsible in my treatment of the House if I did not recognise that there is one field which is bound to leave us with concern—that of the attraction of young graduates and other young people into the teaching of science and mathematics.
  The Department is doing all it can to scour the country for young people who have studied science and mathematics. The right hon. Member for Hands-worth quoted a figure. Despite the fact that the proportion of people holding A levels in science and mathematics and going to the colleges has fallen, as he said, the actual number of people studying science and mathematics main courses has slightly improved. This means that the colleges are beginning to take people who took mixed courses at O level and then went on to do A level perhaps in the arts or social sciences rather than in science and mathematics. We are trying to bring them back to study mathematics by the help of conversion courses and in other ways.
  The figures for science graduates are encouraging. They will increase by just under one-quarter, an increase of 23 per cent., this year, and the figures for the number of mathematics and science graduates who have decided to study teaching in the colleges of eth cation show that the position is better, with a 50 per cent. increase this year. It is very much more at the junior and junior

  1367
  secondary level that we need to be concerned.
  I believe that we shall find not only enough but reasonably well qualified science and mathematics graduates, because the figures, which I will not give in detail, show that it is not true to say that the quality has disastrously fallen. In mathematics there were 45·3 per cent. with good honours graduate degrees 20 years ago. Today there are 45·2 per cent., hardly a catastrophic decline in quality, and certainly not the decline to which reference is often made.
  In referring to the subject of differentials, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), who made an excellent speech in most respects, perhaps glided a little too easily over the thin ice of professional vulnerability. His right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth was more aware of the great difficulties involved in deciding to take over negotiations from what is, after all, a free professional group of bodies.
  There is a certain differential. If one considers the position of those with good honours degrees one sees that, within six years of starting teaching, 94 per cent. of trained mathematics and science teachers hold posts of one kind or another, compared with 83 per cent. of those holding good arts degrees. Of those with other degrees, 92 per cent. of science and mathematics graduates hold such positions compared with 67 per cent. of those with arts degrees. There is, therefore, a built-in preference, as perhaps there might be, for science and mathematics graduates. May be this gives us a slight hint of where we might one day move.
  Time does not permit me to say more than a brief word on the subject of environmental pollution. I had a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said. This is a sphere of deeply fragmented Departmental responsibility. It is a serious matter which goes beyond the seas, rivers and the earth. It involves pesticides and the whole use of antibiotics. To show how wide a subject it is, it also involves noise. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are very well aware of the situation and are taking it seriously. That this is so is proved by the fact that the director of one of the Nature Conservancy
  1368
  laboratories wrote one of the articles in The Times to which my hon. Friend referred.
  On the question of social responsibility for science, it was Robert Oppenheimer who, on seeing a nuclear cloud caused by a bomb explosion rising from the desert, quoted a phrase from the Upanishads, the Hindu holy scriptures:
  "I am come, Kali, destroyer of worlds, brighter than a thousand suns."
  We are now moving into an era of biological revolution. In some ways it is involving us in questions of morals and ethics and these questions perhaps go even further than those posed by the physics revolution. We dare not, as politicians and citizens, keep out of the decisions in this sphere. They are for the scientists, but they are also for us. To quote George Bernard Shaw:
  "They learn facts and ask why.
  We dream dreams and ask, 'Why not?'".
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Lady able to recruit mathematics and physics teachers into the schools? She mentioned the incentives for extra responsibility which these teachers get later. The important question is whether she is now able to recruit sufficient teachers in these subjects to man the schools. What additional percentage of these teachers do we need in, for example, the secondary schools?
  Mrs. Williams: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman in detail and I should be grateful if he would table a Question on the subject. I will simply say at this stage that the position relating to the younger age group is not discouraging. The real difficulty, because of the age structure in mathematics, though not so much in science, is that we must make good the sudden disappearance of about one-quarter of the profession in the next 10 years. It is this sudden increase in wastage that causes concern.
  Mr. Joseph Harper (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CHARGES FOR APPLIANCES)
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Appliances) Regulations 1959 (S.I., 1969, No. 906), dated 3rd July 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be annulled.
  This debate arises from a proposal to raise charges for teeth and spectacles, and many of us are in a very difficult position. I am encouraged, however, by the very powerful speech made on 9th February, 1961, by one of the most honoured and respected Members who sits for one of the South Coast constituencies, who, in his concluding remarks on that occasion, said:
  "I am glad that our party will fight these charges solidly on every possible Parliamentary occasion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 723.]
  I am following that advice in fighting the increase in charges on this occasion.
  When one looks at what was said on and after the announcement of increased charges on 1st February, 1961, it is rather like reading the roll call of my present Front Bench colleagues and members of the Cabinet. I would remind the House that, discussing the raising of the cost of teeth and spectacles, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked whether the then Minister of Health can
  "… tell us why it is that whenever the Government get into an economic mess it is always the patients and others in greatest need who have to bear the cost? Will he also say, since the main increase in costs has been the profits of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, why he has not taken it out of them instead of out of the patients?"
  He was followed by the then Leader of the Opposition, the late Hugh Gaitskell, who said:
  "As the Minister's statement constitutes a major assault on the National Health Service, and as, in our view, it is desirable that it should be debated as a whole, I give notice that we shall immediately table a Motion of censure upon the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 992–1.]
  The amount of money involved is extremely small. It is rather like a speck on the moon. In a full year it will be £3·5 million, and that represents only
  1370
  one-fifth of one per cent. of the total amount spent by the National Health Service. In relation to all public expenditure this year, it is only one-fiftieth. I therefore submit that it is absolute poppycock to protest that this Prayer raises any question at all of the Government's credibility, or any question that a Government defeat should be a matter of major importance leading to a General Election. Nevertheless, although the amount is small—like the two men on the moon in the early hours of today—it is a small step which could lead to an infinite number of changes, and it is precisely for that reason that so many of us are this evening seeking to persuade the Government to reverse their decision.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) recently told us that it is not sufficient to say "Let's Go With Labour": we also have to say in which direction. It is because I am passionately concerned, both intellectually and emotionally, with the direction in which the National Health Service is going that I feel bound to fight the Order. I accept that I have no monopoly of concern, and I sincerely believe that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Patronage Secretary share my concern keenly. Nevertheless, it is right that arguments should take place and that points of view should be put forward—
  Mr. Tom Driberg: And voted on.
  Mr. Pavitt: No debate in this House has ever been charged with so much mutual understanding. The way in which conversations have gone on with the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Chief Whip have indicated that there is no misunderstanding on this. There is a genuine difference of opinion.
  When the Opposition on two occasions tried to make out that the problem was not what was being done but the way in which this was done, the debates which followed showed that this was not the case. The matter was a question of the actual policy of my right hon. Friend. I accept that the Secretary of State stood in the same position in 1951 as I do now, and said precisely the same as the backbenchers and I are seeking to say tonight; so did the Prime Minister. I submit to

  1371
  my right hon. Friend in all humility in the same way that I am aware that he understands my position and that of my hon. Friends who support me and I can assure him that no hon. Member is more aware of the heavy responsibilities and decisions which the person responsible for the National Health Service has to carry.
  Therefore in praying against these Regulations tonight I do so with some understanding, but I think it imperative to uphold my party's record for the last 18 years. This was a Labour party policy on which we fought election after election, Labour party policy accepted in the constituencies and reaffirmed only as recently as the last Labour Party annual conference. It was stated by the then Shadow Minister of Health, Hilary Marquand, on 1st May, 1952, on behalf of the Attlee Government:
  "when we are returned to power we shall take steps, as soon as Parliamentary opportunity permits, to bring all these charges—charges for drugs, medicines, appliances, dentures, dental treatment and spectacles—to an end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May 1952; Vol. 499, c. 1776.]
  That is the pledge I am seeking to honour in the debate this evening.
  The 1964 party manifesto said that we
  "aim to restore as rapidly as possible a free health service."
  The 1966 manifesto confirmed Government declared policy. The then Minister of Health reaffirmed Government policy on many occasions. On 16th November, 1964, in reply to a Question by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), the former Minister of Health said:
  "The Labour Party said during the Election that it was our intention to restore completely a free national Health Service as rapidly as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1964; vol. 702, c. 27.]
  On 17th December, 1964, he said:
  "There will remain the charges for dental treatment and appliances and those for spectacles. It is our aim to abolish these charges also."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December. 1964; vol. 704, c. 581.]
  On 31st May, 1965, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill) asked the Minister of Health:
  "in view of the need to end the present uncertainty in the dental profession and among members of the public generally about the
  1372
  abolition of dental charges, if he will state whether he intends to introduce legislation on the subject next Session."
  The Minister replied:
  "I cannot say when I shall be able to introduce legislation, and I hope no patient will delay seeking dental treatment which he needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1965; vol. 713, c. 1167.]
  I have many more quotations reaffirming the intention.
  The argument has been used that because it is a peripheral matter for the Health Service the general public accept the increase in charges for teeth and spectacles. I am not quarrelling with that diagnosis, for those who are healthy are always in the majority. Those who do not need artificial teeth and spectacles are in the majority. The job of this House is not to follow national opinion polls, but to lead public opinion. At the last Labour Party conference, on a show of hands it was unanimously decided that prescription charges and teeth and spectacles charges of this nature should be abolished, and that is the voice that the Government should listen to when preparing to lay Orders of this kind.
  Mr. Eric Heffer: The Motion was carried unanimously.
  Mr. Pavitt: At the coming party conference there will be 21 Motions submitted by constituency Labour Parties expressing this opinion, and I have had 63 letters from constituency Labour Parties and Co-operative Parties, ranging from Scotland to the West Country and from Wales to East Anglia on the subject.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Does not my hon. Friend agree that at last year's Labour Party conference out of over 2,000 delegates not one hand was raised against the point he is now making?
  Mr. Pavitt: This is quite right and the point of the argument. In the area of controversy I doubt very much whether my party, because it is a live, active and virile party, will ever find itself swamped in the Sea of Tranquillity, and especially in matters concerned with the Health Service. We shall always be arguing about them and debating them, and rightly so.
  It is right that we should pay heed to some other opinions in addition to the

  1373
  type my hon. Friend has just mentioned. Tom Parker, Secretary to the National League of the Blind and Disabled, speaking on behalf of 130,000 registered blind, says this in a letter to me:
  "Many thousands of registered blind people have a low degree of visual acuity … many of them need periodic changes of lens to compensate for changing eye condition. These increased charges may deter some of them from visiting the optician as frequently as they should",
  with disastrous consequences. The Association of Optical Practitioners also stresses the deterrent effect of increased charges on the whole range of the work that it does. The Socialist Medical Association Ophthalmic Group and the Socialist Medical Association Dental Group point to a number of other problems that arise.
  Many of us fought for years to try to stop children at school being called "Four Eyes" because they had the misfortune to wear spectacles. One of the great things that the National Health Service has done has been to make the wearing of glasses, even by children, socially acceptable. We were able to avoid children being second-class citizens with steel rims; after the age of 10 we were able to give them the kind of glasses which made them comparable and which had some cosmetic effect.
  The Regulations put the clock back in that regard, because the evidence I have is that not only children of 10 upwards but children from seven to 10 find themselves in the situation that, if their parents cannot afford to have the kind of frames that most of us are wearing in the House, there tend to become established two classes of children—those that have posh frames and those that have the N.H.S. second-class frames. My party never intended this when it brought forward these Regulations.
  I accept the fact that these are small minorities out of a population of 53 million, but I am certain that it was never the intention of my Government to tax the blind or to harass or make life difficult for children while still at school.
  As to the economic necessity of these charges, I repeat what I have said in the House recently. We must ask the question—can the nation afford it? I quote
  1374
  the leader in The Guardian of a few days ago on this subject:
  "What exactly is meant by the claim that we cannot afford a 'free' health service or 'free" spectacles and teeth?"
  Mr. Speaker: We are not debating a free Health Service. We are debating certain increased charges.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Pavitt rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not affect Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. John Mendelson: On a point or order. Surely a leading article in a national newspaper written on this particular occasion referring to these Regulations must be quotable in this debate?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. What leading articles in newspapers do has nothing to do with the order of the House. We are debating certain increases in certain charges.
  Mr. Pavitt: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, and cannot quote the very persuasive articles arguing why the increases in teeth and spectacles brought about in these Regulations should not go through; nor can I follow through the other ways in which my right hon. Friend would have an alternative to these Regulations which were included in The Guardian leader. I submit to my right hon. Friend that, apart from what The Guardian has said, there are other alternatives, if he wishes to raise this amount, to raising it on teeth and spectacles. I will not, because I fear that I might be treading on the edges of order, outline a whole list of ways in which it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to avoid laying these Regulations by doing other things in, other places.
  If we accept the principle that these things should be free at time of need, my right hon. Friend might well ask—why pray against the increased charges for teeth and spectacles when there are so many areas in which we do accept that there ought to be charges for health and welfare? There is the question of home helps and the way in which we care for the aged. This party has always stood for a complete acceptance of community responsibility so far as it can. At one time it even talked of housing as a social service. I submit, therefore, that if, in

  1375
  the provision of teeth and spectacles, we reach a certain area in the extension of this principle, it is wrong to go backwards to cede territory which we have already gained, merely because we have not been able to gain all the territory that we would have liked in other spheres.
  This is not just party dogma. I am fighting for a whole philosophy of the Health Service in realistic, practical grounds, arising from knowledge of the matter and not just from slogans and generalisations. It has been accepted by all of us that the prevention of illness is far better than the cure. Prevention of blindness is far better than providing a white stick. These Regulations act as a deterrent to regular examinations which can have a profound effect upon maintaining the health of the individual.
  Consider the way in which a brain tumour can be spotted, the early diagnosis of diabetes, early pathological changes which can be detected if a person has his eyes regularly examined. The whole balance of vision and septic sinuses. All of these conditions may arise and not be treated in time because a person does not change his glasses at the right time. Then my right hon. Friend has to find a lot of money and hospital beds to cure things which could have been prevented.
  In the same way, with the increase in the charges for dentures, consider the rapid spread of periodontological diseases, the whole question of the way in which the health of the mouth affects the health of the individual, bones and gums, tumours and cysts, even cancer of the mouth. All these things, which can be prevented by early diagnosis are hit by these Regulations. Above all, there is a general deterioration of health because people who wear dentures do not go regularly enough to get changes. If people went at two-yearly intervals for an examination, the National Health Service would be saved as much as we are trying to make by these Regulations, by preventing further deterioration.
  I submit that good eyes and good teeth are part of the positive concept of health—not just a question of absence of illness. This is a question of the way in which we deal with the whole body. We do not regard the National Health Ser-
  1376
  vice as a means of providing spare parts, rather like somebody mending a carburettor or seeing if his tyres are right. The concept of the Health Service is one of the greatest concepts which this House has put into legislation to deal with health as a whole. Health of mind and body are integrated. It is because this proposal is a step in the opposite direction that we oppose these Regulations tonight.
  The fact that the Regulations have been laid is a breach of principle that teeth and spectacles should be provided free in time of need. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby once said that the trouble with this party is that we have too many good principles and cannot live up to them all at the same time. That may be right, but the Lord help us if we do not at least try to live up to our principles to the best of our ability. It is important for the Labour Party to get back to the basic concept in relation to Health Service charges and those include teeth and spectacles. I urge the Government to make a clear and unequivocal statement before or at the annual party conference. This must inevitably be, on this matter as on other matters, a statement of Government policy and not just the sincere views which the Secretary of State of one Department may hold. He must carry the whole of the Government with him.
  Because of the importance of this matter, I can only speak for myself; I cannot make up the minds of the 140 of my hon. Friends who supported the initial Motion that I placed before the House on this subject. They must exercise their persuasive influence to the best of their ability in the manner they think fit, as I am doing. I fully accept the consequences of my own action, and I expect none of my hon. Friends to vote in either Lobby solely to shield either me or my Government from the consequences of a vote on this Prayer. However, I believe that a solid vote would be a good insurance lest right hon. and hon. Members opposite should manage to gain power. I am certain that, at that time, it would be necessary for us to reaffirm that we did not want these charges and that there was a large body of opinion in the House which did not wish to see the process continue.

  1377
  I have to keep faith with that handful of stalwarts, old and young, who have given a life time to see their principles applied, even if not yet universally, in their lifetime, at least for the sick and suffering, the halt, the blind, the lame and the deaf. So I shall vote. I have to keep faith with myself.
  Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested to me that we take the two Prayers together, the second being as follows:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 918) dated 7th July 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be annulled.
  I remind the House that this debate will finish at half-past 11. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. Reasonably brief speeches will help.
  10.21 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: The whole House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Willesden (Mr. Pavitt) for giving us this third bite at a rather unpalatable cherry, and, more than that, for giving not only an opportunity to hon. Members on both sides to advance arguments against charges for the third time but, more important, an opportunity to the Government Front Bench spokesman to give an answer to those arguments for the first time.
  We had no kind of argument in the previous debates on this subject. In May, 1968, when the Minister of State replied, we received no answer at all to the detailed arguments advanced about charges generally. At the second bite at the cherry in November, 1968, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replied to the debate but we had no real answer from him. Then, a fortnight ago, when we had a Motion of censure, the Secretary of State, although he gave an answer, perhaps, to certain charges of another kind which had been levelled, gave no answer on the particular matter of these health charges.
  I shall not detain the House for long. I had an opportunity to express my views fully on previous occasions. I wish that it were in order merely to give the column numbers so that hon. Members could look at them again. The belief which my hon. and right hon. Friends and I on this bench hold with regard to the financing of the Health Service has been made clear over and over again.
  1378
  We believe that it should be perfectly possible, with proper organisation and administration, and provided that one avoids extravagance, duplication and overlapping, to provide an efficient effective, comprehensive and humane Health Service—I see the Minister nodding and muttering that he has heard it before. So he has, but he did not answer it. I am saying that it is perfectly possible to provide an entirely free service without the need for charges—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the Health Service generally on this Motion. We are discussing whether certain charges should be increased.
  Dr. Winstanley: The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is what we are waiting for. We have been waiting for a long time to know the purpose of these charges. Are they to finance the Health Service or are they to do something else of which we have not been told? It may be said that these increased charges for teeth and spectacles are needed merely to raise money for State funds. The raising of £3½ million by this method makes perfectly clear that that cannot be the whole purpose. It cannot be the purpose behind the Government's doing something for which they could not get a single vote at the Labour Party conference last year. If they are now doing something for which they could not get a single vote, they must have a good reason and it cannot be merely that we cannot do without the £3½ million which these charges will raise.
  Second, they may say that the purpose of this increase is to make some attack on purchasing power at home. I am prepared to accept the arguments for reducing or curtailing purchasing power, but if that is done, it must surely be on a general basis and not merely to curtail the purchasing power of the dentureless or the myopic or some very limited group like this. Why pick on these two groups to bear an increase at this moment?
  I cannot think what the increase is for, and I hope that enough time will be left for the Secretary of State to say what it is for, because we have not heard; we did not hear in the two previous debates about prescription charges and we have not heard about these charges.
  If one cannot see an obvious reason—I cannot, at the moment—one must ask.

  1379
  what are the possible ill-effects. There will definitely be ill-effects from these increases. I have argued that there will be ill-effects from prescription charges but the ill-effects of these increases could be even greater. It has been argued, for example, about prescription charges that the justification was that this could encourage people to make more economic use of the service, that it could discourage extravagant and frivolous use of the Health Service. But people do not wear spectacles for frivolous purposes: they wear them because they cannot see. People do not wear false teeth for extravagant reasons: they wear them because they cannot eat.
  So one cannot argue that the effect—the right hon. Gentleman is looking sceptical, but, over and over again in our discussions on these matters, the defence which has been advanced by some, mainly on this side, for introducing charges is that the presence of a charge would act as a disincentive to those who might otherwise use the service frivolously or extravagantly, that it would encourage people to realise its real value. I do not believe that that argument will operate in regard to these charges.
  Both teeth and spectacles are things which people can do without. They are not like drugs urgently required for some serious illness, which they cannot do without. People can understand them and can make a judgment of their own. On many occasions, both in industrial medicine and in general practice, I have seen people doing without spectacles or teeth because of the existing charges. I have often had the responsibility of persuading people in industry to get spectacles because they cannot see properly to do a job. I have had to take them off a certain job, perhaps crane driving, and put them on another, perhaps sweeping up, until they had their spectacles. The argument has been, "I cannot afford my spectacles yet; I will get them later". That kind of postponement is likely to occur more frequently with teeth and spectacles than it is with drugs.
  Much illness which is blamed on other causes—digestive ailments and so on—is due to bad teeth. Doctors have constant difficulty in persuading people to have their teeth attended to, because people say. "I cannot afford it yet: I will get
  1380
  my teeth done after my holidays." Whatever reason the right hon. Gentleman may have concealed so far, he may have some reason for these charges, but if he does not have one, the charges will have ill-effects.
  It seems that for a purpose, for which we have had no reason yet, purely to produce some limited amount of money for State funds or purely to make a marginal and minimal attack on purchasing power at home, the Government intend, quite arbitrarily and unnecessarily, to introduce new Regulations which will cause some suffering, considerable inconvenience and possibly will have marginal effects on production by discouraging people from doing sensible things, and they will have no good effect at all.
  I thank the hon. Member for Willesden, West, not for providing me with an opportunity to speak, but for enabling the Secretary of State to tell us what on earth this extraordinary decision is about.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: It is not my intention to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), who has advanced an iron-clad case for the Government having another change of mind. I think that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friends when I say that I do not enter this debate with relish but with a great deal of sadness that my Government should introduce increased charges for teeth and spectacles and back them up with financial and budgetary reasons which remain to us completely unconvincing.
  I am aware of the argument which will probably be put—that we are not breaching a principle since charges are already levelled on teeth and spectacles, but I should point out that many of us who have been described as "stone age" Socialists believe that the debate gives us an opportunity of discussing the principle of the National Health Service. I do not delude myself into thinking that the service in relation to spectacles and teeth can be free since it has to be paid for somehow. As the miners used to say, everything has to come off the point of the pick. But I believe that it should be free at the time of use and that it is for the Government and Parliament to arrange the finances of the nation to ensure that this is so.

  1381
  To tax the unfortunates who use the National Health Service is almost impossible to defend but I shall be grateful to hear my right hon. Friend's defence. To many of us, this proposal coming on top of increased prescription charges is the thin end of the wedge and the Government must be told that enough is enough. We are told that these increases must be made because of financial considerations. It is even suggested that people feel they are paying enough.
  We should not be ashamed to tell people that we are keeping our parents and our grandparents alive longer and that payment has to be made for that success. In the past three winters, fewer older people have died. The increase in the number of retirement pensions has been about 200,000 a year since 1964 and at the end of 1968 they totalled nearly seven million.
  I have here the Report for 1968 on the Health and Welfare Services in Scotland, Command 4012. It is a report of which the Government should be proud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his team at the Scottish Office, probably the best team we have ever had there, should be proud of it. It is the most powerful testimony that could be produced in favour of the N.H.S. and should be compulsory reading for the "knockers" of the service. From a host of information I draw attention to paragraph 1.9 on page 4, which reacts:
  "Increases in the number of cases with strabismus (squint), cataract and glaucoma all contribute to the overall increase in cases discharged from ophthalmological units."
  Because of better diagnostic services, more people are getting treatment and spectacles admittedly are only part of it. An increase has been recorded in this respect. Are the Government happy about the extra revenue which they may receive from this source?
  I remember working in the pits as a young man. I benefited from the wisdom of the older miners, many of whom were well read. I recall saying to one miner on the eve of his retirement that he would be able to enjoy reading in his retirement—I knew his love of books. He said that he would have liked to have been able to do so, but that his eyes were "gone" for that purpose.
  1382
  I tell that so that it will be understood that my hon. Friends and I will not be placated by the statement that retirement pensioners will not have to pay the increases. People need spectacles before they reach that age and not after, and anything that discourages the use of spectacles by those who need them is wrong. The argument about spectacles applies to dentures.
  My right hon. Friend has a terrific responsibility on his shoulders tonight. He must think about his reply carefully. I do not try to threaten when I say that his reply will determine how many of us will go into the Division Lobby against the Government.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. Will Griffiths: I was in the House of Commons on 24th April, 1951, for the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill. A few minutes before the Minister moved the Second Reading, there was a resignation speech from the present Prime Minister, and it is relevant to our discussions this evening. He was criticising the imposition of charges and, among other things, he said:
  "But it carries with it, in a time of rising prices, the danger—I should have said the certainty—of further erosion of the social services as year succeeds year. The principle of the free health service has been breached, and I dread to think how that breach might be widened in future yea rs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951: Vol. 487, c. 229.]
  He could say that again.
  He was supported by the present Secretary of State who was also in opposition to the Bill and who, on Third Reading, said:
  "This is openly a money-raising Bill and not an extravagance-curbing Bill … that is a charge designed to make as much money as possible in the easiest possible way out of the most vulnerable section of the Health Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1689–90.]
  What the House has to consider tonight is why the Minister has done this. What is it all about?
  It is a tangled story. We have heard various justifications. It has been said at one stage that savings had to be made for mental health and at another—for comprehensive schools. I believe that the truth is that suddenly the Treasury tumbled to the fact that contributions by patients were no longer the proportion of the total that they had been for many years.

  1383
  For example, in 1961–62 the total cost of the general dental services was £56 million; payment by patients was £11 million. In 1968–69 the total cost of the general dental services had risen to £76 million and the payment by patients to £14 million. In 1961–62 the total cost of the ophthalmic service was £15 million, payments by patients £7 million. In 1968–69 the total cost of the ophthalmic service had risen to £23 million, and the payment by patients to £8 million. So the patient is paying proportionately less of the total than he was eight or nine years ago.
  Why did the Minister do it? He must have known the feelings of the party of which he has been an adornment for so long. I know he was at the annual conference which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). In a free, democratic society it is madness for him not to take account of the feelings of his Parliamentary colleagues and of the people in the party to which he belongs.
  Is the expenditure on these services grossly excessive? There is no joy to the Opposition in this situation. I pay tribute to the Government in that their expenditure on the National Health Service since 1964 is the highest ever in financial terms and as a percentage of the national income. The lowest figure since 1948, expressed as a percentage of the national income, to be spent on the National Health Service was in 1954, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible. Expenditure increased gradually until 1957, and reached the highest ever, over 5 per cent. of the national income, in 1967.
  Expenditure on the ophthalmic service as a percentage of the total National Health Service expenditure has been declining year by year. In 1950 it was 5·2 per cent. of total National Health Service expenditure; in 1967 it had declined to 1·4 per cent. The dental service figure of 9·9 per cent. in 1950 had declined to 5 per cent. in 1967.
  Neither of these two services where the Minister has submitted to Treasury advice can be charged with consuming a disproportionate amount of the money available to the National Health Service as a whole. It will not be good enough for the Minister to ask, as did his pre-
  1384
  decessor, "Would you rather have hospital building or this?" That is a nonstarter, because the proportion is less.
  Dr. Winstanley: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the adult dental patient was already paying a substantial part of the cost of his dental treatment?
  Mr. Griffiths: I quite agree; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. May I declare my interest? I worked, when I have had the opportunity, for many years as an ophthalmic optician. I have done this partly as an insurance policy against the vagaries of the Boundary Commission, partly against the vagaries of the electorate, and partly—and this is sometimes more to the forefront of my mind—against the performance of the National Executive of the Labour Party. Based on this experience I will turn to what I regard as some possible consequences of the increase in optical charges.
  I work in a busy working-class practice, and there is no doubt that these increased charges will be a deterrent. What flows from that? It is true that the examination of the patient is free; that is to say, the practitioner is paid, but the patient does not have to pay. The patient thinks, however, that it is just possible that he will have to have a pair of spectacles, and the increased charges will make him think twice about going.
  That means—I do not exaggerate—that there is the possibility of a number of patients, by their non-attendance at the clinics or in the practitioners' consulting rooms, not having a potentially serious disease detected at an early and vital stage. These cases occur, and it is a matter with which hon. Members should be concerned. Then there is the diminution of visual efficiency, with all its domestic and industrial dangers.
  Nobody knows better than the Secretary of State, because he was with us when we argued this before, that the effect of these charges will be that many millions of our fellow countrymen are put in a worse position than they ever were before the introduction of the National Health Service Act in 1948, because under the old National Insurance Acts there was always a proportion of people who got free appliances as a so-called additional benefit. That, also, we ought to note.

  1385
  Then there is the whole business of the Labour Party and the Labour Government attempting, when they have a bad conscience, as they did over prescription charges—to their credit, in a way—to minimise the effect. So they extend the area of exemption, in a way trying to show their guilt, but they want to say, "Well, we are compassionate." They are not as ruthless as right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who would not bother about these exemptions. When one tries, however, to draw the line somewhere or to embark on the path of exemptions, one gets into an awful mess.
  I say this to my right hon. Friend about the whole business of selectivity. Whatever he does to try to ameliorate the consequences of these increased charges, he will, as always in selectivity, make it worse for the poorest and the less well educated, because it is upon them that the burden of interpreting the form, with its small print, bears the most heavily.
  The whole show is really not worth it. My right hon. Friend has not heard the last of this in the House of Commons tonight. We shall go on arguing about this. I enjoin my right hon. Friend to look again at what he said in years gone by with, I thought, blazing sincerity. Let him return to that path and not be suborned by the Treasury for a trivia.
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As has been said, this is the second occasion on which these increases in charges have been debated. The first was an occasion when the Opposition expressed their disapproval of the Secretary of State's contortions and the damage done to the National Health Service by the prolonged pretence that he would stick to his principles and his reluctance, in face of pressure from behind, openly to abandon them.
  This debate is to enable the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), whose sincerity I once more acknowledge, to express his disapproval and that of his hon. Friends without having to agree with the Tory Party. [Interruption.] I hope that I may be allowed to intervene in what looks like a private debate.
  Hon. Members: It is nothing to do with you.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a private debate.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: We consider that it is.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Macmillan.
  Mr. Macmillan: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter which concerns people other than hon. Members sitting below the Gangway opposite. I intervene for two reasons only, and, as I said, very briefly.
  The first is to make it clear that we are not voting this evening; and second, because, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said, we have not yet heard from the Under-Secretary of State, the Minister of State or the Secretary of State any attempt to relate these particular increases in charges to the whole question of charges generally, and the method and extent of their application in the Health Service, as they see it on the Government Front Bench.
  We know that this chopping and changing, this vacillation, and pretence, that the cost of the National Health Service is very dear, is not so much the reason for introducing these charges for a few hundred thousand pounds only, but their general attitude, because, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) said, this Government have never had the courage of even losing their convictions. The prescription charges were delayed. Had they been kept on they would have provided £75 million extra. By introducing these increases the Secretary of State seems at last to have made up his mind.
  In answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) on 5th May—I must apologise to the House for going back so far as that, but I am unable to find any precise statement any later from the Governmeht—the Secretary of State said:
  "I am sure that we all do hope that in due course all charges could be abolished, but I should be deceiving my hon. Friend and the House if I suggested to her that I thought a total remission of all charges had a priority as high as looking after a number of very urgent areas of the Service—including, for instance, hospitals for the subnormal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 47.]
  This, as far as I can see, means that these charges and increases are necessary as long as there is a serious shortage of money within the National Health Service in the eyes of the Secretary of State

  1387
  and the Government. In other words, this is, so to speak, a short-term requirement which is going to be indefinitely extended.
  The position of the Tory Party has always been very clear. We have always believed and still believe that charges have an important part to play, together with taxation, together with the insurance contribution, in financing the National Health Service, and that is why we shall not vote against the increases today. But we shall not vote for them. For two reasons. First, it is no business of ours to help this Government get their business through. Secondly, because if we were to vote for these increases in charges we should be voting for a policy of vacillation and expediency, and for charges without any consideration for the longer-term problems.
  Some hon. Gentlemen asked, why did we not tell the electorate? But we did. In 1966 it was part of our election manifesto that we would reintroduce charges. We did say that—in great contrast to the party opposite, who introduced charges for prescriptions, and now these increases, when it was part of their election manifesto that they would do no such thing.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Macmillan: I wish to be brief. In the last year of the Tory Party's administering the Health Service charges amounted to a total of 5·7 per cent. of the current Government spending on the National Health Service. If they had stayed that way they would have raised another £155·5 million in the five years since. What proportion, after these increases, do the Government aim the charges should make of the total Health Service financing? Will the Secretary of State tell us that? Will he confirm or deny that the charges are here to stay for as long as the National Health Service requires more money? Will he confirm or deny that as long as they are here, he will adjust them upwards, as he has hinted, to meet rising prices? Will he confirm or deny that the upward adjustment from time to time will apply to teeth and spectacles?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss on these Regulations further upward adjustments.
  Mr. Macmillan: In due course in this debate the Secretary of State will be very grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
  In our previous debates, he said,
  "I shall have ample time for the substance of this debate when we come to the Regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 1083.]
  He has ample time. I hope that he will use it clearly and honestly and to the satisfaction of the House as a whole.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I hope that my right hon Friend will listen to the voice of his hon. Friends rather than the voice of the Front Bench speaker from the Opposition, the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan).
  I require only a couple of minutes to state my views on this Prayer because all my hon. Friends know quite well where I stand and have stood ever since the introduction of the National Health Service. I am opposed to the Regulations and any others which may be tabled imposing prescription charges, not so much because I do not trust my hon. Friends when they say that they will take off the charges again at the earliest opportunity as because of my great fear of what will happen if the Conservative Party ever come to power again. About 20 years ago I told the then Minister of Health, the late Aneurin Bevan, that the proposal for a Bill to enable prescription charges to be made and then a new Clause on the subject in the Act dealing with National Health Service was making a present to the Conservative Party, but I did not then think that my hon. Friends would accept that present for themselves and utilise it for themselves.
  This being my last Parliament, I hope that this will be the last occasion on which I shall have to raise my voice in protest against the actions of my own Front Bench. My right hon. Friend is courting disaster if he goes on with this proposal—disaster within the party in the House and disaster among those who support us in the country. We have spoken with great pride about this Service. My rooted objection to the charges is that it is unfair to those people who pay for

  1389
  these services through their National Health Insurance contributions for them again to be charged at the time that they use the service. It is a National Health Insurance scheme and it should cover all needs of national health—teeth, spectacles and anything else.
  My last reason for objection to the Regulations—and I shall vote against them—is that I refuse to double-cross myself, I refuse to double-cross my constituents and I refuse to double-cross the party. It is only a few years ago that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), then Minister of Health—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) will recall it very well—introduced a Bill to increase the charges for spectacles and teeth. Our commission—we carried it out very well, I think—was to oppose that as ruthlessly as we could. I did that then, and I do not intend to go back on it. What is good for a party when it is in opposition should be equally good for it when it is the Government. I hope that either my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts or that we shall register our protest yet again, and I hope for the last time, in the Lobby.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: I, too, want to register my strong protest, as I have done on other occasions, both at party meetings and on the Floor of the House. This is one of those sad occasions on which events have forced themselves upon us because of mistaken views—I will not call them "principles"—and Cabinet decisions. It is a sad occasion because it belies all the beliefs held by the very best people in the Labour Party. I spent 15 years in local government and was Public Health Convenor for Ayr County. In those days we were propagating on behalf of the Labour Party the idea that when we got to power we would introduce a free Health Service. We did that.
  These Regulations impose more charges on a sector of the Service which in the beginning provided free teeth and spectacles. Do not those who require spectacles from the time they are at school suffer a big enough hardship already compared with the healthier section who go through life not needing spectacles until their later years? Why
  1390
  should my right hon. Friends support something which will injure this group of people in this way?
  I hope that all of us on this side, although some will vote for the Regulations and some will vote against, will recognise that what is being done by these Regulations is deplorable. Every hon. Member on this side during election campaigns repeatedly praised the concept of the free Health Service. Every one of them won votes by so doing. Some of them were returned simply because they praised the concept of a free Health Service. In view of that, these Regulations do something which is abominable; and I shall certainly vote against them.
  11.3 p.m.
  Dr. John Dunwoody: It is sad and depressing that this evening we are yet again discussing the question of increased Health Service charges. It is right, though, that we should debate and discuss these matters—not just the narrow issue before us, but the question of charges as a whole, because it is impossible for most of us to separate increased charges for spectacles and dentures from the whole question of Health Service charges—charges for the user of the Service at the time of need.
  I put my name to the Prayer partly because I thought that we should continue the debate, partly because thought that we should have an opportunity to express our views, and particularly because I wanted to give the Government the opportunity to make a statement about their position on the whole question of Health Service charges. I believe that for the last year or so we have been drifting on this issue into more and more troubled waters. I want to see where we are going. Of course these charges are not the same as prescription charges.
  We are discussing the raising of the existing charges by a total of some £3·5 million. Those increases will not fall, as do prescription charges, almost exclusively on those who are ill and, perhaps, out of work, but there are a number of very real reasons for objecting to them.
  The first reason is the probable consequences, which have already been outlined from both sides, of making the increased charge for dentures. The

  1391
  second reason is the suggestion that seems insidiously to be coming in that there should be a direct relationhip between the cost of the service being provided and the charge being paid by the patient. That is even more repugnant. The third reason is that the sum involved is so very small—just a drop in the ocean. Are there not other means by which this sum of £3½ million can be raised? The fourth reason is the principle of charging. I object to that as well as to the practice, because when working as a general practitioner, before coming to the House, I have seen the result of these charges.
  I cannot support any Regulations in favour of charges or their increase. I look forward to the time when we will have a Health Service which is really free. I know that we charge for some things now and that it will be a long time before we can provide them free, but I look forward to the time when home helps will be provided free for those who need them for social and medical reasons. I look forward to the time when we shall not have to worry about amenity bed charges because the standards in our hospitals will be such that there will be enough single and double bedded rooms to ensure that people will not be obliged to pay amenity bed charges.
  But now is the time at least for my right hon. Friend to assert the temporary nature of these increases and of the charges we have on prescriptions. The time has come to re-examine quite urgently the whole question of the charges, because there is a lot of false thinking on the subject. I ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider the question of anomalies. Some grave anomalies arise, for instance, because we are trying to make the best of a bad job by exempting pensioners from payment of prescription charges yet we are increasing the charges for their dentures and spectacles unless the pensioners concerned are on supplementary benefit.
  Finally, we should remind my right hon. Friend and his colleagues that many of us feel very strongly that the basic principle of the National Health Service is that it should be free at the time of use. These Regulations take away from that basic principle. Our aim and our object must be to work for a move towards a National Health Service that is free at the time of use.
  11.8 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): In answering this debate, I must pay a tribute to the Opposition for the courtesy of their presence, and the distinguished way in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) explained why discretion on this occasion was the better part of valour in the Division Lobbies. Apart from saying that, I intend to confine my remarks to this side of the Chamber, because this is where the serious debate has occurred.
  I divide my speech into two parts: the first dealing with the detailed points raised on the Regulations increasing the charges for spectacle lenses and dentures; the second considering the increases in relation to charges in general and the idea of the free National Health Service, because I am well aware that a number of hon. Members expect this of the Government, and have a right to expect it.
  Before going into the details, I want to deal with an impression which several hon. Members seem to have about the Regulations, and which was expressly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). It is that even though this Statutory Instrument is directly concerned only with £3½ million, which is insignificant in relation to total Health Service expenditure, nevertheless it is significant, despite its insignificance, because it is, as I think the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) put it, the thin edge of the wedge.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West said that it was a small step which could lead to an infinite number of changes which could later alter the whole direction of the National Health Service and undermine its whole philosophy. Someone suggested that it provided evidence of the Government's conversion to the principle of the use of charges for financing the Service. All these impressions are without any foundation whatever. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will explain why and use my time to tell the House if hon. Members will listen.
  There is no justification for this view. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) was completely accurate in his description. So also was my hon. Friend the

  1393
  Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody). This is an increase in charge which is an adjustment of charge to cost and follows naturally on the increase in the charge for pay and amenity beds which was made earlier this year and the 50 per cent. increase in the maximum charge for dental treatment which was made last year against which the Prayer was withdrawn without a Division. There was no indication of a change. This was simply an increase of that particular kind. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne for making that clear.
  I will deal with the detailed points first. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange, who I usually think is fair and well-informed, was not quite fair about the arrangements for exemption from these charges. The arrangements are very fair indeed and have been working for some years. Taking first the charges in connection with children, I should have thought they have worked well and they are certainly a great deal more generous than in the case of prescription charges. I remind hon. Members that both for dentures and for spectacles we exempt not merely children up to the age of 15 but all children under 16 and, beyond that, all those who are receiving full-time school education, with dental treatment up to 21. Anyone who would suffer hardship through paying the charges can secure a refund, and there is a voucher scheme the effect of which is that anyone who cannot afford to pay and then obtain a refund can be exempted altogether; that is—[Interruption.] Hon. Members have asked about the detail of the charges and I must deal with the questions in order.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Crossman: I have many questions to answer—
  Mrs. Kerr: A free Health Service—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Lady must resume her seat.
  Mr. Crossman: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) is a little unreasonable. I have to deal with a great many points. About half the
  1394
  speeches dealt in detail with what hon. Members thought wrong with the charges. I will deal with the principle second.
  I had one complaint which I take very seriously. It was a letter from the children's officer of Oxfordshire County Council. In the letter, which I received today, she pointed out that one of the problems about exemptions from the charges and the voucher scheme is the failure of people to realise their rights. [Interruption.] It is important that note should be taken of this. I hope that my hon. Friends will help in making people realise—my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) shakes her head. She is not interested in this?
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: I am interested only in the Labour Party, for which I have worked all my life to support, standing by its election pledge.
  Mr. Crossman: There was no election pledge, I remind my hon. Friend, about the charge for teeth and spectacles, it was on prescriptions only. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Order. I must protect the right hon. Gentleman from his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Crossman: With great respect, I am embarrassed by any protection you give me, Mr. Speaker. I would much rather get on without your protection.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange, suggested that the increased charges would deter patients from securing glasses and dentures which they should have. There is a good deal of evidence about this and, on the basis of experience when the charges were last increased in 1961, I frankly believe that my hon. Friend exaggerated what is likely to happen—[Interruption.] On that occasion the increase in the charges for spectacles was followed by a temporary dip in the number of glasses provided under the Health Service, but it was a small dip and a short-lived one. Indeed, by 1964 the number of glasses provided was greater than in 1960.
  Experience with dentures was much the same, though here interpretation of

  1395
  the figures is complicated by the increasing emphasis which has, for the last 20 years, been laid on conservation treatment. The effect of this is that dentists are spending more time on fillings and less on extractions and the provision of dentures. Even so, the number of dentures supplied changed very little in 1961 and the immediately succeeding years and I see no reason to suppose that the increased charges had any significant effect on demand. I do not think that the effect of the present increases is likely to be any greater than in 1961 and I do not, in general, expect people to be deterred from securing spectacles or dentures which they should have.
  That concludes my remarks about the details of the charges. I will now present the increased charges for teeth and spectacles against the background of the Government's views about the part which charges can and should play in financing the Health Service. First, I will define—I may reach agreement with my hon. Friends on this—[An HON. MEMBER: "I doubt it."]—the principle on which the Health Service is based. It is that it should be paid for by the healthy and be free to the sick. More precisely, people should pay when they are at work and earning rather than when they are sick and not earning.
  Before the Health Service began people often had to pay the doctor's bill when they were sick, resulting in anxiety and hardship. One may ask—we asked it and debated it in the debate on the financing of the Health Service on a day recently provided by the Opposition—if the healthy are to pay, why not rely on the insurance principle? The answer is clear. It is that a service which covers everybody, not only insured workers but every citizen, and which is paid for by the healthy is only possible if it is financed mainly through taxation. There is a rôle for contributions as well, and a minor rôle, at best, for charges—[Interruption.]—which, I have pointed out, cover about 5 per cent. of the cost.
  This brings me back to the principle. Since 1948 the principle has been applied flexibly and humanely. We must remember, if we are discussing the principle, that from the start there have always been
  1396
  charges in the Health Service and that nobody objected to them.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: Rubbish.
  Hon. Members: Be honest.
  Mr. Crossman: As I was saying—[Interruption].
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Crossman: The charges for pay beds and amenity beds, for example, have been there since 1948 and no one has objected. In the local authority services also there have been a number of charges, some of them permissive and some mandatory. The charges for home helps, day nurseries and nursing equipment are examples of permissive charges made by local authorities in the Health Service. The local authority has power to levy them, but is not mandated to do so.
  On the other hand, the charge for a place in an old people's home is mandatory. The local authority is not permitted to provide this service free. Either one pays or part of one's supplementary benefit is taken. I do not want tonight to discuss the merit of local authority charges, which seem to me to be based on no very clear principle.
  Our concern is with the Health Service charges, in particular with those on teeth and spectacles, but it is noteworthy that the charge which has aroused most opposition is not that on teeth and spectacles, but on prescriptions, precisely because it is that which is in breach of the general principle I have just discussed.
  The Government therefore took the abolition of prescription charges as their first priority when they came to power and the abolition of charges for teeth and spectacles was regarded, quite rightly in my view, as a matter of less urgency, and was left over until economic circumstances were more favourable.
  I come to devaluation. The Prime Minister made perfectly clear that prescription charges were being reintroduced with great reluctance and my predecessor explained that he regarded prescription charges as a lesser evil than a cut in the hospital building programme. I share his view that the abolition of charges for teeth and spectacles was less urgent than abolition of prescription charges.
  Mr. Driberg: Does my right hon. Friend recall the name of a person called Aneurin Bevan, whose friend he once pretended to be? Would he have dared to address this thin pragmatical argument to that great man?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Crossman: We had many arguments about things and we each expressed many things to each other.
  What has happened since 1968? While the new arrangements for exemptions from prescription charges were being worked out, my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West had a discussion with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Following that talk, my right hon. Friend wrote to my hon. Friend to give a considered expression of the Government view—and it was a collective view—which dealt with the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. My right hon. Friend said:
  "It would be wrong for you to assume that these charges reluctantly introduced to meet a serious economic situation, carry the implication of a permanent change of the Government's policy or of its approach to health service financing. When the economic situation improves sufficiently for substantial extra sums (beyond normal annual growth) to be made available to the National Health Service they would, of course, be allocated according to the priorities determined by the Minister and the Government at that time. Clearly, however, any Labour Government will take proper cognisance of the party's declaration and priorities."
  My hon. Friend asked me whether there had been any changes in that policy since the letter, and whether anything has happened to undermine our determination to get back to a free Health Service. Had anything happened to change the view that prescription charges should go first and those on teeth and spectacles later?
  There have been no changes. Rather the reverse, for when my right hon. Friend's letter was written we did not know that because of the objections from the medical profession, we were not going to be able to exempt the chronic sick from prescription charges to the extent we had hoped.
  Hon. Members: We told you so.
  Mr. Crossman: Nor the difficulties the exemption arrangements would make.
  I certainly do not underrate the £25 million a year which it would cost to
  1398
  abolish prescription charges, but the experience of the last two years has not led me to regard the reintroduction of prescription charges as representing, in my right hon. Friend's words:
  "a permanent change of the Government's policy or of its approach to health service financing."
  It is in this perspective that the House should look at the Regulations, knowing that it does not affect the. Government's attitude to prescription charges one iota.
  I believe that to dispense with the charges for dental and optical services must rate a good deal lower priority than getting rid of prescription charges. A person who needs dental or optical services is not normally ill in the usual sense of the word—
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: He just cannot see.
  Mr. Crossman: —nor in most cases is he prevented by his condition from going to work. We have made special provision through exemption arrangement for priority classes which have worked for years extremely well. That perhaps is partly why these particular charges have been accepted by the public with comparatively little resentment.
  Dr. Winstanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take his glasses off?
  Mr. Crossman: Moreover, their yield of £25 million a year, which we felt we could not spare when we abolished prescription charges years ago, we certainly cannot afford to give up today.
  Let me, therefore, sum up as temperately as I can the case that I am putting to the House. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise and interruption are not argument.
  Mr. Crossman: There is no justification whatsoever for the allegation that the decision to bring back the level of these charges into relation with cost has any effect on the Government's attitude to charges in principle. That remains the same as when the Prime Minister wrote his letter to my hon. Friend in March of last year. In fact, this increase is consequential on the 50 per cent. increase in dentistry charges introduced last year without a Division on the Order.
  Secondly, as members of the Government, we share the objection to charges which violate the essential principle that

  1399
  the healthy who can work should pay for the Health Service and the sick who cannot should not. That is why we were so reluctant to reintroduce prescription charges after devaluation. That is why the Prime Minister gave the assurances he did to my hon. Friend.
  Finally, in judging these priorities, the abolition of the charges on teeth and spectacles does not and should not rank nearly as high as the abolition of prescription charges.
  It is against this background that I ask the House to approve tonight Regulations which sanction not a new charge or the restoration of an old charge but quite simply the modification of an existing
  charge so as to bring it into proper relation with costs.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if he cannot advance any better arguments than that, he will induce quite a number of hon. Members to abstain from voting in the Division who might otherwise have supported the Government if any rational arguments had been advanced?
  Question put,
  That an humble Address be prescented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Appliances) Regulations 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 906), dated 3rd July 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be annulled.
  The House divided: Ayes 59, Noes 199.

  Division No. 340.]

  AYES

  [11.29 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Newens, Stan

  Alldritt, Walter

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Orme, Stanley

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Park, Trevor

  Beaney, Alan

  Hooley, Frank

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Booth, Albert

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

  Rowlands, E.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

  Ryan, John

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Dickens, James

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Silverman, Julius

  Dobson, Ray

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lubbock, Eric

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Dunn, James A.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Wilkins, W. A.

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

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Ellis, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Woof, Robert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Manuel, Archie

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mendelson, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Mr. Laurence Pavitt and

  Garrett, W. E.

  Molloy, William

  Mr. Ted Leadbitter

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fowler, Gerry

  Albu, Austen

  Cronin, John

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Anderson, Donald

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Ginsburg, David

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Bence, Cyril

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davies, Ednyted Hudson (Conway)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Binns, John

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Harming, William

  Blackburn, F.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Hannan, William

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Boston, Terence

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Dell, Edmund

  Haseldine, Norman

  Boyden, James

  Dewar, Donald

  Hatterslev, Roy

  Bradley, Tom

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hazell, Bert

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dunnett, Jack

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Brooks, Edwin

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

  Ennals, David

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

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

  Ensor, David

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Howie, W.

  Cant, R. B.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Carmichael, Neil

  Finch, Harold

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher,Rt.Hn.SirEric (Islington,E.)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ford, Ben

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Forrester, John

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Slater, Joseph

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

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Small, William

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Snow, Julian

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

  Moyle, Roland

  Stewart, Rt. Hn, Michael

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Murray, Albert

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Neal, Harold

  Symonds, J. B.

  Lawson, George

  Oakes, Gordon

  Taverne, Dick

  Ledger, Ron

  O'Malley, Brian

  Thomas, Rt. Hn, George

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Thornton, Ernest

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Tinn, James

  Loughlin, Charles

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Tomney, Frank

  Luard, Evan

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mabon, Or. J. Dickson

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  McBride, Neil

  Pentland, Norman

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  McCann, John

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  MacColl, James

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Wallace, George

  MacDermot, Niall

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  McGuire, Michael

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Weitzman, David

  Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Probert, Arthur

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mackie, John

  Randall, Harry

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Rankin, John

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rees, Merlyn

  Whitlock, William

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Richard, Ivor

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

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

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

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Marquand, David

  Roebuck, Roy

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rose, Paul

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Millan, Bruce

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Moonman, Eric

  Silkin, Hn. S. C, (Dulwich)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.39 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a consolidation Bill which comes before the House under the procedure whereby the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills considers enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions. The recommendations in this instance were made in a Joint Report of both Law Commissions, and have been accepted by the Joint Committee subject to minor exceptions with which I think I need not trouble the House at this stage.
  What is consolidated are the Trustee Savings Banks Acts of 1954 to 1958. The tables of derivations shows that some eight Statutes have been subjected to the process. The Committee reports that, subject to the exceptions that I have mentioned, the recommendations of the Law Commissions are for purposes of
  1402
  producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law, and it approves them.
  The Bill represents a useful consolidation of the law in this field, and I ask the House to approve it.
  11.41 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: As the Solicitor-General has said, the Bill comes to the House from the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills; but it is not, as one sees from the Long Title, solely a consolidation Bill. It amends the existing law before it consolidates it.
  The amendments which the Bill seeks to make are of particular weight and importance because they originate from the Report of the two Law Commissions. I have no doubt that the House would need some very convincing arguments if it were asked to amend a Bill based on the Report from the two Law Commissions and based upon an examination by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills stretching over three sessions of that Committee. But I protest at the Government's assuming that the House will rubber-stamp the Bill.
  The Bill has been put on the Order Paper at this late hour today for Second Reading, and I understand that it will

  1403
  be put on the Order Paper tomorrow, again at a late hour, for the remaining stages. Quite apart from what may emerge from this Second Reading debate or what thoughts the House may have upon the Bill, even the Joint Select Committee in dealing with one of the recommendations said that it would leave it out of the Bill so that the House could decide whether the law should be changed to the extent recommended by the Law Commissions.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, that if any important matters arise from the Second Reading debate on the Bill you will accept manuscript Amendments during the Committee stage tomorrow, because there will be no opportunity of tabling Amendments in the normal way.
  There were from the Law Commissions 21 recommendations embodied in the Bill. Each recommendation is a change in the law. I certainly do not wish to delay the House by referring to all 21; I shall be satisfied with five.
  I want to say first that I am sure that the House is very grateful for the form of the table of derivations at the end of the Bill which enables us to identify exactly where those recommendations—that is to say, the new law—appear in the Bill.
  The first recommendations refers to the point that rules made by a trustee savings bank relating to superannuation for bank employees shall require only the approval of the National Debt Commissioners and not the approval of both the Commissioners and the Registrar of Friendly Societies. That amendment to the law is contained in Clause 2(5) and Clause 6(5), both of which refer to a later part of the Bill which deals with superannuation. That recommendation seems to me to leave the law in respect of superannuation for trustee savings bank employees in a rather complicated state, because the provisions thus amended leave an innumerable number of consents, approvals and even Statutory Instruments to be given in connection with various parts of superannuation funds.
  It is very difficult to find out, as the law is now amended in the Bill, who does set up these superannuation schemes and to what extent they come before the House. Perhaps when we come to deal with the Question, "That
  1404
  the Clause stand part of the Bill," the learned Solicitor-General can give some explanation of that point.
  Recommendation No. 2 of the Law Commission dealt with the Inspection Committee which, by the Savings Bank Act, 1891, was empowered to write its own constitution. Indeed, it did so and set it out in a scheme. The Law Commission pointed out that, if it ever desired to make a new scheme, an Act of Parliament would be required. The Law Commission recommended, and the Joint Select Committee accepted, that, instead of an Act of Parliament, we might in future have a Statutory Instrument. But in inserting that provision into Clause 4(8) of the Bill, it made no provision for the Statutory Instrument to come before the House. If one is replacing an Act of Parliament by Statutory Instrument—or, rather, the normal procedure of legislation by the sub-legislation of a Statutory Instrument—one should at least provide for it to come before the House on the normal annulment procedure.
  I come now to Recommendation No. 8. An alteration in the law has been made in Clause 21(5) relating to the repayment of a deposit with a trustee savings bank which does not exceed £500 if the depositor has died and certain alterations are made on the recommendation of the Law Commission in that respect. I am sorry that the opportunity was not taken to increase that figure of £500—the sum which can be paid out without obtaining probate or letters of administration of the estate of the deceased. Surely we could have increased it to something like £1,000 these days.
  Undoubtedly under this amendment of the law Regulations will have to be made under Clause 21(5) to accord with the Family Law Reform Act. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can inform us whether these regulations are in hand and will follow quickly upon the Bill obtaining the Royal Assent.
  Recommendation No. 16 of the Law Commission dealt with Section 67(1) of the 1954 Act, which required certain officers and employees of the trustee savings banks to provide fidelity bonds for themselves. The words appear in Clause 67—that an employee
  "shall give good and sufficient security to be approved of by not less than two trustees of

  1405
  the bank for the just and faithful execution of his office or trust."
  The Law Commission recommended a reduction of the list of those persons required to give that security.
  I am shocked to find it in the Bill at all. If a bank requires a bond from an employee, it is for the bank to pay the premium of a normal insurance bond for the fidelity of its employees, and I should have thought that at this stage we could remove it from the Bill altogether.
  I come to the fifth and last recommendation which I want to mention, Recommendation 20. This is particularly mentioned in the proceedings of the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. I quote from the explanation of the recommendation. It was said in evidence to the Joint Select Committee that
  "if a company which is not a trustee savings bank use the title 'savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Bank Act 1954, the company cannot be prosecuted, only the members of the company can be prosecuted, that is the shareholders. The directors as such cannot be prosecuted or any of the officers of the company unless they are shareholders. The first part of the recommendation is therefore, that the Section should be re-enacted in modern form at it appears in Clause 92 of the Bill."
  That was then before the Committee but is no longer in the Bill.
  The Committee felt that that was going rather far in altering the law and the learned and noble Chairman of the Committee said:
  "The question is whether we ought to make an amendment in what is primarily a consolidating procedure. It is a matter, as this is a recommendation, which can be debated in either House. I think we ought to draw attention to it."
  Another noble Lord said:
  "I am in favour of taking it out and leaving the House to put it in if it wants to".
  The Chairman then said:
  "They can always put it back. I suppose. Would you propose that we retain the phraseology of Section 80?"
  That was the old Section 80. As a result, the Committee rejected that recommendation and left it to the House to consider whether it should go into the Bill.
  The result is that Clause 92 as it stands makes nonsense. It is not a modern company Clause which makes directors and officers responsible for defaults of the company, and I seriously think that
  1406
  the House ought to take the invitation of the Joint Select Committee and insert the normal Clause. The Committee felt that it should go as far as that. It left it to the House to decide and there seems to be no reason why the House should not decide to modernise Clause 92.
  Clause 100 gives us the date on which the Bill is to come into operation. I understand that that date is fixed because it is necessary that this Bill should receive the Royal Assent after the Post Office Bill. I wonder whether Clause 100(2) is still necessary and whether the Bill cannot be brought into operation at once. If not, perhaps the Solicitor-General will say when the Bill will come into operation.
  I have referred to the important amendments to the law made in the Bill. I think that I should be expressing the will of the House if I were to say how grateful we are to the Law Commission for their thorough Report, and to the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills which spent so much time to such good purpose in considering the Law Commission's Report.
  11.55 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether it is the intention that the table of derivations at the end of the Bill shall continue to be printed at the end of the Act? The table is useful in enabling us to ascertain from what previous part of an Act or Order the provisions of the Bill have been derived, and that would also be useful to practitioners who may wish to see what decided cases refer to particular parts of the Bill. I hope that this may be added to the Statute in due course, and I should like to have an assurance to that effect.
  The Joint Committee reported that it is of opinion that certain of the Law Commission's recommendations are for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law and, subject to certain exceptions, it approved the 21 recommendations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has referred. But this means that the Joint Committee disapproves of the five recommendations which are set out in the report. I believe that the main reason for that disapproval is that the Joint Committee regards those recommendations as

  1407
  exceeding the normal function of consolidation. In other words, this is new legislation which is desirable not entirely for the purpose of consolidation but to improve the law.
  The late Sir John Hobson strongly held the view that it would be objectionable, under the guise of consolidation, to pass new legislation, and I humbly agree with that view. I am concerned to see that we do not amend the substance of the law under the guise of consolidation, and I should like to have an assurance from the Solicitor-General that the five recommendations to which the Joint Committee objected are not incorporated in the Bill. These recommendations are not objectionable, but probably desirable, and I am concerned to see that they are not passed into law without the possibility of debate in this House.
  There are good grounds for saying that our procedure on consolidation Bills needs to be looked at. It is desirable that we should have more consultation than has so far been possible. That should involve minor alterations to see that anomalies in the law are not simply brought forward. I believe that it would be quite simple to devise machinery by which this House could consider these matters, perhaps by a Select Committee or in some other way, on their merits and then recommend to the House that there is no objection to these amendments being made. If something of that sort were done, we should facilitate the work of consolidation and improving the law generally.
  I noted the utterances of the Lord Chancellor in another place that he believed that this was not only desirable, but possible, in this House. That, of course, is not the case. We cannot, at the moment, move Amendments to consolidation Bills.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I help the hon. Member? If we reach the Committee stage of a Bill which is not pure consolidation but, like the present Bill, consolidates the law and also makes amendments, Amendments can be moved in Committee.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I understand, therefore, that it will be possible for hon. Members in Committee, if they wish, to
  1408
  put down any Amendment which they see fit for the purpose of amending a Bill with a Title such as this one. If that is so, the point is met, although I do not know that that news will be very welcome to the ears of the Government or the Solicitor-General. In the meantime, perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us whether the five excepted recommendations are included in the Bill.
  12.1 a.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wish to raise only a brief point on Clause 15, which provides that the rate of interest shall not exceed 2½ per cent. I should like to know from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General whether I am right in assuming that the reason for the rate of 2½ per cent. is to keep it on a par with the Post Office Savings Bank rate of interest.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member can raise that question only if it is a new part of the law. He can ask whether this is an amendment about which the Law Commission has made suggestions. The Bill consolidates a mass of legislation. In the process of consolidation, the Law Commission has made a number of amendments. On Second Reading, all that we can discuss is whether the laws which are consolidated in the Bill should be consolidated or left as separate Acts. The hon. Member may, however, ask about something which is the subject of one of the amendments. I doubt whether the point which he is raising is such a matter.
  Mr. Lewis: I was querying, Mr. Speaker, whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading because, as the Law Commissioners have not dealt with the point which I was about to raise, I could not see my way clear to agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  I was going on to suggest that one of the things which should have been discussed before the Bill was brought forward for Second Reading was the rate of interest, as stated in the Bill, of 2½ per cent. I was then going to ask how the 2½ per cent. was arrived at. I assumed that the reason for it was to put trustee savings banks, as in years gone by, on a par with the Post Office Savings Bank interest rate of 2½ per cent.
  I was then intending to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General

  1409
  whether, in considering these matters, the Law Commissioners had considered altering the whole basis of the 2½ per cent. interest, because I was told in answer to a Question in the House that this rate was originally fixed—and this may surprise you, Mr. Speaker, as it did me—in 1861 and that to have the same purchasing value today, the rate of interest would need to be 2s. 8·7d. instead of the suggested 6d. in the £.
  The Government have now, as it were, set their mind on having high interest rates. They have just floated a new gilt-edge at 9 per cent. Therefore, I wonder; I am rather surprised that neither the Law Commissioners nor the Government have taken the opportunity to bring this 6d. up to near the 2s. 9d., at which it really ought to be, to have some relationship to a like purchasing power. I cannot see that this Bill will achieve its objects if we are to have what I would term the maintenance of an old 1861 percentage which bears no relationship to current market rates or current interest rates—or, indeed, to the rates which the Government themselves this very day are offering with their 9 per cent. ticket. Therefore, perhaps the Solicitor-General would tell me—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Bill does not get its Second Reading the Acts which it is proposed to consolidate, one of which the hon. Member seems to object to, will still be in existence.
  Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but rather than oppose the Bill—I do not want to oppose the Bill—I was hoping that perhaps, if I could explain the position to the Solicitor-General, he would tell me that he would arrange in Committee to put some Amendment to deal with the point. Perhaps he would just tell me that the Government have in mind dealing with this matter, and that perhaps the Law Commissioners discussed it but, for some reason, did not at that stage come to a final conclusion. Perhaps he can satisfy me on that. Then I will not have to call a vote and divide the House.
  12.7 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General: If I may deal with some of the points which have been raised, I will take first this point put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), affecting Clause 15. My impression is
  1410
  that Clause 15 of the Bill is a straight re-enactment of existing law, and that, by virtue of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should not be in order in setting out the matter in the fashion which my hon. Friend invites me to do; but if I may say so to the House, I wait to be cautious on a matter of this kind. It is a fairly technical matter, and I should like an opportunity of considering that point further. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to take it from me that, if the consideration satisfies me that there is substance in the point he has brought forward, we could, perhaps, have a word together.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank my hon. and learned Friend. As always, I am willing to accept his kind offer and assistance, which he gives on every occasion, and certainly I will accept it in this instance.
  The Solicitor-General: I am very much obliged for that.
  If I may deal with the points in reverse order to that in which they came before me, the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked me first of all whether the table of derivations in the Bill would be part of the enactment. My understanding is that it would be. I agree with him that it is of value. I will try to confirm that matter in the time which is available, but my present understanding is that that will be part of the law, and I share the hon. Gentleman's expression as to its value.
  He asked me as to how the recommendations of the Joint Committee had been dealt with in the Bill. My understanding of that is that the Joint Committee received certain recommendations from the Law Commission which the Committee thought it right not to adopt. The Bill now before the House is the Bill printed as amended by the Joint Committee and it incorporates, I under-stand, the outcome of their disapprovals. Where they recommended, for grounds set out in their report, the omission of this provision and that provision, those elements are dealt with in the Bill now before the House.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In other words, it includes them out.
  The Solicitor-General:I am obliged.not for the first time, to the hon. Baronet.

  1411
  That is my understanding, but I want to check these matters with care when they are brought to my attention.
  The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) raised a number of points. I recognise—there is no point in my concealing it— that the time for Amendments is short, and I express the hope that every consideration and advantage will be given to him and to other hon. Members to put forward manuscript Amendments on matters with which they are concerned. For the Government, I can only say that there is no assumption that the House will rubber-stamp the Bill. As hon. Members know, I attach great importance to the harmonious development of the work of the Law Commission, in association with the Joint Committee and the House in the consolidation of laws and other legal matters, and there is certainly no assumption by the Government that the House will rubber-stamp the Bill.
  What I have said in that connection applies to all matters to which the hon. Member for Crosby referred, including the treatment of Recommendation No. 20. He will have the opportunity, I think and hope, albeit in rather shorter time, to put forward Amendments for consideration by the Committee of the House at the next stage of the Bill. I am concerned now simply to ask for the approval of the House in principle of this consolidation Measure and for its Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
  Committee this day.

  SEA FISHERIES (INSHORE VESSELS AND HERRING SUBSIDIES)
  12.14 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move,
  That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1969, dated 3rd July, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.
  The Scheme before the House tonight deals only with white fish subsidy for inshore vessels and herring subsidy for the 12 months from 1st August, 1969. I should explain that for purposes of the Scheme now before the House "inshore white fish vessels" means those under 80 ft. registered length; and the Scheme covers all herring vessels, but, with very few exceptions, vessels engaged in herring fishing are also under 80 ft.
  We are, therefore, concerned tonight with a section of the industry using relatively small boats, but it is nevertheless an important section. In 1968 the value of its white fish and herring catch rose by nearly £1 million to £18½4 million, or roughly 32 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. These figures do not include shellfish, and as quite a number of white fish boats engage in shellfish catching for part of the year it is pertinent to note that the United Kingdom shellfish catch reached a record value of £4½7 million in 1968, an increase of 20 per cent. over the 1967 figure.
  The basis for our annual review of subsidy rates is a summary of the operating results of the various size groups of vessels in the previous calendar year; but, as we announced last year, we also have regard to the import-saving potential of the fleets. As about two-thirds of the United Kingdom inshore white fish landings and 85 per cent. of herring landings are made in Scotland, I will start at the Scottish end.
  The returns collected by my Department show how each boat fared during 1968. As is to be expected, there was a considerable range in the performance of individual boats, but taking the fleet as a whole the results were better than in 1967. For most of the length groups, both the average net profits—that is, after allowing for depreciation—and average crew earnings were higher than

  1413
  in the previous year. The main exceptions to this were white fish boats below 40 ft. in length and the relatively small number of herring drifters, but even these groups were making operating profits. Overall average operating profits were about 7 per cent. up on last year.
  The results in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland were not quite so good as in the previous year, but overall operating profits before depreciation were about 5 per cent. higher than in 1967.
  Taking the fleet as a whole, these results indicate a reasonably satisfactory position and, I think, show that we were not far off the mark in the decision we took last year to leave subsidy rates unchanged. The results take account of the higher operating costs actually incurred in 1968. We have also taken into account the trend in landings so far in 1969 and the prospects for the remainder of the year. Up to the end of May the value of the white fish and herring landings showed some improvement over the corresponding period of 1968—£7·17 million compared with £7·13 million—and the improvement would probably have been greater if fishing had not been so interrupted by the unusually prolonged and severe bad weather in the early months of the year.
  The indications are that this improvement will be maintained. Our scientists tell us that the 1967 haddock brood was particularly good: catch rates should improve later in the year. At the half-year stage, the herring catch was more than 25 per cent. above the 1968 level, in both weight and value, and the autumn and winter fisheries on the West Coast of Scotland are expected by the scientists to yield good catches, although perhaps not up to the high level of last year.
  Having regard to all these factors and the views expressed by the fishermen's Associations in our discusions with them, the Government came to the conclusion that the total subsidy provision for the inshore and herring fleets should be maintained at the same level as in the current subsidy year—that is, £1·4 million for the United Kingdom. We are confident indeed that with this measure of support it will be capable of the expansion we expect from the inshore fleet. Incidentally, since 1st April more applications for assistance for new boats have
  1414
  been approved in Scotland than in the corresponding period last year. This is an indication of the confidence that fishermen have in the future. In addition to all this, hon. Members from Scotland will know of the substantial help given by the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
  The actual daily rates of subsidy specified in the Scheme for white fish boats on voyage payments are higher than the current rates approved a year ago. The reason for this is we have found it desirable to alter the conditions under which the subsidy is paid out, and I shall mention these briefly. The most significant change concerns the qualifying days for the daily rate subsidy. Hitherto the schemes have provided that days spent in port from the day of arrival until the catch is actually sold have been reckoned as days at sea. This is somewhat anomalous for a subsidy intended to encourage fishing and the reasons for which the arrangement was adopted no longer apply. We have, there, concluded that the days in port after the day of arrival should no longer be reckonable as days at sea. Overall the payments for these days in port have amounted latterly to some 10 per cert. of the daily rate payments, and to compensate for the change we have increased the white fish daily rates by approximately 10 per cent. all round. This change will, I believe, be generally acceptable to and welcomed in the industry.
  A similar change is not appropriate for the herring daily rates, because herring are normally sold on the day of arrival; so the daily rates for herring vessels remain unchanged. On the other hand, we are introducing a small change in the qualification for these daily rates. Up to now, there has been an administrative arrangement which allowed vessels to qualify for voyage rate subsidy for voyages from one base port to another between herring seasons. The pattern of herring seasons is not as distinct as it used to be, and we have decided to bring this arrangement to an end. The relatively small amount of money thus saved has enabled us to in crease by 1s. per cran the special subsidy for surplus herring selling for oil and meal, which will be 22s. per cran within the same monthly quota arrangements.

  1415
  Finally, we are proposing to simplify the criteria which determine whether white fish and herring vessels receive subsidy on stonage rates or on daily rates. In 1966, when the majority of white fish vessels between 35 ft. and 60 ft. were transferred from stonage rates to daily rates, we excepted from the transfer those vessels whose white fish and herring subsidy did not exceed £500 in 1965. Herring vessels between 35 ft. and 40 ft. were similarly treated. The purpose was to provide daily rates for vessels regularly engaged in fishing, while those only irregularly engaged continued on stonage rates. In 1967 and 1968, we continued this arrangement with lower qualifying figures but on the basis that a vessel that had already qualified on the criteria for an earlier year would continue to receive daily rates whether or not it continued to fish with the same regularity.
  This, even as an experiment, was becoming increasingly complex year by year, and we have now decided that the qualification for voyage rates should be a criterion related to the previous year's fishing activity. We are, therefore, providing that vessels will qualify for voyage rates if their white fish and herring subsidies in 1968 alone were more than £250. This will, in effect, mean that some vessels now on voyage rates will return to stonage rates because of irregular fishing for white fish or herring in 1968. If, however, low subsidy payments are caused by special circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the vessel may be allowed to retain its entitlement to voyage rates. Again, we feel that this is a desirable change.
  With these explanations of the changes we are making to use the same subsidy provision more effectively by directing it towards encouragement of the actual fishing effort, I commend the Scheme to the House.
  12.22 a.m.
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: It is probably fair to say that when subjects to do with white fish are mentioned in the House they draw a good natured laugh, but white fishing is a highly important matter, affecting though it does only a comparatively small section of the fleet. While I do not want to detain the House for long, it is desir-
  1416
  able to have one or two points answered and to get certain things on the record.
  The Report of the Herring Industry Board seems largely a rather gloomy story about 1968. It states in paragraph 2:
  "… the value of the catch was slightly down…. The number of vessels operating in the Minches was less than in the 1967 winter season and the total catch failed to reach the 1967 level."
  The report also states:
  "Despite increased landings in Shetlands, the South Minch and from the Irish Sea area, the overall result of fishing during the summer season was disappointing… The summer season in the Clyde was rather poor."
  Altogether, it paints a rather sombre picture.
  When one looks at the overall landings, we find that, with the exception of 1966, we have had a decline, though not very big, from 1965 until 1968. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that so far the 1969 prospects are good. He said that catches are up on the same period of last year, and I hope profoundly that this trend continues.
  One has often emphasised the excellence of herrings to eat and how, if only people would eat more of them, one could get the catch up. Certainly the herring this year seem as good and delectable as ever.
  The herring now assumes a much more important rôle. There is an import-saving potential of the £29 million spent on importing fish meal. There is no doubt of the need for a factory on the West Coast to save hauling herring right across Scotland to Fraserburgh. There is also a need for enough fish to be caught to make that factory viable. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the latest position about the factory? There are several references to it in the Herring Industry Report. The case was submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland towards the end of May. A meeting with the officials of the Department was held in June and on 1st August the Board was able to discuss the project with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The Minister himself confirmed the view that there is need for a plant on the West Coast of Scotland. However, he had yet to be satisfied that the project could be viable and suggested that further inquiries should be made.

  1417
  How are we getting on with this? It seems undeniable that the price paid for fish which has to go for meal or oil limits the catching effort. Up to 20 pet cent. of the total daily landings is subsidised at the moment if they go for oil or meal, but if more than that goes for that purpose the price becomes open and, when the cost of transport to the factory is taken off it may come down as low as 8s. a cran. That is no earthly use to any fisherman. If the Government are really serious about import-saving, they have a considerable chance here of putting their ideas into practice. Probably the expenditure of between £500,000 and £1 million more in subsidy would allow very large reductions in imports to be made. To this the Government have pledged themselves as extremely attached. I hope we may have their views on the suggestion I have made.
  Turning to the white fish inshore side of the industry, here again we have a picture of landings in 1968 lower than four years ago. There has been a steady reduction in subsidy over the last four years—£1·75 million in 1965, £1·3 million in 1966, £1·20 million in 1967 and £1·18 million in 1968. It is interesting to note that in 1966 the herring subsidy was £280,000, in 1967 it was £240,000 and down to £208,000 in 1968. This is a good development provided incomes are maintained by other factors. An obvious one is higher market prices, but I notice that the White Fish Authority says in its report:
  "Taking the year as a whole, although there were increases in revenue in some sections of the fleet, these gains were overshadowed by a massive increase in average operating costs."
  What is the precise state of the inshore fleet, some parts of which, according to the Minister, have done well while other parts have not done well? As there has been a reduction in subsidies for this sector of the fleet, has this reduction been balanced by an increase in return so that the income of the fleet has not been reduced?
  What is the present state of play, as it were, on the minimum price scheme? There are voluntary schemes in various ports and the White Fish Authority is trying to promote a limited scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Are the Government well disposed to this scheme and are they convinced of the need for something stronger than what has been
  1418
  proposed? In other words, do they agree that a statutory minimum price scheme is vital for the future prosperity of the industry, which is my view, after giving the matter considerable thought?
  What precisely do the Government expect of the inshore and herring fleets, which are the only sections of the industry we are discussing tonight? While we cannot discuss deep sea fishing, one cannot isolate the effect of action taken in one sector from the results it has on other sectors of the industry. Heavy imports of a type of deep sea fish are bound to affect the prices of fish in all sectors of the industry.
  Imports of foreign-caught fish are up from 16·2 per cent. of all supplies in 1967 to 17·8 per cent. in 1968. The actual tonnage of imports is up by 14 per cent. above the figure for last year. This is a significant increase and is a straw in the wind which I do not like. It adds to my doubts about whether the Government are as serious as they claim to be on the saving of imports and the assistance thereby given to our balance of trade position.
  I hope that the Minister will say more about what the Government expect the fleet to do and whether they genuinely believe that it has the same sort of contribution to make as agriculture—a matter on which they have crossed their heart—in saving imports for the benefit of the country.
  12.34 a.m.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: These annual debates on the state of the inshore fishing industry have a certain sameness. They always seem to take place at a late hour and in a thin House. However, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said, this is an important industry which we should treat with the greatest seriousness.
  What worries me is that the sameness of the debates does not seem to get us any closer to an understanding of what the policy is and what the Government intend for the industry year by year. The major problem is that every year the Minister assures us that the industry is in a healthy condition, that everything is going satisfactorily and that, therefore, their policy is meeting its purposes.

  1419
  In the fishing ports we find a situation by no means as convincing. What I find even more difficult is the problem of understanding precisely what are our policy problems in this sector. The policy is supposed to have been laid down by the Fleck Report and it argued that the size of the British fishing industry was too great and that sectors of the industry were—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Scheme and not to the Fleck Report.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The annual reduction in the subsidy was generally discussed in the report and the decision to review it and possibly reduce it was contained in the report. The Government are pursuing this policy in supporting the fishing industry in this way.
  It was assumed that Government assistance to the inshore fishing fleet and to the fishing industry in general would be reduced over a period of 10 years by 10 per cent. per annum until this assistance disappeared and a smaller and viable industry was left. I am puzzled about this, because, whereas one can see that other industries have a competitive advantage or disadvantage in Britain, one can see no reason why the British fishing industry should not be as capable as getting fish out of the same seas as foreign—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot pursue a general debate on the fishing industry under this Scheme. He may state why he is prepared to support the Scheme, or otherwise.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I am discussing why I am prepared to support the Scheme, but with limitations. In this context, I thought it was normally the tradition, as the Under-Secretary did in his opening, to give figures for the income, health, and welfare of the industry. I shall try to follow the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. The argument that we needed a smaller and more profitable fishing fleet puzzled me, in that imports of white fresh fish have steadily been rising. It is difficult to understand how this is happening when I can see no advantage, such as Canadian farmers have over ours because of the
  1420
  vast prairies. There is no inherent advantage for the foreigners. They are fishing the same seas. Will the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply be kind enough to deal with this question by saying what is the precise amount of money being offered to the industry through this Scheme and whether he can say whether the foreign fleets which are landing an increasing amount of fresh white fish and frozen fish fillets have greater or lesser subsidy and whether this is considered in dealing with the E.F.T.A. arrangements for import controls in these countries?
  In discussing the health of the industry, and its income by direct subsidies, may I ask the Minister to clarify the overall direction of Government policy and whether they expect the subsidy to continue as a permanent feature, or are they sticking to the view described in the Fleck Report, that the subsidy will have to disappear?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the general subsidies but whether this Scheme should be approved or not. One cannot have a detailed debate on the fishing industry on this. The hon. Member must relate his remarks more closely to the substance of the Scheme.
  Mr. Stodart: On a point of order. This is the only occasion available to us each year to discuss the problems of this important section of the sea fish industry. Without discourtesy, may I say that in the past it has been customary to allow one to range slightly more widely than perhaps the immediate confines of the Scheme for that reason.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the rules of the House, the same as any hon. Member. Therefore, I must rule in accordance with the position as I see it.
  Mr. Mackintosh: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am hoping to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West in a discussion of the fish meal problem. I do not know whether you will regard this as in order, but it was in order about 20 minutes ago when the hon. Member made his speech.
  Having made my general point about the subsidy and having discussed whether the subsidy is to continue or whether it is part of a different subsidy policy which

  1421
  we had before, I want to move on to the question of other methods of supporting the industry in addition to this subsidy, and particularly to take up the point of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West on the subject of fish meal, which is one of our heaviest imports, running to the tune of £30 million a year.
  This is a very peculiar situation. We have this insistence that our fishermen may land 10 per cent. of the dead fish caught for industrial purposes, but that small dead fish caught when fishing for fresh fish must be thrown back into the sea. Yet these are the sort of fish which foreign vessels are taking back to their countries, processing into fish meal, and we are buying it as an import into this country. We have this very peculiar situation in which our own industry is not allowed to take advantage of this source of fish meal which we are, therefore, having to buy from other countries. This causes continued difficulty among the fishermen in our ports.
  I am wondering whether, in order that the Government may have some extra help in their subsidy proposals and in supporting the industry, why the Government would not consider relaxing this rule, thus providing a steady source of fish of lower than normal consumption size for use by a fish meal factory. The great problem of a factory is to supply a sufficient throughput of fish to make it economic.
  At times I find fishermen in my ports are throwing back four boxes of good-sized fish for every one which they land. This is fishing with regulation mesh nets. The answer is the stricter policing of the mesh of nets, with permission to land at least a percentage of these fish for fish meal purposes.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned a minimum price scheme which has been kicking around in the industry for 15 years. I wonder whether the Minister would consider, in the process of laying this Scheme before the House every year, providing us with a little more information of the kind which is obviously worked on by the Ministry in the course of its calculations and its negotiations with the fishermen, so that we could have something like the material provided in the Annual Price Review in relation to farming. We would then know more about incomes, the
  1422
  general health and welfare of the industry, and in particular we could do more work on establishing the best method of employing this amount of money in aid of the industry and decide whether putting some of it into a statutory minimum prices scheme would not yield a better return and more stability in the industry than other possible methods of financing.
  You have restricted the debate by your Rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry that I am not able to develop my speech in the way in which we have done in past years, to consider the general health of the industry and some of the other subjects that I would have liked to touch upon. I agree with all who have spoken in this debate that this is an important subject, as to which there is an element of obscurity about Government policy, which I would like cleared up. This is an industry in which one wants, above all, a certain stability and confidence. If manpower leaves this industry, it will never return. At the ports which I know, some of the boats are down to the operating minimum. They used to operate with a crew of six, then five, and now some are going to sea with a crew of four. One below that and the boat becomes inoperable.
  In these circumstances, we want not merely this annual debate on an annual Scheme but a greater guarantee for the industry's future. I say again, as I have said on previous occasions, that I cannot for the life of me see why we need to have an industry which is running at a level which means that we import about £30 million worth of fresh and frozen white fish and £30 worth of fish meal. I am sure that our fishermen could put this right, given an adequate level of support from the Government.
  I am certain that other countries give a different level of support to their fishing fleets, and I shall be glad to have comparative figures. I cannot see how they can otherwise manage to compete with us as effectively as they do.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Speaking to some farmers in my constituency the other day, I asked one of them what the average size of farm was in his parish. He said, "About 100 acres, but, of course, they vary". The Under-Secretary of State said that the inshore fleet

  1423
  had been having a good season so far this year and had had better results last year. That is not the whole truth. The results in various parts of my constituency show a considerable variation.
  I do not believe that the terms of the Scheme will meet with great approval in the inshore fleet. Some of the boats welcome the increase, but it is an increase with a condition. It is a subtraction in one sense. The global sum has been reduced, yet the daily rate has been increased by between 7s. and 9s. a day, according to size of boat. Will the Minister tell us how the breakdown, as it were, was worked out within the increase in the daily rate? The middle band is exactly the same, at 8s. Why not have a difference within the 7s. to 9s., at 7s., 7s. 6d., 8s., 8s. 6d., and 9s.? No doubt, the negotiations between the Ministries and the fishermen's associations took this variation in boat size into consideration, but it seems arbitrary to fix a lower limit for the under-40 ft. boats at 7s. increase, then upwards until one comes to the 6080 ft. boats.
  In Fishing News last Friday, Mr. Alex Dempster was reported as saying that
  "the rates of subsidy for the coming year are likely to cause disappointment to many Scottish fishermen".
  That is true. The secretary of the Herring Producers' Association, Mr. Graham Fulton, said that he felt that the industry needed more help.
  The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) sketched the picture and said that more help is needed. But how will it be given? Mr. Fulton went on to say that it was
  "difficult to say how the adjustments in the meal-and-oil and white fish subsidies would affect catchers. They would have to see how it worked out in practice."
  That is all very well, but unless we can have some sort of basic guarantee for the future, there is bound to be a contraction in the catching fleet, not only in Scotland but, no doubt, in England and Wales as well. Speaking of the review based on the size of boats, the Under-Secretary said that the results of boats of 40 ft. and less in the past year were not as good as those of some of the others. He knows that I have had some correspondence with him about the vessels which fish partly as seine netters and partly as line fishing boats. Others fish
  1424
  part time. In the four ports in my constituency, there are 29 such boats.
  In a reply to a letter of mine asking what the Government's policy would be on these smaller boats changing from one type of fishing to another, the Minister said that he hoped that there would be some alteration in the subsidy scheme for the coming year. This was in December, 1968. He also said that the limit for ranking for subsidy in 1967 was £250. That applies in this Statutory Instrument. Therefore, presumably these boats will not come on the daily rate but will remain on the stonage rate. To be comparable in earning power vis-à-vis the subsidy, these boats would have to catch up to 11 boxes a day to make up on the subsidy rate what they would be catching were they on the daily rate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that point, which is rather complicated.
  He said in his letter:
  "In making the rules, we tried to be as fair as we could to all concerned."
  I certainly appreciate that, as do the fishermen, of course, but there will be hardships and fishermen with boats of this kind will be inclined to go out of business if they think that they are being unfairly treated compared with their neighbours and those who fish from the same port under similar conditions. He ended his letter by saying:
  "I think you will appreciate, however, that in doing so"—
  that is, in fixing the rates—
  "we must have regard to the position of the boats in each class as a whole."
  That is perfectly true and fair, but there are these anomalies, and I hope that, in the not too distant future, and certainly before the next Scheme is laid, this kind of anomaly can be got over.
  The inshore industry as a whole has accepted the Scottish Committee's proposals on the minimum price scheme pretty favourably, and it now needs approval by the Minister and final approval by this House. The Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority very much hoped that the Scheme would be under way by the end of this year but it will have to receive pretty sharp and quick treatment when the House resumes in October if it is to be under way this year. I hope that the Under-Secretary can tell us when the Government are likely to give their approval and to lay the Scheme before the House.

  1425
  The other question is that of the White Fish Authority's general advertising scheme. Has this received the approval of the Ministers yet, and if it has, when w ill it be paid before Parliament? I always think it is a pity that we cannot amend a Statutory Instrument. It is true to say that consultations go on between fishermens' associations and the Government before subsidy rates for the ensuing year are agreed. Nevertheless, it would be a great improvement not only in the business of the House but for the convenience of Members if more information could be made available to Members so that we could make up our minds on the whole position.
  It is all very well going round the fishing ports in one's constituency and talking to the fishermen without all the information that one requires. For instance, the latest information in statutory form that the House is able to read is the Fisheries of Scotland Report for 1967, Cmnd. 3800, dated November, 1968, and now nearly two years out of date.
  I appreciate that the Ministers in framing the Order and deciding what the rate of subsidy will be have the information, but we certainly have not. [Interruption.]
  [Sitting suspended at 12.56 a.m. and resumed at 1.2 a.m.]
  1.2 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am sure that I express the wish of the whole House when I say that I hope that our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) will soon recover from his illness and will be with us well again.
  Hon Member: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) asked how the new white fish rates are working out. They are the 1968 rates increased by about 10 per cent. The lowest rate last year was £3 10s. and we are proposing £3 17s. The highest rate last year was £5 5s. and this year it is being increased to £5 16s. These increases vary between 7s. and 11s. and I hope that that answer satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised questions about the differences in relation to
  1426
  boats and certain anomalies. I am sure that we cannot hammer them out in debating this Scheme but I assure him that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with this problem.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said that the herring industry presented a somewhat sombre picture. Occasionally, herring do not turn up where one wants them. I remember the late James Henderson Stuart complaining that herring had not turned up in the Forth and rather insisting that this was due to the Labour Government. When we had a Conservative Government, no one told the herring and they never came back. It is difficult to get fish out which are not there. On the whole, I think that the herring fishermen have been doing reasonably well.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will be interested to learn that the price for oil meal herring, which they claimed was down to 8s. per cran, the average price in 1968, was in fact 32s. 10d. per cran, including the oil and meal subsidy. That was the figure paid.
  My hon. Friend spoke about fish going to the factory. He must have overlooked the change we made in the last Scheme, when we allowed 10 per cent. of undersized fish in the catch to go for fish meal. This was a change which I thought the industry welcomed. It was a change made for the first time.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I said that 10 per cent. of the industrial catch could go. My point is that it is peculiar that fish caught in the process of fishing for consumption and not for industrial purposes cannot go likewise.
  Mr. Hoy: Of the industrial catch 10 per cent. undersized can go for industrial purposes.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West asked about imports. The House is well aware that a 10 per cent. duty was imposed on imports of fish fillets from Scandinavia. We felt that the imports did not conform to the agreement and we therefore imposed the duty. Imposition of the duty was welcomed at the time by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).
  Mr. Stodart: That was not a subject which I mentioned this evening.
  Mr. Hoy: I thought that the hon. Gentleman referred to it.
  It is always difficult even to find a site for a fish meal factory. Everyone thinks that we should have one, but not in his area.
  Mr. Mackintosh: My area would welcome it.
  Mr. Hoy: My hon. Friend should put up a proposal for it. I can assure him, if he does not already know, that in some places where it has been suggested the local authorities have rejected it very firmly.
  Progress with a factory depends on many things, including the willingness of a commercial firm to take up the proposal. There have been talks, but so far no industrialist has indicated a genuine intention to go ahead, despite the availability of generous Board of Trade assistance. However, talks are still going on and we do not underestimate their importance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian referred to the cut of 10 per cent. I remind him that this progressive diminution was in the subsidy to the trawler fleet and that it is a different matter for the inshore fleet. It was laid down that the inshore subsidy should be reviewed every year, but this year, despite the improved condition of the industry, we have maintained the subsidy, and I think that that has been the case for the past two years. In the past, whenever the industry showed any improvement, the Government of the day always skimmed off a little, but that has not happened for the past two years.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West asked about differences in income. The value of white fish and herring caught by Scottish fishermen in 1968 rose by nearly £½ million—and profits rose by 4 per cent. after depreciation. Total United Kingdom inshore landings rose
  1428
  by £1 million to £18·4 million, or roughly 32 per cent. of total United Kingdom fish landings. Results were not so good, I regret to say, south of the Border, where profits before depreciations were only about 5 per cent. higher than in 1967. We have done better in the North than has been done in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  We have made it perfectly clear that we expect the industry to make a much greater contribution and this import saving would be good not only for the industry, but for the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West asked what we proposed to do about the minimum price scheme. It has not altogether been kicking about for 15 years. May I remind my hon. Friend that the British Trawlers Federation got into considerable trouble over having a minimum price scheme. The Monopolies Commission was brought into this, even if at the end of the day the Federation won its case. That is one problem that confronts the industry.
  The White Fish Authority said that, while it does not propose to proceed with a United Kingdom minimum prices scheme, it considers that a scheme applicable only to Scotland and Northern Ireland should be introduced. A scheme has recently been submitted for approval and is currently being considered. I cannot tonight go into the merits of the proposal, but an announcement will be made as soon as Ministers have made a decision. The hon. Member for Haltemprice will know that minimum import prices do not meet with unanimous approval from the whole fishing industry, but a decision will be made very soon on Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme. 1969, dated 3rd July, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES (INTEREST RATES)
  1.11 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move,
  That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the similar Motion on the Order relating to Scotland.
  The Motions come up under the two parent Acts, the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1967. These Acts provide for Orders to be presented to the House annually specifying the representative rates of interest on which basic subsidy is to be calculated.
  The formula which is laid down in the 1967 legislation provides in effect that the new basic subsidies shall represent the difference between the loan charges on the aggregate approved cost of dwellings completed in each financial year at a representative borrowing rate and the loan charges which would have been incurred at a fixed borrowing rate of four per cent.
  The procedure is that these figures are negotiated with the local authorities and the formula is discussed. There was no difference of opinion about the formula which was to be adopted for England. The rates for local authorities and for new towns are different and this is because the methods of borrowing are different.
  From time to time the question has been raised whether or not there should be a different rate for housing associations. The position remains the same. There is no point of principle about this. There is no evidence that it is necessary to do this and, on balance, we concluded that it was better to use the local authority rate.
  The rates which have been reached are 7·93 per cent. for local authorities and housing associations and 8·21 per cent. for new towns, as against last year's rates of 7·07 per cent. and 7·13 per cent. The Scottish rates are this time nearer to
  1430
  the English rates, 7·94 per cent. and 8·15 per cent. respectively.
  The House will, no doubt, like to know the effect of the subsidies. Last year, when the rate was 7·07 per cent. in England, the estimated average subsidisable cost of a dwellinghouse completed in 1968–69 was £3,900, on which the basic subsidy was £108 a year. The equivalent figures for 1969–70, at a representative rate of 7·93 per cent., are £4,100 for the cost, representing a subsidy of £148 a year.
  The total overall figure for all the different methods of subsidy in 1968–69 was £107 million, of which £27 million represented new subsidy and £80 million the older subsidies. This year the figure is £131 million, of which £49 million represents the new subsidy and £82 million the old subsidy. These are the main points which I wish to put to the House.
  1.16 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: In the draft Order, the Government are asking the House to approve a substantial increase in the rate of subsidies payable to local authorities for dwellings completed during the present financial year, from last April to next April. This is an increase over the rate of subsidy payable last year, which itself was an increase over the rate of subsidy payable the year before, which itself was an increase over the rate of subsidy payable in the previous year. And so the story goes on.
  These increased payments out of the taxpayer's pocket are due to the effect upon rates of interest of the Government's general mismanagement of the country's economic affairs. For this purpose, the rates of interest have risen over the years from 6·19 per cent. in 1965–66 to 6·35 per cent. in 1966–67, 6·52 per cent. in 1967–68, 7·07 per cent. in 1968–69 and 7·93 per cent. this year for local authorities and housing associations and as much as 8·21 per cent. for new towns. For local authorities, the interest rate has increased over that period by l¾ per cent.
  I said that the rates were for this purpose. The actual cost to local authorities of borrowing money for building new dwellings has risen by a far greater amount. The figure of 7·93; per cent. is worked out by a formula which arrives at an average by projecting into the

  1431
  future and assuming that times will not be as bad as they are now. That is probably true; a General Election will ensure that. Even as calculated on the Government's rather complicated formula, however, which was never approved by the House—it is not in the statute; it is a formula arrived at by the Government—the result is bad enough for the taxpayer and certainly, temporarily, bad enough for the local authorities and, through them, the ratepayer. Although the basic subsidy goes up each year, the ratepayer never seems to benefit from that by any reduction in his rates.
  The procedure is that a council will by now, at this stage of the year, have fixed its programme of completions of dwellings for this year; it will have obtained the Minister's approval for the purpose of subsidies, and the promise to pay those subsidies; it will have borrowed money at the current rates in the open market; and it cannot now, at this stage of the year, do much to alter its programme. But it is now that it is informed of the amount which it will receive by way of subsidy from the Exchequer.
  Each dwelling is taken at a cost of £x which, we have just been told by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, for this year is £4,100; not necessarily the actual cost to any particular local authority, but an average, arrived at by another formula. The subsidy will be the difference between 4 per cent. and 7·93 per cent.—that is, about 4 per cent.—multiplied by the number of approved dwellings. An individual authority really has little to say in these calculations of averages, and because they are averages—an average rate of interest at which the local authority is assumed to be able to borrow, and an average cost of houses which the local authority is assumed to be able to build—there are, of course, some councils which are above the line and some councils which are below the line.
  The Minister has taken the attitude recently, particularly during Parliamentary Questions, that because subsidy above 4 per cent. is paid, no local authority should hesitate to build right up to its capacity. This completely disregards those local authorities which find that they have to borrow above this assumed average rate and whose building
  1432
  costs in their area are, again, above the average, and those local authorities, if they build up to their full capacity, have to resort to their general funds, which are already over-stretched, to meet the deficit.
  As for the taxpayer, by reason of the increase in the price of houses since 1965 and by reason of the increase in rates of interest since 1965, which, I say again, are both factors which are the fault of the Government in their general policy, he has to fork out an ever-increasing amount in subsidies, £12 million in 1967–68, £27 million in 1968–69, and the estimated figure which we have just been given for 1969–70 of £49 million. Of course, as I have said, this is not due only to an increase in interest rates. The cost of building, even on the Government's formula, has shown this steady increase over the years. Taking it only for 1967–68, then it was £3,800; in 1968–69, £3,900; in 1969–70, £4,100.
  When total subsidies, not only for new houses, but the other subsidies as well, have risen over the past three years—£94 million a year up to £107 million a year and now up to £131 million a year, and yet we have terrible living conditions remaining in many parts of the country—surely it is time to think about a thorough reform in our system of housing subsidies, to see that we are really spending the money wisely, and for those who really need it.
  We shall be spending it wisely only when this is a subsidy to human beings and not simply a subsidy to bricks and mortar. I hope that we shall ensure in the not-too-distant future that these subsidies reach those who are in need.
  1.26 a.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I should like to supplement some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I hope that I shall not be guilty of just duplicating what he said but will add some positive evidence to the substantial case which he made.
  I start from a Parliamentary Question which I put down for 13th May. The Answer, reported in column 191 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, was to the effect that a notional rise of 1 per cent. would increase the total housing subsidy by about £6 million a year. We have not had an

  1433
  increase of quite 1 per cent., but it is 0·86 per cent., which means that the notional rate of interest now to be determined results in an increase of about £5·14 million on the estimated subsidy expenditure under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967. The estimated housing expenditure for 1969–70 is no less than £147·6 million, of which £47 million arises from the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, which under the proposals before us should be amended to £54·1 million. This gives a total increase in housing subsidies over the previous year of no less than £29·2 million, of which £26·1 million arises out of the 1967 Act.
  This is a tremendous escalation of housing subsidies. May I make a brief comparison between the years 1966–70 and the four years from 1960–64. In the four-year period up to the end of the current financial year housing subsidies increased by no less than £67·6 million. In the last four years of the previous Government the increase was £3·8 million. We may expect this rate of increase to continue as long as the present method of financing is continued and therefore by 1971–72 we may confidently predict that housing subsidies will reach over £200 million, of which over £100 million will be the result of the 1967 Act. This is the important effect of that Act.
  To that figure must be added the rate fund contribution if we are to consider the total level of housing subsidies. In answer to a Written Question which I put down on 8th July, as reported in column 240 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I was informed that on the last figures available in 1967–68, the contribution from the rate fund into the Housing Revenue account totalled for England and Wales £37 million. We now have to add to that figure the Government's decision not to allow rent increases to housing authorities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Goorlay): Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks a little more closely to the Order. We are not discussing rent policy generally or the policies of any particular authority.
  Mr. Jones: I am not discussing any particular authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make—I hope with your agreement—is the degree to which housing subsidies are escalating.
  1434
  It is important to add the rate fund contribution, because it looks as though by 1970 we shall have a housing subsidy rate of no less than £250 million a year. This will not be offset to any degree by the termination of older subsidies. Under the various subsidies paid from 1919 to 1938 there has been a drop over the 10-year period from 1958 to 1968 of only £360,000 a year. So we have only a modest saving from the old subsidies which are running out. From 1946 subsidies have been paid on the basis of 60-year loans. This will not be a source of any reduction for many years to come. Thus, if the Government seriously expect local authority housebuilding to continue at or around the level of 1968—that is, some 192,000 completions—under the Act and this Order and those which will follow it we must expect subsidies to increase at a rate of about £25 million a year. The alternative is to cut back building programmes, which the Government strenuously deny they intend to do.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the basic subsidy—I assume it is an average figure—on a £4,100 house now runs at the rate of £148 per annum for 60 years, which is to be compared with the £8 or £24 under the £1961 Act. That is an average figure. Today the Chairman of the Housing Committee for the Kensington and Chelsea Corporation told me that the Exchequer subsidy for building in the London borough is at a figure of £750 a year. This highlights the tremendous difference between the average figure and a particular figure in a London borough.
  The Government are now raising money at 9 per cent. and local authorities are paying 9¾ per cent. for current money. So we are faced wih the substantial increase not only this year but next year as well. We are entitled to ask the Government whether they ever expected this sort of escalation in costs when subsidies were tied to the rate of interest. I suspect that this was done purely on the basis of a foolish promise by a well-known eccentric.
  We must also ask whether this is not an appalling extravagance and a misdirection of resources. I support the view that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby expressed that housing subsidies are random and indiscriminate, moderated only by those enlightened authorities

  1435
  which operate sensible rent rebate schemes. It is unfortunate but true that in general they seldom help those most in need, but usually act as a bonus to the tolerably well off or, worse, a gift by the taxpayer to the very well off in some cases. Last week it was stated for the Government in another place that there were 60,000 council tenants with incomes of over £2,000 a year. The same source—the Family Expenditure Survey—recorded average levels of income—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Order. We are discussing the rates of interest on which the subsidy is to be calculated. We cannot make the debate as wide as the hon. Gentleman is trying to do.
  Mr. Jones: I will try to narrow it so that it may be acceptable to your direction, which I entirely accept, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is necessary to ensure that if this Order is to be operated equitably there shall be recognition of misdirection as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has said.
  This year we will increase the amount of this subsidy by £26 million, and will probably do the same next year. But over a five-year period we are spending only £25 million under the urban programme in the ghettos of our cities, and little of this will be on housing. This is the full extent of the criminal stupidity which is the result of the indiscriminate way in which we dole out money for houses, and not for people, in areas of need.
  The only way to give assistance to people is on the basis of an identified need—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing the basis of the subsidies. This Order merely changes the rate of interest. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's remarks must relate much more specifically to the Order than they now are.
  Mr. Jones: Perhaps I may conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, accepting your Ruling, by saying that the point of principle which this Order raises is whether we want to create a permanently dependant group of our population, many of whom are far from impoverished, living in pub-
  1436
  licly provided accommodation, whilst the truly poor continue to rot in multi-occupied hovels, the victims of the diminishing amount of cheap rented accommodation.
  The draft Order is, in my view, evidence of a grave misjudgment on the part of the Government on the operation of housing subsidies, and a misdirection of public resources.
  1.37 a.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: We are told by the hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) that there are ghettoes in the urban areas, a terrible housing shortage, and so on. I agree, but this housing shortage has not occurred just over the last four years. It has been with us as long as I can remember, and before, and much as I blame the Government for many things I do not think that they can be held responsible for the slums that have been with us for hundreds of years.
  I was pleased to hear the housing subsidy figures quoted. My only regret is that they are not higher. Perhaps the local authorities and housing associations should be a little more generously dealt with to encourage them to get on with the job of clearing up the mess that has been created mainly by private landlords under the control of previous Tory Governments. It is not true to say that these houses go to people on £5,000 or £2,000 a year. Most councils work a rent rebate scheme of some kind, and every local authority has its points priority scheme.
  The percentage figure in the Order is not the fault of the Government, but results from international high interest rates. It is true that local authorities now have to pay 9 per cent., 9½ per cent. and 9¾ per cent. for their money, and the Government are tomorrow issuing a ticket for 9 per cent. I wonder whether this 7·93 per cent. is sufficient to offset the difficulties in which many local authorities may find themselves.
  That is particularly the case because of difficulties which are not the fault of the Government, but which result from international interest rates going up again. How will this percentage bear a relationship to a possible increase in the interest rates? Some local authorities are in more urgent need than others. Probably

  1437
  it would be out of order to go into detail about Kensington, but Kensington does not build many houses for those in urgent need. I do not know for how many there was the subsidy which the hon. Member quoted.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: The hon. Member cannot deal with that subject properly unless he takes into account the question of availability of land.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) should not be tempted to reply to that.
  Mr. Lewis: I will not be tempted, but if the hon. Member thinks that we have a lot of land available in Newham, I wish he would tell me where it is. I wonder whether the percentage is sufficient for areas such as that of my authority. We have many difficulties. Because we have not the land, we have to build upward. I do not know if Kensington has ever heard of this. We do not like having to build upward.
  Mr. MacColl: It is more expensive.
  Mr. Lewis: It is more expensive and tenants do not like it. We have difficulties such as those of Ronan Point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting wide of the Order. It is not in order on it to discuss problems of any particular authority.
  Mr. Lewis: I mentioned this in passing, as the hon. Member for Northampton-shire, South referred to Kensington. There is a relationship between the salubrious area of Newham and the derelict area of Kensington. In Newham, we have to build expensive properties with higher densities and high buildings. I mentioned Ronan Point as an example and I want to ask a specific question. What happens in regard to subsidies and interest rates on them for areas which will have to borrow and get subsidy at 9·93 per cent. additional interest rate when they get on with the work of strengthening tower blocks? They will be landed with a heavy bill.
  I assume that under this Order they will get reimbursement to the extent of 7·93 per cent. on the subsidy. Will they be given further assistance? These are some of the areas which the hon. Member
  1438
  referred to as different from others. I am in agreement with him to the extent that there should be no cut in subsidy. I see you edging forward on your seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member dealt with this point at length. Should not some of these areas be given further assistance? Would the Minister consider taking the Order away and reconsidering it?
  Unless a more satisfactory arrangement can be made, perhaps by having differential interest rates between the poor and rich areas, we may have to vote against the Order. After all, although we are told that the figures of 7·93 per cent. for England and Wales and 7·94 per cent. for Scotland have been arrived at following discussions, we do not know who was discussed. Did the Ministry consult the local authority associations and individual authorities? Were they satisfied with these percentages? Would they have preferred differential interest rates? Perhaps we should alter the Order so that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in order to suggest alterations to the Order. The hon. Gentleman may only argue for or against it.
  Mr. Lewis: I was explaining why I opposed it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I stopped the hon. Gentleman when he was adducing reasons for altering the Order, not when he was opposing or supporting it.
  Mr. Lewis: I oppose the Order because rather than have average percentages, the agreement of local authorities should be sought on the right percentages for certain areas. Perhaps the poorer areas which are badly in need of housing could be given a higher subsidy, with less being given to areas which do not need it. This would result in the subsidy bill not being increased, which should appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The people of my area would like to see more subsidy going on housing. If wealthy authorities could he given less subsidy, that would enable more to be given to authorities which are anxious to build more homes.
  1.50 a.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for West

  1439
  Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). He started by chiding this side for questioning the size and growth of housing subsidies and went on to answer his own question. My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) is entirely right to raise the question whether we are spending this amount in the best way. We are right to question whether we are getting value for money. My hon. Friend was asking whether we were getting our priorities right, and that is how the hon. Member for West Ham, North, ended.
  I want to deal with matters relating to Scotland. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has come to this debate at short notice, for certain reasons.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that housing associations were being treated in these Orders in the same category as local authorities, as they have been in previous years. He said that in England and Wales, they agreed. Does this apply in Scotland: that housing associations are agreeable to being treated in the same way as local authorities?
  We know that it is the Government's intention to change the financial year for local authorities for certain specific reasons. We know that the period to which the calculations in the Order are to be related is being altered to suit local authorities. Does this suit the housing associations?
  It is important in these arrangements that we should make sure that we look after the interests of the housing associations, although the local authorities are a far greater section.
  The Secretary of State has kindly provided a detailed memorandum of how weighting is worked out in relation to the different types of borrowing. In the debate last year, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, said:
  "… we will not necessarily stick to that calculation next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 218.]
  I ask this evening whether the weighting we have, which is still the same as last year, is still correct in relation to the current borrowing situation. This point was referred to by the hon. Member for West Ham, North in relation to high interest rates charged at present.
  1440
  Evidence was given to Sub-Committee B of the Estimates Committee by the City of Glasgow. In reply to question 3374, the City Chamberlain, Mr. Esslemont, said:
  "At the present time, we are paying fantastic prices for money. We are getting very little long term money, and temporary money to keep us going is costing over 9 per cent. In fact, over 10 per cent. was sought at the end of last week for seven day money."
  That was on 19th May this year. This indicates the high rates of interest local authorities are having to pay for money borrowed short at present. The indication of that reply to the Estimates Committee was that the local authorities were having to rely increasingly on short-term borrowing at this high rate of interest. I would ask the Secretary of State whether local authorities are satisfied that sufficient weight is given to short-term borrowing. From the memorandum I see that in the weighting, one-sixtieth is given to short-term borrowing.
  I should like to turn to one or two more general points. The subsidy that we are discussing relates to the excess of loan charges on approved aggregate cost at a rate of interest representative of the borrowings of local authorities over loan charges of the same amount at 4 per cent. I want to refer to the concern felt, particularly in Glasgow, at the procedure in relation to the calculation of this aggregate indicative cost.
  It is interesting to note that a memorandum was prepared by the City Architect, Mr. Jury, and was submitted to the Estimates Sub-Committee. He said:
  "What is really most disturbing is the fact that the preparation of cost plans and the collecting of the necessary information to complete the various forms to enable a submission to be made to the Department has resulted in a slowing down of the house building programme in Glasgow."
  It is particularly alarming if matters of procedure so far as the subsidy arrangements are concerned are holding back house building in Glasgow.
  I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind that in Glasgow there are particular problems. The city architect went on to say in his memorandum that many of these problems are specific to Glasgow. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind these figures because in Glasgow we have our greatest housing problem.

  1441
  May I repeat the concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House at the rate at which interest rates are rising? I recognise that in this Order—this was agreed in the parent Act—the basis for interest rates is of an historical nature. They are based on the previous year. When we debated the Measure in Committee we had no idea that when we accepted this historical base, rates of interest would rise so quickly. This is certainly true of local authorities in Glasgow, and when they have to refinance their loans they are having to do so at a rate of 2 per cent. above the rate applicable to the loan which has expired.
  I quoted the city chamberlain's evidence that at present Glasgow is paying fantastic prices for money. We are also aware of the rate at which house prices are rising. We debate this Order against this background of rising interest rates and housing costs, and these are a judgment on the Government's mismanagement of the economy.
  1.58 a.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We have had the usual interesting and probing debate, and I congratulate hon. Members who succeeded even in getting a little wide of the subject. I used to be quite good at it myself. I do not blame anyone for making the best of an opportunity. But it is going a bit far for the party opposite to talk about mismanagement of the economy.
  That sounds very nice, but I have been here a long time, and so has the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I can remember a former Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), talking about the red herring of interest rates, and telling us that interest rates did not matter. I always thought that they did. That is why we have got the kind of subsidy arrangements we have got.
  I can assure hon. Members that, in the hon. Member's time, housing costs rose, yet year by year subsidies remained fixed. I believe that it was £24 in England and Wales, and in Scotland it depended upon which side of the formula one fell as to whether it was £12 or £32. I can assure hon. Members that the local authorities took a dim view of that.
  1442
  Hon. Gentlemen talk of mismanagement of the economy. They know very well that we cannot isolate interest rates in this country from interest rates internationally. We must look at the matter in that light, and the extent to which this has happened has made local authorities appreciate more than ever the inbuilt securities of our subsidy system. I know from my own experience how house building went in Scotland in the years up to 1964, when the Problems were just as bad —
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Worse.
  Mr. Ross: —or much worse, as my hon. Friend says, because what ought to have been done had not been done.
  The numbers of houses being built by local authorities in Scotland fell year after year, and we reached the nadir on one occasion of about 18,000. It was dreadful. Hon. Members should be careful when they speak about these things.
  When we take calculations of cost into account, let us remember that what is subsidised now is not just the cost of the house; we include the cost of the land, roads and sewers, and professional fees. The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) talked of higher rates of subsidy in particular parts of London. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) gave the real reason—the cost of land, when one can get it. What is the option? Are we not to build houses in Notting Hill? That is the area about which the hon. Gentleman was speaking. We must appreciate the problems which arise out of the deprivation there. It would not help the social problem if we stopped building houses. The hon. Gentleman was too facile in his criticism.
  The amount of subsidy payments will increase. They have been increasing as more houses are built. It is automatic. There were not many houses built under the 1919 or 1921 Acts, and it was not until the 1924 Act, the Wheatley Act, that we really started building. That increase came in 1925 and 1926. The money was borrowed over 40 years. Obviously, there has been a growing number of houses becoming debt-free, but on those same houses we are spending more today in trying to modernise them These matters must be kept in proper perspective.

  1443
  The implication of hon. Gentlemen's speeches seems to be that we must change the system. But what change? Are we to go back to a fixed subsidy rate? I am sure that the local authorities would not like it. Incidentally, I can tell my hon. Friend that we consulted the local authorities, and I can tell the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that we consulted the Scottish branch of the National Federation of Housing Societies, and they accepted their inclusion in Scotland along with the local authorities. There is no solution in going back. We are certainly prepared to embark, and we are pretty well embarked now, on the preliminary work of an examination of housing subsidies. One can never be sure one has the right answer in the face of the problem.
  We are delighted to have spelled out from the party opposite what its detailed proposals are. We should like to know how these fit in with the problem in Glasgow. The background to the Scottish Order is the same, and the rate is calculated on the same principles as in England and Wales. As required, I have consulted the recipient authorities, the local authorities, the new town corporations, the Scottish Special Housing Association and the Scottish branch of the National Federation of Housing Societies. They are content.
  The local authorities raised one point of substance which I shall explain, but let me first put on record the rates for Scotland in respect of housing completions in 1969–70. They are well above the rates prescribed last year for the 1968–69 completions. For local authorities and housing associations, the rate of 7·94 per cent. is 1·16 per cent. higher than last year's rate of 6·78 per cent. For new town development corporations, the rate of 8·15 per cent. is 1·09 per cent. higher than last year's 7·06 per cent. For the S.S.H.A., the rate of 7·52 per cent. is 0·92 up on last year's 6·6 per cent.
  I will not go into the precise calculation—the hon. Gentleman probably knows it as well as I do—but this time the Scottish local authority rate of 7·94 per cent. is marginally above the rate of 7·93 per cent. applicable in England and Wales. The marginal difference results entirely from the different amounts and timing of borrowing and implies no differ-
  1444
  ence of principle. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the change which we are making in the Housing (Scotland) Bill about the financial year and the resultant complications. On the whole, the local authorities are satisfied that this system is better than the one which they have been using.
  Is the percentage sufficient? There is this inbuilt guarantee as costs rise, and the local authorities are pleased with this. If local authorities are in urgent need, consideration is given to this in examination of individual cases. We have the urban programme and support is also given to those poorer authorities in the other grants and the rate support grant, which builds up towards full support. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North mentioned the problems of a particular area, but there are special subsidies. Ronan Point does not relate to new building and the Government have made an offer of 40 per cent. towards the cost of remedial works, but this is outside the scope of the Order.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the representative rate used in the calculation of the subsidy. It is what the Act requires, and the reasons are generally accepted. One is the administrative impracticability of trying to get the actual interest rate available for the year, which probably would not be relevant anyway in relation to the houses which are being completed in the year. There is more relevance in what we have been doing the preceding year. No-one has brought forward a practical alternative, and we have been open to suggestions.
  The hon. Member for Crosby asked whether the local authorities had been asked whether they had anything to say about the method of calculation. The method was agreed with them at the beginning and the details are agreed at the beginning of each year. On the question of Glasgow and of the indicative cost procedures slowing down the programme, this is something which was introduced earlier this year for the first time. If something new tends to be complicated, as here, there will tend to be a slowing down at the start.
  We are doing all that we can to help, and have told the corporation that we will help in individual cases, but cost planning is an essential part of the housing operations of any authority. With

  1445
  the kind of subsidy related to cost, which we are now paying, there must be some control on cost. This is why we have gone over to this system. It is in the interests of the taxpayer. It goes far beyond just keeping control of the level of subsidies. It is a process of considering the economics of development on particular sites. An example is a site in Glasgow. I do not want to instance one or two particular cases, but I have been fairly generous in respect of Glasgow's costs, when the hon. Gentleman might have asked us on other occasions why we allowed such costs to be supported by subsidy. We have to think of the taxpayer, the ratepayer and the actual needs.
  There was a discussion with Glasgow on the form of the subsidy. Glasgow has suggested that there should be a new form of pool subsidy based on a notional deficit on housing revenue accounts. It admitted it had not worked it out. We are always willing to listen to suggestions, and we are associated with the Ministry in a long-term look at the matter.
  Taking all in all and bearing in mind exactly what the position now is and what the position of local authorities under the Order is, with, for example, a subsidisable cost of £4,000 per house completed in 1969–70 the subsidy will be £144 8s. for local authorities, £152 8s. for the new towns and £128 for the S.S.H.A. Under the hon. Gentleman's system, at most it would have been £32 per house. He can imagine what would have happened if we reverted to that system. The houses would not have been built. If they had been, the rents would have been prohibitive and people who needed houses would not have been able to afford them or the rates would have been very much higher than they are. This demonstrates the advantage of the present system which gives an authority a subsidy which reflects building costs and costs of borrowing for building.
  I commend the Order, and am sorry if I have not been able to deal with all the points at fairly short notice.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) (Scotland) Order 1969 [draft laid before the House 11th July], approved.—[Mr. Ross.]

  SOUTH AFRICA (TRADE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]
  2.12 a.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: On 19th March I suggested in an oral Question to the President of the Board of Trade that our trade with South Africa was declining and that there was evidence to show that one of the causes was the Government's policy in refusing to allow the supply of defensive arms to the Republic of South Africa in accordance with the spirit of the Simonstown Agreement. The object of the Adjournment debate is to put forward evidence to substantiate this case and ascertain what action the Government will take.
  In his reply the President of the Board of Trade said that our exports to South Africa in 1968 were slightly more than in 1967. He denied my assertion that the refusal to sell arms had adversely affected our trade. He said:
  "The answer I gave shows clearly that in 1968, as against 1967, contrary to what has been constantly prophesied by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the British share of South African imports actually increased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 488.]
  The right hon. Gentleman was supported in that view by his hon. Friend end the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
  I had at that time in my possession figures for the British imports into South Africa showing that in 1967 they were £257·6 million or R.497 million and in 1968 they were £260·7 million, or R.449·5 million. The figures quoted in rands show clearly that our trade in 1968 was R47·5 million less than in the previous year, and the discrepancy was caused by the fact of British devaluation in November, 1967, which fact was conveniently omitted from the Board of Trade's reply.
  On 30th April, I again challenged the right hon. Gentleman on those figures. My challenge was taken up by my hon.

  1447
  Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). The President of the Board of Trade replied:
  "there was virtually no change in the value of our exports to South Africa between 1965 and 1968, or between the first quarters of 1968 and 1969."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 1427.]
  And he went on to say:
  "Our share of South African imports in 1968 was 24 per cent. This was less than in 1967, and not greater, as I inadvertently stated on 19th March."
  In other words, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the information he had given the House was wrong and that his castigation of myself and my hon. Friend on 19th March was unfounded. I note, however, that he did not apologise for this remark.
  Finally, on 18th June, in answer to a Written Question, the right hon. Gentleman stated that our exports to South Africa in 1968 were £261 million compared with £258 million in 1967. Again, he made no mention of devaluation, which clearly affects the picture. So much for the actual value of our exports to South Africa. What is perhaps of greater importance is the balance of our trade with South Africa and the position we occupy compared with other major industrial nations which supply the South African market.
  The position here shows a much more dangerous trend. South Africa had been Britain's second largest trading market, second only to the United States. At the end of 1968, she became our third market after the United States and Australia. Not only this, compared with 1964, British exports to South Africa fell from 29 per cent. of the market to 24 per cent. That is a drop in four years of 5 per cent. But, in the same four years, West Germany's exports there increased by 3 per cent. Japan's by 2 per cent. and Italy's by 1 per cent. I understand that the latest figures for the quarter ending last April show that South Africa has now fallen to ninth place and that the percentage of British exports to that country continues to fall.
  In addition, the balance of trade during 1968 has been in South Africa's favour to the tune of about £10 million, whereas, in most previous years, it was in Britain's favour. In 1965, we had a favourable trade balance of no less than
  1448
  £80 million with South Africa. I suggest that devaluation, which the people of this country was told would increase our trade with our overseas markets because it would make our goods comparatively cheaper, has, at least so far as South Africa is concerned, been a failure.
  I believe that the figures I have given cannot be challenged and that they show a picture of our trade with South Africa, which is a growing and vitally important market, indicating a downward trend—a trend which shows no sign at the moment of being reversed. It is of considerable importance to investigate why this should be so. The right hon. Gentleman, on 30th April, said:
  "The trend is broadly in line with our exports in overseas sterling area markets generally."
  It seems to me that this is a somewhat pessimistic statement and not very encouraging for the future of our economy.
  The right hon. Gentleman denies that this trend is in any way bound up with our decision to abrogate the spirit of the Simonstown Agreement and denying defensive arms to South Africa. He restated Government policy on 30th April:
  "Our policy … is to maintain the arms ban but, subject to that, to increase trade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 1427–8.]
  That, I believe, is the position today. I suggest that this policy is complete hypocrisy.
  If the Government believed that South Africa's policy was so outrageous that we should have nothing to do with South Africa. I would disagree but I would understand their attitude. But they do not say that. I understand their point of view is to say to South Africa, "We will not supply you with arms, even those that could not possibly be used for internal purposes, although we are jointly responsible for the defence of the Cape route; yet we expect you to bunker and restock our ships at your ports now that the Suez Canal is closed and to buy everything you possibly can from us. But we cannot trust you with arms for your self-defence.' This is the picture that has gone out to South Africa.
  I want to underline this by quoting a letter which I received from a man who is the chairman of a small company in

  1449
  South Africa. He is an English-speaking South African who should be sympaethetic to our cause, and he comes from Capetown. I sent this letter to the Board of Trade when I received it about a year ago. I should like to quote two paragraphs. I ought to explain first that it followed an exchange which I had with the then Minister of State, Board of Trade.
  One paragraph says:
  "I cannot but draw the conclusion that the latter is as abysmally ignorant as the rest of his Government on affairs in South Africa. The denial of arms to this country on grounds that are so patently stupid as not to merit comment is a factor that has created a dislike and contempt that will take years to overcome."
  He went on:
  "If the Minister has 'no indication that business has been lost' he must be extraordinarily ill-informed. Mine is not a large company, but I who bought 'only British', now stipulate that we buy only when we cannot obtain it elsewhere. The result shows a rough figure of plus or minus £100,000 over the last five years. My company is merely one of thousands spread over this country."
  The Government's excuse is that they must obey the orders of the United Nations. I suggest that this is merely an excuse because, on the one hand, the French, who are also members of the United Nations, supply arms to South Africa which were traditionally supplied by us and, on the other, the Government, quite rightly, refuse to accept United Nations demands about Gibraltar.
  There are certain items which fall between those which may be termed arms or military exports and normal commercial trade. Here, too, the Government's action prejudices certain British firms. I refer, first, to the supply of spare parts for certain civil aircraft for which, I understand, it takes a long time to obtain export licences from this country, so much so that the South Africans are now going to other European suppliers where they can obtain spare parts immediately.
  There is, secondly, the story, which I admit to be pure hearsay, that Her Majesty's Government have actively discouraged British shipbuilding firms from participating in a consortium based on Durban which will initiate the new South African shipbuilding industry on the ground that this company may receive orders from the South African Government for warships. I wonder whether
  1450
  the Parliamentary Secretary will deny that report. I raised it in a Question some time ago.
  I turn to the sale of arms themselves. It is estimated that over a five-year period the South Africans would be prepared to spend about £300 million in this country. They need anti-submarine frigates, they want the Seacat, maritime reconnaissance aircraft, the Nimrod; and they want surface-to-air guided missiles, and so on. Obviously, none of those could be used for internal purposes. They also wanted submarines, but they have ordered those from France.
  It is essential that the maritime defence forces of South Africa should be fully re-equipped as the Soviet navy extends its influence in the Indian Ocean. I believe that the time will come when Anglo-South African maritime forces will jointly operate from South African ports and so defend what has become the world's most important trade route, certainly the most important trade route in the western world.
  I want briefly to refer to three specific examples of lost orders. Some years ago, the Government prevented a follow-up order for South Africa of Buccaneer aircraft, which are made in my constituency. This caused serious alarm and a number of redundancies which were checked only when the Government, having cancelled the TSR2 and the F111, put through a follow-up order for Buccaneer aircraft for the R.A.F. Incidentally, I may tell the House that I tried to secure this order by the R.A.F. 10 years ago, when it would have made far more sense than it does today.
  Secondly, two years age, I asked the Government why they had refused an export licence for Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft to South Africa. I was told that no export licence had been asked for, which was true, but the Government know only too well that no foreign Government will place an order in this country, or officially ask for an export licence if it has been made clear to them that it would be refused; it would only be to invite an international snub.
  Thirdly, and perhaps most important because it is the most immediate, is the question of Jaguar aircraft. We are informed that the British Government have approached the French Government to prevent South Africa obtaining this new

  1451
  Anglo-French aircraft. This was confirmed by a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) not long ago. As the French Government have not accepted the Security Council's Resolution 191 of 1964, France is presumably entitled to supply these aircraft to South Africa. Does this, therefore, mean that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to embargo those parts of the Jaguar aircraft which are made in Britain? Otherwise, they seem to have got themselves into an impossible position. France is supplying all forms of arms to South Africa at the moment, and I have no doubt that they are perfectly willing, in fact would like, to supply Jaguar aircraft. Have the British Government made a recommendation, or are they trying to impose a veto? If so, on what grounds and on what authority?
  Already the Government's policy of not supplying arms to those countries with whose internal policy they do not agree, for example, South Africa, Spain, Portugal and now possibly Greece, has had disastrous effects on the British armaments industry, and has been one of the factors which has caused countries such as Australia, India and Pakistan to order their ships and aircraft from other countries when, in the past, we have been the traditional supplier.
  Aattempts to embargo British-made weapons for use in Vietnam have had a similar effect. When the British Government supplied a frigate to South Africa and then refused to supply ammunition, a precedent was created which is known all over the world and this gravely damages the future of the British armaments industry. Have the Government ever estimated the total value of lost British trade through these party political decisions?
  I would like to conclude with a tribute to organisations such as the United Kingdom South Africa Trade Association and the B.N.E.C. South Africa Export Committee for the excellent work they have done in spite of the difficulties created by the British Government.
  Only history will show the true cost of the Government's mistaken policies over South Africa, and the associated problems of Rhodesia and the Portuguese provinces. For example, the blockade
  1452
  of Beira, which the Royal Navy carries out apparently on behalf of the United Nations in an attempt to stop a country getting petrol, when petrol is as plentiful and considerably cheaper than it is in Britain, only makes us look rather ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
  The Government have closed their eyes and their mind to the widespread resentment which their policies are creating in a rapidly expanding area which is probably one of the most profitable in terms of trade and investment in the world today, an area where South African trade with independent African countries is increasing and where relations with these countries are improving.
  I know that it is too much to expect the Government to change their mind, but I hope that the people in South Africa will appreciate that the policy of the Government in the supply of defensive arms is a matter for the Government and not for the British people, and that it will be reversed at the next General Election when the Conservatives come to power.
  2.14 a.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for giving me a few moments in which to reply to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Government not supplying arms as being dirty work, as though it had never been done before, but if we take his logic to a conclusion it would mean that we should sell arms to Russia and missiles to Cuba, and go cap in hand to every country where there is political oppression, asking them to buy a few atomic warheads. The argument is not political, but moral, and concerns our basic values.
  As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned petrol in Southern Rhodesia, I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary why we should be trading at all with a country which, we know, supports a rebel régime in Southern Rhodesia, whose forces are in that country and which is helping to support a régime which is in rebellion against our liege lady the Queen.
  Secondly, I would like to know to what extent these figures would have been lower if there had not been such a leak in sanctions. How many cases like the

  1453
  South African breweries case, for example, exist?
  The hon. Gentleman tried to build up an artificial distinction between modern sea defensive weapons and weapons for use internally, but any weapons which we supplied would not only create a bad impression on the native population in Southern Rhodesia, but would bolster up a Fascist dictatorship of the worst kind. Any demonstration of strength that could result would be terrible.
  The régime there is a denial of everything that is sacred to our Western liberal and Christian civilisation. It denies individual dignity, that man is made in the image and likeness of God. It denies equality before the law, as recent events have shown. It denies equality of opportunity. It has been described as a "bastion of Christian civilisation". If that is the case, I suggest that we in this. House and in this country want no part in it. Individual dignity is there repressed. Racial discrimination is there practised.
  I would say this to the hon. Gentleman—he might care to ponder on it:
  "It is still an obstacle to collaboration among under-privileged nations and a cause of division and hatred within countries whenever individuals and families see the inviolable rights of the human person held in scorn, as they themselves are unjustly subjected to a régime of discrimination because of their race or their colour.
  We are deeply distressed by such a situation which is laden with threats for the future"
  That is from paragraphs 63 and 64 of "Populorum Progressio".
  I suggest that we in this House reject everything that the hon. Member has said. It is completely alien to all the traditions of our great country.
  2.32 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has waxed slightly synthetically indignant this morning, even given the rather unusual hour. He has dragged in as a witness from time to time things which he himself has begun by castigating as hearsay. He will understand that I have been long enough in politics never to confirm or deny something which he himself has raised as hearsay.
  1454
  Let us talk about the facts of trade with South Africa. South Africa has traditionally been one of our largest export markets, and it still is. Last year, she was the fourth largest market for British exports. The value of these exports has varied over the years but the trend has been upward. For the year 1963, our exports exceeded the £200 million mark for the first time. Continuing expansion led to record exports of over £261. million in 1965. In 1966, total South African imports were reduced and our own exports there fell short of the 1965 peak Nevertheless, 1966 was the second highest figure recorded up to that time.
  An advance on this figure was made in 1967, and in 1968 the sterling value of our exports was again over £260 million—only about £½ million below the 1965 record.
  Mr. Wall rose—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I must, with the hon. Gentleman's permission, point out that he has taken a considerable time in this Adjournment debate and that he must allow me to attempt to reply.
  So far, I have been talking about the sterling value of our exports, but we also have to study the size of our share in the South African market. The South African economy has been growing, as the hon. Member has said, and despite considerable variations from year to year, the long-term trend has been for total South African imports to increase. We would prefer Britain to have maintained or improved its share in this expanded trade but, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice has indicated, our share in the trade has been reduced.
  This is not a new development. In 1958, we held about 34 per cent. of the market. By the early 1960s our share had fallen to 29 to 30 per cent. This trend has continued in recent years and in 1968 our share was about 24 per cent. The amount of our trade continues to be large, as the figures which I have given show, but we now have a smaller share of a much larger total trade. In the face of increasingly severe competition we still supply more goods to South Africa than any of our competitors.
  The hon. Member for Haltemprice referred, also, to our imports from South Africa which increased from £220 million

  1455
  in 1967 to £271 million in 1968, and noted that the balance of trade in 1968 favoured South Africa. This was the first year in which the balance has not been in our favour. The hon. Member has made great play with a genuine mistake which my right hon. Friend made in giving an Answer to Questions. I would have thought that the hon. Member had been long enough in the House to have known that when a Minister is prepared, as my right hon. Friend was, to correct his own mistake later in the House, it would be a very self-confident Member of the House who would be prepared to say that in no circumstances would he, the hon. Member, ever have made a similar mistake.
  Mr. Wall: I did not say that.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Most of our imports from South Africa are raw materials for our industries, and food, although the largest single item is diamonds, which account for 35 per cent. of the total. The largest element in the 1968 increase in imports was a £20 million increase in diamond imports caused by higher prices arising from devaluation and increased demand. Our diamond imports are practically all re-exported after initial processing, and considerable sums are earned for Britain in this way. The increase in other imports is derived from devaluation and the maintained high demand for all imports. In the case of maize, there were increased South African supplies on the market.
  It is not essential that our trade with South Africa should balance, and in terms of balance it is our trade with all countries which is important. Food and raw materials have to be imported from one source or another. In any case, nearly all our large diamond imports are re-exported and, as I noted earlier, we have very considerable earnings from our direct investments in South Africa.
  There is no single reason for the change in our share in the market over the years. The hon. Member for Haltemprice has laid great stress on effects of the embargo on the supply of arms to South Africa, but the fall off in our share of the South African market was in train long before the embargo was introduced, and I do not agree that the embargo is a significant factor in this context. If
  1456
  I have time I should like to deal with that in detail later, but I would, first, like to draw attention to other factors.
  In the first place, other countries have developed their export trade. Competition in the South African market has become intense, and South Africa has diversified, to some extent, its sources of supply. Secondly, the emphasis of our own export trade has been shifting from the Sterling Area as a whole towards the industrial countries of Europe and the U.S.A. Thirdly, in 1968, our share in the market in terms of South African Rand was particularly affected by the change in the exchange rate arising from sterling devaluation.
  There is another factor. Besides being South Africa's largest supplier, Britain's investment in South Africa is larger than that of any other country. Many British companies have established manufacturing subsidiaries or other manufacturing interests in South Africa. This is a natural development in our long-standing relationship with South Africa, which has been further encouraged by South African measures designed to promote the development of local industry.
  Manufacture in South Africa by British companies often cuts out or changes the nature of exports from Britain, but our investment produces a return in invisible earnings. Net earnings from our direct investments in South Africa are around £60 million a year and South Africa is the second largest source of such earnings.
  Lastly, there is the question of the arms embargo upon which the hon. Member for Haltemprice has chosen to lay such great stress. I am sorry about this, because talking about the embargo and its supposed bad effects on our trade itself damages our trade. On the one hand, our exporters and potential exporters are deterred. On the other, in South Africa, where anything said about the embargo is always news, buyers can conclude that our embargo may extend or might be extended to the civilian field.
  The Government have given assurances that deliveries are not at risk, but this point, and the fact that most other Western countries apply the embargo is often discounted or overlooked. The arms embargo is not peculiar to the United Kingdom. Our embargo is in line with

  1457
  a resolution of the Security Council which is followed by the majority of the members of the United Nations, and it affects a specific and limited field.
  Obviously, the embargo is not liked in South Africa, but we have no reason to believe that South Africa wants the embargo to have effects on a wider area of trade. I am, of course, aware that there is some talk of non-military trade being lost over our arms embargo, but our inquiries have disclosed little hard evidence—as opposed to hearsay—of this. South Africa remains one of our largest customers and we continue to gain orders in both public and private sectors. We also continue to be the largest customer for South African exports.
  All the usual official services are available to help exporters to all parts of Africa. But competition is fierce and our exporters will need to exert effort. The Board of Trade have assisted over 130 British companies to participate in four trade fairs in South Africa in the last 15 months and are planning to give assistance for five exhibitions in the next
  1458
  12 months. The Board have also helped with special promotions of British goods in South African department stores. With the assistance of the Board of Trade, the British National Export Council sponsored 11 trade missions to South Africa in 1968. This year the number is likely to be 14.
  It has been suggested that our trade with South Africa should be curtailed. The Government are opposed to racial discrimination—as their record clearly testifies—but we do not believe that Britain should stop trading with countries because we disagree with the views of their Government. Our policy on South Africa has been made plain enough in the past and the Government have stated on a number of occasions that we do not intend to contemplate economic confrontation with South Africa.
  I do not think that the hon. Member has even begun to make out a case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Three o'clock, a.m.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Lower Grades (Salaries)
  Lower Grades (Salaries)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Zambia (Aid)
  Zambia (Aid)
  Youth Exchange Programmes
  Youth Exchange Programmes
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  St. Kitts-Anguilla (Postal Services)
  St. Kitts-Anguilla (Postal Services)
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency (Contributions)
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency (Contributions)
  N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact Countries (Security Conference)
  N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact Countries (Security Conference)
  Germany (De Jure Boundaries)
  Germany (De Jure Boundaries)
  Aircraft (Piracy)
  Aircraft (Piracy)
  Morocco (British Claims)
  Morocco (British Claims)
  Brussels (Labour Attachés)
  Brussels (Labour Attachés)
  Economic and Social Council (Volunteers for Development)
  Economic and Social Council (Volunteers for Development)
  South Africa (Trial, Windhoek)
  South Africa (Trial, Windhoek)
  The Yemen (Recognition)
  The Yemen (Recognition)
  Embassies and Missions (Scientific Attaches)
  Embassies and Missions (Scientific Attaches)
  European Security Conference
  European Security Conference
  Swaziland (Rhodesia Sanctions)
  Swaziland (Rhodesia Sanctions)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Natural Disasters, Caribbean (Joint Task Force)
  Natural Disasters, Caribbean (Joint Task Force)
  British Forces, West Germany (Support Costs)
  British Forces, West Germany (Support Costs)
  Minister's Visit to Brussels (Cost)
  Minister's Visit to Brussels (Cost)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Malta (Aid)
  Malta (Aid)
  Rural Development
  Rural Development
  Anti-Locust Measures
  Anti-Locust Measures
  Births, Hackney (Survey)
  Births, Hackney (Survey)
  Pension Schemes
  Pension Schemes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Planning (Scotland)
  Family Planning (Scotland)
  Births, Southwark (Survey)
  Births, Southwark (Survey)
  Loss of Earnings (Benefit Payments)
  Loss of Earnings (Benefit Payments)
  Invalid Tricycles
  Invalid Tricycles
  Births, Newham (Survey)
  Births, Newham (Survey)
HEALTH
  Transplant Surgery (Conclusions)
  Transplant Surgery (Conclusions)
  Medical and Dental Professions (Exchange Programmes)
  Medical and Dental Professions (Exchange Programmes)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Pharmaceutical Services (Price Regulation Scheme)
  Pharmaceutical Services (Price Regulation Scheme)
  Alcoholics
  Alcoholics
  Nurses' Uniforms
  Nurses' Uniforms
  Doctors' Dispensing Lists
  Doctors' Dispensing Lists
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
HOSPITALS
  Radiographers (Pay)
  Radiographers (Pay)
  Patients (Pocket Money)
  Patients (Pocket Money)
  Devonshire and Exeter (Provisions and Food Expenditure)
  Devonshire and Exeter (Provisions and Food Expenditure)
  Ophthalmic Opticians
  Ophthalmic Opticians
ROADS
  Traffic Congestion (Central London)
  Traffic Congestion (Central London)
  Chequers Corner (Dagenham)
  Chequers Corner (Dagenham)
  A38 Accidents (Wellington and Cullompton)
  A38 Accidents (Wellington and Cullompton)
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Trunk Roads (Width)
  Trunk Roads (Width)
TRANSPORT
  Traffic Advisory Committees (London)
  Traffic Advisory Committees (London)
  Drivers (Casualty Rates)
  Drivers (Casualty Rates)
  Taxation Departments (Scotland)
  Taxation Departments (Scotland)
  Street Lighting (Henley-on-Thames)
  Street Lighting (Henley-on-Thames)
  Bridge and Tunnel Projects (Grants)
  Bridge and Tunnel Projects (Grants)
  Air Terminal, Cromwell Road (Underground Link)
  Air Terminal, Cromwell Road (Underground Link)
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  British Railways (Theft and Vandalism)
  British Railways (Theft and Vandalism)
  Under-developed Railway Sites
  Under-developed Railway Sites
RAILWAYS
  Copper Wire (Thefts)
  Copper Wire (Thefts)
  Newport—Hereford—Shrewsbury Line
  Newport—Hereford—Shrewsbury Line
  Train Accident (Chester)
  Train Accident (Chester)
  Sleeping Car Accommodation
  Sleeping Car Accommodation
  Electrification
  Electrification
  Closures
  Closures
  Financial Losses
  Financial Losses
  Carriage Building
  Carriage Building
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Gipsy Council
  Gipsy Council
  Industrial Effluent (Disposal)
  Industrial Effluent (Disposal)
  Conservation Areas (Norfolk)
  Conservation Areas (Norfolk)
HOUSING
  Property, London (Unlawful Occupation)
  Property, London (Unlawful Occupation)
  Retford and District
  Retford and District
  Dwellings (Age)
  Dwellings (Age)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Property, London (Unlawful Occupation)
  Property, London (Unlawful Occupation)
  Aliens (Deportation)
  Aliens (Deportation)
  Child Care Service (Seebohm Report)
  Child Care Service (Seebohm Report)
  CIRCULAR (JULIAN PRESS)
  CIRCULAR (JULIAN PRESS)
  ALBERT FRANK PALMER (PROSECUTION)
  ALBERT FRANK PALMER (PROSECUTION)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cyclamates
  Cyclamates
  Wholemeal Flour
  Wholemeal Flour
  Farm Accidents
  Farm Accidents
  Pulp Mill, Northumberland (Timber Supplies)
  Pulp Mill, Northumberland (Timber Supplies)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Jobs (Scotland)
  Jobs (Scotland)
  Unofficial Strikes
  Unofficial Strikes
  Employment Exchanges
  Employment Exchanges
  Newport, Monmouthshire
  Newport, Monmouthshire
  Industrial Retraining Programmes (Cost)
  Industrial Retraining Programmes (Cost)
  England and Wales
  England and Wales
  Youth Exchange Programmes
  Youth Exchange Programmes
  Locomotive Workships, Inverurie
  Locomotive Workships, Inverurie
SCOTLAND
  Sugar Beet (Cupar)
  Sugar Beet (Cupar)
  Fish and Fishing Gear (Damage by Seals)
  Fish and Fishing Gear (Damage by Seals)
  School Building (Expenditure)
  School Building (Expenditure)
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Blackcurrant, Raspberry and Strawberry Plants (Uncertified Stocks)
  Blackcurrant, Raspberry and Strawberry Plants (Uncertified Stocks)
  Shooting Incident, Glasgow
  Shooting Incident, Glasgow
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Milk and Dairies Legislation
  Milk and Dairies Legislation
  Hospital Service (Ophthalmic Opticians)
  Hospital Service (Ophthalmic Opticians)
  Locomotive Works, Inverurie
  Locomotive Works, Inverurie
BOARD OF TRADE
  Inverurie
  Inverurie
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  World Exports
  World Exports
  Tourists (Overseas Expenditure)
  Tourists (Overseas Expenditure)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rhondda)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rhondda)
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  New Factory (Cumberland)
  New Factory (Cumberland)
AVIATION
  Aldergrove (Airport Hotel)
  Aldergrove (Airport Hotel)
  WOMEN'S NATIONAL COMMISSION
  WOMEN'S NATIONAL COMMISSION
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Police (Undress Uniform)
  Police (Undress Uniform)
  West Country Members (Weekend Rail Travel)
  West Country Members (Weekend Rail Travel)
  Terrace (Admission)
  Terrace (Admission)
  Official Report Staff
  Official Report Staff
  Staff Pay and Conditions (Representations)
  Staff Pay and Conditions (Representations)
  Members (Car Mileage Allowances)
  Members (Car Mileage Allowances)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Grey Areas
  Grey Areas
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Departmental Expenditure (Wales and England)
  Departmental Expenditure (Wales and England)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  National Museums (New Works and Improvements)
  National Museums (New Works and Improvements)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  University of Wales (Students)
  University of Wales (Students)
  Nursery Schools, Wales (Welsh Language)
  Nursery Schools, Wales (Welsh Language)
  School Accommodation
  School Accommodation
  Teacher Training (Wales)
  Teacher Training (Wales)
  School Building (Expenditure)
  School Building (Expenditure)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Spastics Society (Finance Act 1964)
  Spastics Society (Finance Act 1964)
  Procurement
  Procurement
  Investment Returns
  Investment Returns
  Retail Prices
  Retail Prices
  Printing (Stationery Office Expenditure)
  Printing (Stationery Office Expenditure)
POST OFFICE
  Charges
  Charges
  Procurement
  Procurement
  Contracts Directorate
  Contracts Directorate
  Inland Post Regulations, 1968
  Inland Post Regulations, 1968
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  London-Tangier Route
  London-Tangier Route
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Coal (Share of Energy Market)
  Coal (Share of Energy Market)
  Coal (Scotland)
  Coal (Scotland)
  Transmission Towers (Collapses)
  Transmission Towers (Collapses)
  Natural Gas (Scotland)
  Natural Gas (Scotland)
  Scottish Coast (Mineral Oil)
  Scottish Coast (Mineral Oil)
  Steel Demand
  Steel Demand
COAL
  Welsh Collieries (Closures)
  Welsh Collieries (Closures)
TECHNOLOGY
  Departmental Expenditure (Wales and England)
  Departmental Expenditure (Wales and England)
  Water Pollution Research Laboratory
  Water Pollution Research Laboratory
  River Pollution (Detergents)
  River Pollution (Detergents)
  Procurement Policies and Staff
  Procurement Policies and Staff
WALES
  Welsh Office (Newspaper Advertising)
  Welsh Office (Newspaper Advertising)
  Migration
  Migration
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Central Wales Line (Future)
  Central Wales Line (Future)
  Dwelling Houses (Age)
  Dwelling Houses (Age)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Major Roads (Mileage)
  Major Roads (Mileage)
  Trunk Roads (Width)
  Trunk Roads (Width)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Chairman of Committees on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

UNITED NATIONS AND SPACE PROJECTS
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Security Council of the United Nations have considered proposals for the sharing of projects for the exploration of space.]
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Chalfont): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships' House would not wish me to miss the opportunity presented by my noble friend's very topical Question to add our congratulations to those already offered to the Government of the United States and to the three American space explorers.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord CHALFONT: This is a magnificent project on which they are now engaged and which so far has been attended by such spectacular success.
In direct reply to my noble friend's Question, no such proposals for the exploration of outer space have been made or considered in the Security Council. The First Committee of the General Assembly and the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space have discussed ways of encouraging collaboration in the scientific investigation and exploitation by unmanned spacecraft of outer space.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his Answer. While some of us have doubts about human priorities, may I ask whether my noble friend recognises that
650
all of us are deeply moved by the achievement of this morning? It is not so much historic as opening an entirely new era in history. In view of! this, cannot the opportunity be taken, through the United Nations, to accept the principle that air space should be a sphere shared by the world, with recognition of the rights of any people eventually found there, or any life that is eventually found there, in order to avoid Great Power rivalry, and the danger of the use of space for military purposes?
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I find myself in great sympathy with the implication of my noble friend's question. As I have suggested, there is already a very high degree of international co-operation in the exploration of outer space, so far only by unmanned space craft. Joint projects for the manned exploration are in principle highly desirable, and we believe, as my noble friend obviously does, that this should be a co-operative rather than a competitive enterprise.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question? Is there not encouragement in the statement of Mr. Brezhnev in Soviet Russia this morning congratulating America, and in the statement made in Moscow by Colonel Borman, the United States aeronaut, that he wanted to see laboratories orbiting with scientists from different countries working together?
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, any sign from any direction of a realisation that this ought to be a matter for international co-operation is, of course, welcome to us, and any move that is made by either side in this affair is also welcome. I would point out that manned exploration of space is still restricted to the two great super Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and I hope that they, too, will realise that it is co-operation and not competition we shoul all like to see in this sphere.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether international co-operation extends to telling us what Lunar 15 is doing at the present moment?
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, we have no direct information about the activities of Lunar 15, although we have had some indirect evidence supplied to

651
us. There was a very encouraging sign at one of the crucial stages in this operation when the Soviet Union made it clear that there was no danger to Apollo 11 from Lunar 15.

OVERCROWDING IN MENTAL HOSPITALS
2.41 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the serious overcrowding of beds in the wards of many of our mental hospitals; and whether they have any proposals to remedy this situation.]
The MINISTER of STATE. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Baroness Serota): My Lords, improved methods of treatment have significantly reduced the number of hospital beds occupied by the mentally ill: nevertheless, higher survival rates among the handicapped and increased life expectancy have placed a strain on the hospital services, and overcrowding is still a problem in many areas, particularly the subnormality hospitals.
With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, we are vigorously pressing two lines of development to remedy the present situation. One of these is to emphasise the importance of early assessment and rehabilitation and to expand as quickly as possible the provision of general hospital psychiatric units, day hospitals, hostels and facilities for support within the community, all of which can reduce the need for in-patient admission, or lead to earlier discharge. The other is to give higher priority to measures, including the provision of more space both in the wards and other areas used by patients, designed specifically to raise the standard of amenity and the quality of life for long-stay patients.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she accepts that the staffs of these hospitals do a splendid job in very difficult circumstances? Secondly, may I ask her
652
whether she is aware of the acute shortage of locker space in many of these hospitals? Furthermore, would the noble Baroness agree that the provision of lockers is of enormous therapeutic advantage, particularly to those who are not completely mentally subnormal? At the moment, many of them lack this amenity.
Baroness SEROTA: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity of publicly paying tribute to the work of the staff of our mental hospitals, often in very difficult and admittedly overcrowded situations. I would also agree with the need to provide all patients with a place where they can keep their own private possessions.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, would not another way of reducing the number of people in the beds in the wards of our mental hospitals be to increase the amount that we spend on research into mental retardation?
Baroness SEROTA: My Lords, any advances in our knowledge in this field are bound to improve the services we can provide.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that this grave overcrowding in our mental hospitals not only is opposed to the best interests of the patients, but causes serious dissatisfaction among the nurses, who are in very short supply; and that therefore this is a vicious circle which should have immediate attention?
Baroness SEROTA: My Lords, that is the very reason why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I are at present engaged in active discussions with the chairmen of Regional Boards throughout the country to see whether we can find ways and means of breaking what the noble Baroness has referred to as "a vicious circle".
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, could my noble friend possibly consider revising the period of training of nurses in general hospitals so that they can spend a longer period of training in mental hospitals?
Baroness SEROTA: My Lords, I think that that question is a little wide of the Question the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, originally put down.

CIVIL SERVICE COLLEGE
2.45 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To asked Her Majesty's Government what progress they have to report on the accommodation of the Civil Service College recommended in the Fulton Report.]
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shackleton): My Lords, my noble friend will know that the Civil Service College will be taking over non-residential accommodation in London and the residential centre at Sunningdale Park at present used for central Civil Service training. We have now decided that the third centre needed by the College will be in Edinburgh, and it is hoped that accommodation in Atholl Crescent and some nearby property will be available for use by the autumn of 1970.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether any consideration was given to any other part of this country for the out-of-London location, and of course to Wales in particular, of which I am specially thinking?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, we gave, and I particularly gave, most anxious consideration to this matter. We sought information, through my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, about suitable premises in all parts of the United Kingdom outside the Home Counties and in the Midlands. We inspected several properties before a decision was reached. But I personally have no doubt that Edinburgh is in fact the ideal location for this particular College.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is no question about that? While expressing my gratification, may I ask whether he can tell me how many people we may expect to accommodate and properly educate in Edinburgh?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am glad to have support from my noble friend. Edinburgh meets all the basic requirements—good communications; ready access to a university or technical colleges; strongly developing industry, particularly in the field of electronics, in the neighbourhood, and of course the proximity of the Scottish Ministries in Edinburgh. My noble friend asked me how many people we expect to accommodate. When the third centre is fully developed, we hope to have about 300 students under training at a tune on a variety of courses and seminars, and there will be a full-time cadre of academics and civil servants apart from the use of part-time teachers. It is a little difficult to estimate their number accurately, but it will probably be about 150 to 200.
The Earl of PERTH: My lords, would it be in order to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on the choice of Edinburgh, both from the point of view that many civil servants are found from Scotland, and, perhaps at least as important, from the point of view; hat it ensures the preservation of an important part of Edinburgh; namely, Atholl Crescent and the New Town?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, let me hasten to interrupt the noble Earl to tell him that he will not be in order, but his remarks are none the less very acceptable.

CALDERDALE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments: a Special Report to be made and to be printed.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment;, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL
2.49 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name. The House will see that I am asking for agreement to two, I fear, rather long Resolutions standing in my name on the Order Paper, one relating to this Bill and the other to the Calerdale Water Bill. The purpose of these Resolutions is to enable these Bills to continue their progress through Parliament in the next Session. It is in no way the fault of the Promoters that the Bills have not been through both Houses before the end of this Session. I am therefore asking the House to agree to allow this Bill to be carried over into the next Session. I shall formally move the same Motion in connection with the Calderdale Water Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid:
That, if the Bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session:
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

CALDERDALE WATER BILL [H.L.]
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, the remarks I have already made in connection with the previous Bill apply equally in this case. I would therefore ask the House to agree to this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL
2.52 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Stonham): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Suspension of redistributions till next general reports of Boundary Commissions, and acceleration of those reports]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 1 I think I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("no") in line 6.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in the names of the Leader of the Conservative Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Opposition and two noble Lords who sit on the Cross Benches. In fact all the Amendments in their joint names on the Marshalled List are linked together and it may be to your Lordships' convenience if they are all considered together. It may seem a far cry from the magnificent achievement of the American people in landing men on the Moon to the discussion of these constitutional matters here this afternoon, but what the Americans have done on the Moon is no more important to American history than the creation and maintenance of a fair and just democratic system of Parliamentary elections is to British history, and it is that which the outcome of our deliberations to-day is going to affect.
It became clearer and clearer as the Second Reading debate on this Bill went on that so far as your Lordships' House was concerned there was only one issue
658
at stake: that is whether the rules relating to the holding of fair Parliamentary elections, which have been agreed to by all Parties, may be broken unilaterally by one Party. In last Thursday's debate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge put his finger right on this spot, whereupon the noble Lord the Leader of the House rose and challenged him. It is the point at issue, even if members of the governing Party fail to see the significance of what they have done. These linked Amendments are designed to give the Government another opportunity to comply with the rules.
It. may be asked whether the simplest way of doing that would not have been to move Amendments writing into the Bill all the detailed recommendations of the four independent and impartial Boundary Commissions. The reason against attempting that is that it would involve eliminating every part of the present Bill and writing an entirely fresh one, and that might indeed have been described as destroying the Bill. The effect of the Amendments now before the Committee is not to destroy the Bill but to give it a flexibility where it is at present inflexible; to afford time to the Government to consider their policy further in the light of the almost universal criticism of that policy, and thus to bring it into accord again with the rules for holding the next General Election on a fair and just basis. And, last but not least, to indemnify the Home Secretary meanwhile, where at present he is thought by many people to be in breach of the law.
Amendments 1 and 3 and the first part of Amendment 4 restore flexibility to Clause 1 in the following way. The Bill as introduced suspends action completely and for all time on the recommendations which the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales have recently submitted for restoring fairness to Parliamentary constituencies where population movements over the last 15 years have made Parliamentary boundaries unfair and unsatisfactory, as they now are. The Amendments make this suspension last only to the end of the present Session of Parliament. From the beginning of next Session up to the end of March, 1970, they give the Home Secretary a renewed opportunity to do his duty under the 1949 Act and to lay draft Orders in Council before both Houses of Parliament, giving

659
effect to the recommendations of the impartial Boundary Commissions, with such modifications, if he wishes, as the law allows. The date of March 31, 1970, is chosen because that is the date already inserted by the Government in Clause 1 of the Bill as the date by which the Secretaries of State must lay draft Orders in Council to implement the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.
In other words, whereas the Bill gives the Secretaries of State authority up to March 31 to lay draft Orders before both Houses, reorganising constituencies in Scotland and Northern Ireland on a fair and just basis in line with what the Boundary Commissions for those countries have recommended as fair and just, the Amendments will authorise and require the Secretaries of State to do this for England and Wales as well as for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. This makes the Bill comprehensive whereas at present it is selective.
The first two subsections of Clause 1 as amended will then read as follows:
"No proceedings shall be taken under the Redistribution of Seats Act in the present Session of Parliament in consequence of the Reports submitted by the Boundary Commissions under section 2 (1) of that Act in the year 1969.
"Subject to subsection (1) above the Secretary of State, on or before 31st March 1970, shall, in respect of each report of a Boundary Commission submitted under section 2 (1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969, lay before Parliament the draft Order in Council required by section 2 (5) of that Act."
But the Amendments go further than the Bill, in that they also indemnify the Home Secretary against being found to be in breach of the law meanwhile. That seems fair. The Bill as introduced gives him no protection. I suppose the Home Secretary thought it might be rather odd if he introduced a Bill that included a provision indemnifying himself against any penalties he might have incurred through being in breach of the law. The remaining subsections of Amendment No. 4 fill up this gap and protect him against actions at law, provided that by the end of March he complies with the law.
The remaining Amendments are consequential. If Clause 1 is amended as is suggested here, Clause 2 and Schedule 1 will no longer be needed. Clause 2
660
appears in the Bill only because Clause 1 as originally drafted would destroy the power to carry out by Order in Council the reorganisation of Greater London constituencies in accord with the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions. Clause 1, as amended, restores that power, so Clause 2 becomes superfluous. I may add, in passing, that the next Greater London Council Elections ! are not due until April, 1970, so action can be taken under Clause 1, as amended, to bring the new Greater London constituency system into being in good time for that.
Clause 3 and Schedule 2 likewise become superfluous. That really calls for consequential Amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 4 to leave out a reference to Clause 3 there. But as that subsection is concerned with money, even a drafting change in it might be taken as a breach of Commons privilege, so it seems best to leave the necessary consequential Amendment to Clause 4 to be made in another place. Clause 3 and Schedule 2 become superfluous because they deal with nine selected constituencies, but the Boundary Commission for England made its recommendations not only for those nine constituencies but for a great many other excessively large constituencies also.
The Amendments to Clause 1 will render it possible for the Home Secretary to deal with the whole problem on the lines of the Commission's Report, instead of with only a little bit of it, as Clause 3 would do. I would remind the Committee that under the Bill as it stands—that is, as the Government propose—Wokingham with 99, 000 electors will return one Member to the next Parliament, and the Exchange Division of Manchester with 18, 000 electors will likewise return one Member. This exemplifies the unfairness which the Boundary Commission said ought to be corrected and which acceptance of these Amendments will correct. They still preserve power to the Government to do for England and Wales what the Government are already taking power to do for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also will preserve the statutory right of the Government to modify the Boundary Commission's recommendations in some respects provided they give effect to those recommendations generally.

661
As I said, the one issue on this Bill, so far as your Lordships are concerned, is the matter of upholding the rules which have been agreed to by all Parties for securing that Parliamentary elections are fair. The law sets up independent and impartial Boundary Commissions which must report comprehensively at least every 15 years. And the law goes on to say this—I quote subsection (5) of Section 2 of the 1949 Act:
"As soon as may be after a Boundary Commission have submitted a report to 'the Secretary of State under this Act, he shall lay the report before Parliament together … with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report."
In this case the Secretaries of State presented the Boundary Commissions' Reports to Parliament but did not lay them together with draft Orders in Council to give effect to them, as the 1949 Act, which I have just read out, requires. The Attorney General has sought to argue that the law has not been broken because the Secretaries of State, he says, have not yet laid the Reports before Parliament under the 1949 Act. He explains that they have simply presented to Parliament Blue Books recording verbatim what the Boundary Commissions have reported. He says these are not the Reports referred to in the 1949 Act and therefore he argues that the Secretaries of State are not in breach of their statutory duty through not having laid them together with draft Orders in Council to give effect to them.
I do not know what your Lordships will, each of you, think of that argument, but even if it is valid it does not dispose of the requirement under the 1949 Act which I read out: that the Reports of the Boundary Commissioners, together with the Government's draft Orders in Council giving effect to them must be laid as soon as may be. Those are the words in the Act—"as soon as may be". I find it extraordinarily hard to give the words "as soon as may be" such a stretched out interpretation as to condone the Government's having taken no action yet to comply with that section of the 1949 Act.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House may still maintain that there has been no breach and that the Home Secretary has to be treated as not in breach
662
of the Act unless and until a court finds otherwise. Many of your Lordships probably feel, in a great constitutional matter such as this, that it is no less important to comply with the spirit of the law than with the letter of it. It is the all-Party understanding which has lasted for 25 years now, ever since the all-Party Speakers' Conference of 1944, that the Government has now unilaterally breached, saying, as the Government do, that the next General Election is to be conducted on a constituency system which the impartial Boundary Commissions have found to be full of anomalies and unfairness. I do not think the British public approves of one side breaking the rules that have been agreed by all sides, and if your Lordships, by passing these Amendments, restore the rules, I believe the British public will say the House of Lords is right. I beg to move.
3.7 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for a lucid explanation of the Amendments which are before your Lordships, and I do not propose to speak at any length on them, but I have taken the unusual step of adding my name to the Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the two noble Lords on the Cross Benches, Lord Tangley, and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, because I want to make it clear publicly that we on this Bench regard this not as a Party matter but as one which affects the Upper Chamber as a whole. And I want to appeal to the Government to think again. I am quite sure, if they do give it the serious thought which this matter of principle requires, that they will see the strength of the case and the strength of the feeling on this side of the House and among many Cross Benchers, and I believe among many Members behind the Government, who, although they may go into the Lobby in support, will do so with very uneasy consciences.
There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, an obligation on the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament the relevant draft Orders in Council as soon as may be to implement the findings of an independent Boundary Commission, and it must surely be—and I have always understood it to be—a convention of Parliament that the findings of such

663
an independent Commission, by which a fair representation of the electorate is to be achieved, are accepted, or at least are not varied unilaterally without an allParty discussion. Whatever the Government may feel about the propriety of bringing forward this Bill, no matter how strongly they may protest that they are not seeking Party advantage, there is a strong feeling in the country that the Labour Party stands to gain by pursuing this Bill and would stand to lose if the proposals were implemented in full. This is largely due to the built-in bias in country districts in favour of the Conservative Party. The one way to get over that, as I said on Second Reading, is to have a fairer method of representation. Nevertheless, this has come out of the Boundary Commissions from four years' effort, sticking to the rules that have been agreed. These are the proposals they make, and they are not, in my view, lightly to be put aside unilaterally by any one Party because it happens to be the Government of the day.
Certainly the argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this is the sort of thing which the Tories would do if they were in Government reduces the argument from one of principle to one of Party advantage. I will not, unless I am challenged, quote the phrases used by the noble Earl and the noble Lord; nevertheless I think that that is the implication of what they say.
If the Government could show that the new local government boundaries would be implemented and the new authorities would be working by, say, 1972, there might be some strength in the argument that a short delay was justified. That might be the sort of thing which in an all-Party discussion one could agree to; but, again, that would be a variation of the principle of accepting the findings of an independent tribunal or varying them unilaterally, and in the light of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the chance of having new local government authorities by 1972 seems to me totally impossible. I do not know what the Government are going to say about the possibility which was alluded to by the Leader of the House, of fixing a time limit for the Boundary Commission to start work, but the more I have thought about it the more I think it will be re-
664
garded as an empty gesture, because the Boundary Commission cannot complete their work until several years after the local authorities have been set up, no matter when they start. Therefore, I should like to hear what the Government have to say on this point.
Finally, it will be said once again that this House must not use the in-built Tory majority to thwart the will of the democratically elected Chamber. I subscribe to that view. I was one of those who helped to devise the means to rid this House of the in-built Tory hereditary vote. But what happened? The Prime Minister would not let us do it. He preferred to leave things as they were so that he would have sufficient time to explain to the Commons his reasons for not introducing the Industrial Relations Bill. The Government cannot blame me if they are defeated by the votes of Conservative, Liberal and Cross-Bench Peers, of whom some will inevitably be just as hereditary as the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I am not responsible. We who are sitting on these Benches are not responsible for the reactionary decision to abandon Lords Reform. Moreover, if we were not talking in a reformed House, I would plead with the Cross-Bench voting Peers to amend this Bill, or to delay this Bill or to throw it out as a warning to any Government not to tamper with the conventions of Parliament and not to appear to be seeking Party advantage.
Even if this Government are convinced that they are taking unitateral action from the most saintly motives, it would be right for us to point out that that is not the universal feeling in the country and that this is the only House which can prevent action of this sort which, to the public, looks like a lowering of the standards of political life. Like justice, fair play in politics must be seen to be done.
I want to add only one thing in regard to my own Amendment. I do not propose to move this on the Committee stage, but I wanted to get it on the Marshalled List because, if we get no satisfaction from these Amendments in Committee, then I propose to move it on Report. It will then be for the Commons to accept or to reject it. If they reject my Amendment, which I will move on the Report stage if these Amendments are rejected, then I shall invite the House to insist upon my Amendment to impose

665
the delay which, under the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, was regarded as being reasonable and fair. I give my support to these Amendments.
3.14 p.m.
Lord TANGLEY: For the first time in my life I have added my name to an Amendment tabled by the Tory Party. I doubt whether this is ever likely to happen again. I have done it under a sense of necessity, and I believe that I can best help your Lordships by saying why I felt I had to do it. I need hardly say that I speak only for myself. I am not acting in concert with any of the other noble Lords who sit on these Benches, nor with either of the Opposition Parties. But I have a strong intuition that what I am about to say may accord with the secret thoughts of many noble Lords whatever Benches they may occupy.
Let me at once clear up one point. I do not believe that the origin of this Bill is an attempt by the Labour Party to gain or to retain some electoral advantage. Had that been so, there must surely have been some less controversial way of doing it. Nor do I believe that one can predict with any certainty the political consequences of some change of boundaries. Your Lordships may remember that I was Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London. The subsequent Bill was based on our Report. Many of your Lordships will recall the prolonged debate on that Bill. I suppose I must accept responsibility for more loss of your Lordships' sleep than any one man in living memory, I expect that record to stand until it is broken by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud.
During those debates some Labour Peers pilloried me and my colleagues as "Tory stooges". It was said that we had recommended the abolition of the London County Council and the creation of the Greater London Council in order to secure control of London government for the Tories. What happened? Labour won the first election. That was nice for me, because many of my critics seemed to think from then on that I was not such a bad chap after all. So much for. the fallibility of political soothsayers. No, my Lords: my guess is that the origin of this Bill was a bit of administrative tidy-mindedness. What is so sad is that
666
out of it has developed the present situation in which we find ourselves That situation is something that no one wants, that no one likes. If I may respectfully say so, the Government speakers in the Second Reading debate did their duty, if not with active dislike at least with a noticeable lack of relish. I should have been most surprised had it been otherwise.
The trouble is that the consequences of this Bill, unless it is amended, transcend any question of administrative convenience. They are something alien to the Constitution. They are something alien to the whole spirit of our national life. They run contrary to our history. They are a denial of the true basis of our political life. If we accept them we shall be untrue to ourselves. We shall be untrue to the genius of our people. That genius has made us a great and powerful nation, which we still are. It has made us also a self-governing nation, capable of withstanding the grievous stresses, internal and external, that have come upon us during the centuries without breaking our fundamental unity.
Let us not forget that this precious heritage is not the work of a moment, though it could be irreparably damaged in a moment. It is the work of many generations of our people of high estate and low. We have had the incomparable privilege of over 900 years freedom from invasion in which to work out our ways of living together in unity and in peace. We have had over 900 years in which to develop those laws and political institutions which are the outward and visible framework of our inward unity. The process has never stopped. It has rarely degenerated into violence; it is alive and it is at work to-day. This; continuing society is in the very fibre of our beings; it has made us what we are. Ought we not also to remember that our law and our political institutions are not something imposed on our life from above or from without? They are, on the contrary, reflections of our life in common. They grow out of it.
Most of our relationships are still governed by the common law, never written down, never finished and complete, always developing to meet new situations. What does the common law require of us? That we should act in a responsible, reasonable and neighbourly fashion. These tests are not imposed upon society.

667
They presume, they presuppose an existing society which is mature and selfreliant.
Is not the same thing true of our political institutions, and particularly of Parliaments? Long before Parliaments became a living force our people had learnt the essential arts, and the necessary procedures of public life in the world of local government. I suppose that it was in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I that Parliament first began to be a real force and to organise themselves accordingly. The fascination, for me, of Sir John Neal's books on those Elizabethan Parliaments is the way he shows how our Parliamentary procedures were shaped by men who had learned public life already, in their parishes, their counties and their boroughs. So equipped, the Stuart Parliaments entered on their great struggle with the Crown. Which is the supreme power, Crown or Parliament? The revolution of 1688 settled the question in favour of Parliament.
But almost immediately, and certainly inevitably, another great question arose: to whom are Ministers—the Executive—responsible, the Crown or Parliament; and, in consequence, who should effectively appoint them? This was the great argument of Queen Anne's day; the day of Godolphin and Marlborough, of Harley and St. John; the day of the great pamphleteers, Swift and Defoe. The great trouble in people's minds was: if Ministers were responsible to, and in effect appointed by, Parliament, was the country not being delivered into the hands of factions?
Lord MITCHISON: I wonder if the noble Lord would allow me to ask him one question. Does he or does he not think that a Parliament can bind a succeeding Parliament as to matters for its consideration?
Lord TANGLEY: I am not considering what Parliament can do; I am leading to what it ought to do. This was the great argument, of course, and it was the theme of Bolingbroke's Patriot King.
In true English fashion, the question has never been formally answered. But from the days of George I and Walpole a practical working arrangement has evolved. The Crown can only appoint Ministers who can command a majority
668
in the House of Commons. Party Government has arrived. The next Ministers will be those of the Party winning the next General Election. Power ultimately resides with the electorate, which now means virtually the whole population. There are the sources of power. The sources of power must be kept open and clean. How is that to be done? These sources would be choked or contaminated if any Party carried measures prolonging the life of a Parliament, or restricting the franchise, or altering electoral boundaries with intent to gain a Party political advantage—or even if they gave the impression of doing any such thing. Your Lordships' House, not having to rely on suffrage, has a particular duty to watch over the interests of the electorate; to keep the sources of power open and clean.
Conventions on these matters have grown up. Without them the Party system, which is the life-blood of politics, could not continue. Push Party too far and the whole system would break down. What we should put in its place, I do not know. While constituencies remained stable, while the franchise was limited, while the population was not very mobile, the conventions worked without too much stress. But these conditions have all disappeared, and the appointments of the Boundary Commissions were a necessary safeguard in these changed conditions and circumstances. They partially filled the constitutional gap that has existed ever since Walpole's day. They have removed from Parties temptations which in these times might prove too great. But the conventions remain. Even after a Boundary Commission has reported, inter-Party consultations should go on. The Boundary Commissions have reported; changes are needed. But for reasons of administrative convenience the Government, by this Bill, seek to alter the law. The great question in my mind is, "Have the Government, in this Bill unamended, crossed a line that no Party ought to cross?". My answer is, "Yes, they have". And the Bill, therefore, must be amended.
I have been at pains to show why, in my judgment, the Bill must be amended. It is vital to our political institutions that this particular line should never be crossed by any Party. I support the Amendment

669
because it gives time and opportunity for the Parties to return to their traditional ways of moderation and consultation. I ask no more than that. I would support any other Amendment, or any revision of these Amendments, that would reach the same end. May I end by appealing to the Government to accept this Amendment, or something like it. It offers them an honourable way out of an intolerable situation. It offers your Lordships' House a constructive way of doing its duty towards the electorate. Above all, it offers a chance to show to a growingly cynical population that their Parliamentary institutions can, and do. rise above the interests of faction.
3.27 p.m.
Lord STONHAM: I hope it will meet your Lordships' convenience if I speak fairly early in the debate to present the Government's point of view, leaving my noble friend Lord Shackleton to speak towards the close of the debate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his interesting discourse on our political institutions and our traditional ways. I am bound to say, however, that I found his remarks rather strange in this Chamber, because it must be within the recollection of almost everyone that for some 70 years since 1867 all the political liberties and freedoms of the people of this country were won by Liberal and Labour Governments in the very teeth of the Opposition of the overwhelming non-elected Conservative majorities in this House. This, in part, is what the discussion is about to-day.
Several Noble Lords: No.
Lord STONHAM: If it is not in part, how is it that a noble Lord who is one of the fathers of the Amendments that we are considering has devoted so much of his time to it? Essentially it is so. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, for saying that the Labour Government did not do what we have done with any idea of Party advantage. That is the case. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that he does not regard this as a Party matter; and I welcome that statement, too. But noble Lords will concede that until this Bill came to your Lordships' House last Thursday the Government had been attacked on the most vicious Party basis, and the most in-
670
famous accusations of political fraud and skulduggery had been thrown at them. It was not until this matter came to your Lordships' House that the accusations of fraud were dropped, and the matter was discussed and debated in a manner which is worthy of a British House of Parliament.
I am very glad that this important question is to be considered by such a very full Committee. We do not often, in Committees of your Lordships' House, see noble Lords sitting in the gangways or congregated at the Mar, and it is nice to see so many new faces opposite This is particularly encouraging, because there is a legend that the Conservatives once sent down a three-line Whip and many noble Lords hurried from their fastnesses, listened carefully to the arguments and, misunderstanding what they had been sent for, voted against their Part>. Of course, I am hoping that history will repeat itself, because, despite the very careful manner of its presentation, the customary lucidity of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, his obvious and permanent sincerity and the respectable fatherhood of the proposal, I am bound to say that the totality of what has been put before us by the noble Lord is not an Amendment but a Parliamentary abortion which no noble Lord conscious of his public duty, can support.
Your Lordships will observe that although the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that it was not the intention to destroy the Bill, if these Amendments are carried there will be nothing left of the Bill which you approved last Thursday, only two Parliamentary days ago, except three lines of Clause 1, Clause 4 and part of the Title of the Bill. Your Lordships could hardly have more complete destruction than that. As to adding flexibility, what flexibility would be left in the shreds with which noble Lords propose to leave us? In fact, we are being asked to approve to-day a completely new Bill, entirely different in principle from the Bill which we approved in principle only two Parliamentary days ago.
This, so far as I know, is entirely without precedent and it creates a serious situation. This House has a long history and has, I hope and believe, a long life ahead of it. But of what worth would our future discussions be if we committed such utterly irresponsible acts as this? It

671
is true that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, whom I regret I cannot see in his accustomed place today, was characteristically frank in his speech last Thursday.
"So long"—
he said—
"as it is understood that it still remains our unalterable purpose to prevent this Bill passing into law, I do not personally care very much what method is used for that purpose."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 500.]
I do care. If your Lordships' House totally disagrees with the principle of a Bill, the Committee stage is not the place to express that total disagreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, is one of the sponsors of these Amendments, and on Second Reading, with a soldier's bluntness, he said:
"If there were to be a vote on the Second Reading of this Bill, I would walk into the Lobby against the Government on it; and, as to the consequences—be damned to them!"—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 495.]
Your Lordships did not follow that honest advice. You lacked the courage to do the straight thing, and are now trying the back door. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, the maintenance of a fair and democratic representation is at stake, then why did the noble Lord and other noble Lords opposite stay silent when the Question was put? That is a very important matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said on Second Reading that he was concerned to protect the public image of Parliament. But back-door tactics will do the exact opposite. They are a device, and one that we may rue in the years ahead. I ask noble Lords in this House: do they, or do they not, consider themselves bound by the decision which they took last Thursday, that the Bill should, in principle, be accepted? These are not Amendments. They constitute a new Bill—a Bill which an unelected majority is being asked to force on this Parliament, without time or opportunity for proper consideration.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, was of course a very interesting Second Reading speech. But we are supposed to be in a Committee stage, where we look at the details of Amendments, and the principles which we are to consider should be dealt with on
672
Second Reading. I regard this as the fundamental question which noble Lords must answer to-day. Now for some consideration of the clauses in what I regard as this new Bill.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? I effectively refuted the whole of the last five minutes of his speech, in my Second Reading speech explaining why it would be a mistake to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord STONHAM: I have, of course, not only heard the noble Lord's speech but have read it with the utmost care. I intend to refer to it. But the noble Lord did not refute what I said. He uttered sentiments which he thought might be an answer to what I said, which is not the same thing.
To deal with the clauses, the new Bill leaves the position unsatisfactory on a major point. If your Lordships amend the Bill in the way suggested, Clause 1 will read like this:
"No proceedings shall be taken under the Redistribution of Seats Act in the present Session of Parliament in consequence of the reports submitted by the Boundary Commissions under section 2 (1) of that Act in the year 1969".
That is all that would be left of Clause 1. That means that the Secretary of State cannot lay draft Orders this Session. He cannot lay draft Orders till next November at the earliest, after the new Session starts. But he must lay them before March 31, 1970. Under the proposals which we are considering, the Orders have to be laid some time between mid-November and March 31 following. Amendment No. 4 then goes on to provide a form of indemnity or relief for the Secretary of State in respect of the breach of his statutory duty that he is supposed to have committed. This whole proposition relating to breach and indemnity cannot be sustained, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will deal with this when he comes to speak later in the debate. It cannot be sustained because it is misconceived in principle, for reasons which I shall outline in a moment.
At this stage, I am bound to say that even if the Government conceded—which we do not—that there has been any breach, the Amendments could not possibly be accepted in their present form.

673
As I understand it, the proposition is that the Secretary of State should be afforded relief from penalties in respect of a breach that has already occurred, rather than a breach of his duty under this Bill as it would be amended. But it is a curiosity, which I am astonished did not occur to noble Lords when they drafted this Amendment, that although under these proposals the Secretary of State is given until March 31, 1970, in which to lay the draft Orders and is prohibited from laying them until next Session, he is apparently precluded from relief until he lays the draft Orders, if that is what the word "compliance" in subsection (1B) is intended to mean.
Perhaps one of the sponsors of these Amendments will confirm this, and will also say whether the sponsors are content with an Amendment which creates such an unsatisfactory position. It seemed to me, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that he had some doubts, because towards the end of his speech he advised the House to accept these Amendments, or something like them. It is getting rather late in the day for "something like them", and, in my experience, it is not customary in this House to accept Amendments if they are in themselves unsatisfactory or unclear or unviable.
It is not my object to go into the detail of the drafting and construction of these Amendments, because, in my view, they are misconceived in principle and should therefore be unacceptable to your Lordships. As I said, the question turns on whether or not there has been any breach of a statutory duty. Subsection (1B) rests on the assumption that a breach of duty has already occurred, because, having presented the Boundary Commissions' Reports to Parliament, the Home Secretary did not accompany them with draft Orders. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, the Attorney General dealt with this very fully in another place.
The noble Lord did not quote the speech exactly, but made references to some of the points which my right honourable friend the Attorney General made. I think, however, it would be much better if I quoted the relevant parts. The Attorney General said this:
"… I intervene only to deal with accusations that what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has done in relation to his
674
duties under the 1949 Act has been in breach of those duties. In my view, that accusation is unfounded".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/69, col. 507.]
After quoting from Section 2 (5) of the 1949 Act, the Attorney General continued:
"It is true that the Reports of the Boundary Commissions have been laid before Parliament but, as my right honourable friend has said, they have not been laid before Parliament in pursuance of Section 2 (5) of the 1949 Act. They have been laid before Parliament as ordinary Command Papers so that the House will be in a position to judge whether the reasons for which the Bill proposes to suspend the large and radical changes proposed in the Reports are or are not well founded. They have merely the quality of a White Paper".
The Attorney General concluded:
"There is no breach of statutory duty. There has been here a proper exercise of constitutional power by the Home Secretary. What he has done is not in breach of duty".
Noble Lords in any part of the Committee are free to disagree with the Attorney General if they feel it right to do so, but the Attorney General is a Law Officer. He has given this advice on the basis of the Acts of Parliament, and I rely on that advice.
Although I do not want to comment in detail on so many things the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said, I must point out that he was guilty of a number of inaccuracies. One, for example, was that he said that "the Bill"—that is, the existing Bill—"suspends the Boundary Commission for all time". That is not so. The Secretary of State is obliged under Clause 1 (3) of the existing Bill to lay a draft Order resuscitating the Commissioners as soon as it appears to him that, for local government boundaries, it would not be premature.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I must correct this. If the noble Lord will read Hansard to-morrow, he will sec that what I said was that the Bill as introduced suspends action on the 1969 Reports of the Boundary Commission for all time. That is correct.
Lord STONHAM: The noble Lord says, "suspends action", but I have just said that that is not correct because subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Home Secretary power to order the Boundary Commissions to accelerate

675
action, to speed up action. It is astonishing to me that the noble Lord should have put that in his speech because I deat with this matter on Second Reading; and really this is not the kind of debate that I am accustomed to having with the noble Lord.
Lord BYERS: Is the Minister saying that there is no statutory obligation laid upon the Home Secretary under the 1949 Act? If not, what is the obligation?
Lord STONHAM: We have already dealt with the statutory obligation. The point I am dealing with at the moment is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made; and he has just repeated what he says were the exact words he uttered. I say that those words are wrong because subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill lays on the Home Secretary a duty to reactivate, if you like, or to speed up (that is the real expression) the work of the Boundary Commissions.
Lord BYERS: Will the noble Lord explain to the Committee why his Bill contains an indemnity to the Home Secretary if there is no statutory obligation to do anything?
Lord STONHAM: I propose to deal with that point, and I shall deal with it in a logical way. I know it is all good fun to interrupt and try to put someone off the point, but I do not mind. I am coming to that. I notice the laughter of noble Lords, and looking at the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I remember an occasion in this very Chamber when the same thing happened. We were discussing the Boundary Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, was sitting there and I was sitting over there and the Leader of the then Opposition said: "I always notice"—
Lord BYERS: No.
Lord STONHAM: Yes. The Speaker's Chair was at that end, and the noble Lord sat there. I gazed at it every year.
Lord BYERS: So did I.
Lord STONHAM: I want to remind noble Lords about history repeating itself, because on February 16, 1948, in a debate on the same subject, the Representation of the People Bill, when the
676
speaker from this side was getting the same treatment as I have been getting, he looked across the Chamber with his glasses down his nose and said:
"I always notice that the party opposite indulge in laughter which resembles the crackling of thorns under a pot whenever they are confronted with any mental proposition which their intelligence forces them to resent or to reject".—[Official Report, Commons, col. 863.]
That was Mr. Winston Churchill, standing here at this same Box. I do not propose to be put off.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: The noble Lord may say that this is all good fun, but I do not take it as good fun when he misquotes what I have just said in Committee, and I propose to read out what I said. I said: "The Bill as introduced suspends action completely and for all time on the recommendations which the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales have recently submitted for restoring fairness to Parliamentary constituencies." The noble Lord says that that is untrue. I challenge him to say in what respect that is untrue.
Lord STONHAM: It is untrue, because if the noble Lord will read subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill before the Committee—not the new Bill he introduced but the Bill before the Committee—he will find in paragraph (a) of subsection (3):
"… the Secretary of State … shall lay before Parliament a draft of such an Order in Council for any part of the United Kingdom as soon as it appears to him that it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation there, be premature to do so; … "
That is not suspending work for all time. It is the case that it is the Government's intention to reactivate the work of the Boundary Commission, and indeed to urge them on, as soon as the local government situation has been cleared up under the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am very sorry, but I am afraid the noble Lord who is expounding this Bill does not understand his own Bill. He is saying that subsection (3) empowers the Boundary Commission to be reactivated by Order in Council. Of course that is so. Nobody would ever deny it. But what subsection (1) does is to say that
"… no proceedings shall be taken … in consequence of the reports submitted by the

677
Boundary Commissions … in the year 1969 … "
That is what I repeated when I said that the Bill suspends action completely and for all time on the recommendations which the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord STONHAM: The only point between us—and I would not dispute with the noble Lord about his knowledge of the Bill and mine—are the words "for all time". What I am saying—and I ask the noble Lord to accept this—is that it is the Government's intention, and this subsection provides for the fulfilment of that intention, that when these local government boundary questions are settled the Boundary Commission, having already made their recommendations on the basis of existing local authority boundaries, will be asked to speed up their work to relate those recommendations—the same recommendations they have made—to the new local authority boundaries. That is the entire situation, and I cannot credit that the noble Lord does not understand this.
At the time I was interrupted, very properly, I was quoting the Attorney General, and I had reached the end of that quotation, when he said:
"There is no breach of statutory duty. There has been here a proper exercise of constitutional power by the Home Secretary. What he has done is not in breach of duty."
I say to your Lordships that the Home Secretary is not in breach of his statutory duty. He neither needs nor wants your indemnity, which is just as well because he would not get much protection from the Amendment. In fact in my view, despite the faith expressed in them by very distinguished noble Lords, these so-called Amendments are a "mishmash" which I find it surprising the sponsors should call upon your Lordships to swallow. If the Amendments were applied, the practical consequences would be even more regrettable.
I intend to refer to something said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—I noted his words, and perhaps he will tell me if I am misrepresenting him now. It is only a paraphrase. I took him to say that "action can be taken to bring the new Greater London constituencies into being in good time for the elections
678
in April next near". Is that a fair representation? I am astonished that such a suggestion should be made. Noble Lords opposite opposed the original Bill on the grounds that it was imperative to implement the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions without delay. Now they are asking us to agree that there should be No implementation during this Session of Parliament. That means that no action will be possible until after the new Session begins in November. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, with hi; vast experience as Home Secretary, knows that the last qualifying date for the new register, the register to be produced in February, is October 10 this year. That means that no action could be taken until the new Session begins in November.
In our view, that would effectively prevent the holding of the G.L.C. elections in April, 1970, on the single-Member constituency basis for which the G.L.C. have been pressing and for which the original Bill provides. This is because (and I hope that noble Lords will follow me in this) if these Amendments were to be accepted no Order in Council could be laid before Parliament until after Prorogation; and that Order would have to deal not only with the Greater London constituencies but also with all the other constituencies. That is what noble Lords want.
Then there would have to be Aflirmative Orders in both houses; and that as any noble Lord who was a Member of another place—as I was—in 1948 and 1954 knows, would involve detailed and lengthy debates over a considerable period. By the time all this had been done it would be too late for the G.L.C. elections next April—because, as we all know, one does not do the job just by ordaining shortly before the elections what the new constituencies are to be. The constituency organisations must be given time to do all the preparatory work. At the moment, the position is that there are G.L.C. constituencies represented by three members. The proposals in this Bill propose 92 new constituencies each with one member. I assure your Lordships that the constituency organisations are asking about this now. They have a great deal of preparatory work to do. Candidates must be selected. The Parties must know whether the constituencies are to have one candidate or three. The organisations are already saying that if

679
this Bill is drastically amended or delayed the elections will have to be held on the basis of the old constituencies, with three members to each. Noble Lords who say that they want to hurry the implementation of the Boundary Commissions' recommendations will achieve exactly the opposite: they will prevent implementation in the 92 constituencies in Greater London.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said that the purpose of the Amendments is to give the Government time to think again. But under the proposals now before us the only direction in which the Government are asked to apply their minds is to the implementation of the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions by March 31, 1970. So far as England and Wales are concerned, the circumstances will be no different by March, 1970, from what they are now. The Government, as was their duty, have already given very careful consideration to the special circumstances which exist.
On Second Reading I explained very fully why we had reached the conclusion that changes in constituency boundaries in England and Wales should not be made while unprecedented local government changes are imminent. I added that the only issue between us is this: Do we have a radical alteration of constituency boundaries now, and a further major alteration in a few years' time, when the new local government boundaries have been settled, or do we keep to the existing boundaries for the time being and have one major change of the political map when the new boundaries have been settled? The Government are convinced that it is the latter course which is the right one; and their conclusion accords with the view hitherto taken by noble Lords in all parts of the House, that frequent changes of constituency boundaries should be avoided.
So far as England and Wales are concerned, the Government cannot accept that for constituencies outside Greater London the recommendations of the Commission should be accepted either now or before March 31 next. We know all the facts now. We have assessed the implications of the proposals for local government reorganisa-
680
tion on the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions and we have come firmly to the view that it would be wrong to promulgate now new constituencies based on local government boundaries that are soon to be altered. In Scotland and in Northern Ireland the present Bill makes it possible to make these changes by March 31 next, which is what the Amendment proposes. Therefore the Amendment is not necessary. All we are waiting for is the Wheatley Commission Report, in the case of Scotland, and consideration of the White Paper of the Northern Ireland Government issued on July 2. The effect of the noble Lord's proposals would be to require the Secretary of State to lay a draft Order in Council implementing the recommendations for constituencies in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, no matter what conclusions were reached about the proposed local government changes. No one can argue that this is a rational or proper way to use the permanent majority in this House to force Parliament to proceed; and the Government cannot accept that they should be deprived of the right to determine the proper course of action following an examination of all the known facts.
I think that I have shown that these Amendments are in large measure misconceived. In my view, they cannot honourably be supported. Moreover, they seek not merely to wreck a Bill which your Lordships have already approved in principle but to introduce by the back door a new Bill to which your Lordships cannot give proper consideration, for you will not have the opportunity to do so. In these circumstances I call upon your Lordships to take the only course open to you, and to reject the Amendments.
3.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: I intervene shortly, and with some diffidence, partly because I feel that most of the things that can be said have already been said, and partly because I feel that at the end of my short intervention I shall probably have few friends left in the House. I think that there is a danger in discussions of this sort for many of us to adopt a "holier than thou" attitude.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: Noble Lords behind me are saying "Hear, hear!"—but let them wait until I finish my speech. I do not think that there will be many "Hear, hears!" then.
I can well remember, when I was serving as a young man on a city council, getting into trouble with my Party—as I should do now, if I were not sitting as an independent on the Bishops' Benches—because I voted against my Party when it "pinched", as I thought, places from the aldermanic bench and the mayor's place in order to get a working majority. I got into severe trouble on that occasion when, on a matter of conscience, I felt that I had to vote against my own Party. It was difficult for me about three years later when the Party on the other side did precisely the same thing for the same reason. I remember that not very long ago I may have made myself unpopular with noble Lords opposite when I said that I thought we were failing in our respect for democracy by not speaking out on behalf of the people in Rhodesia. If we were to apply something similar to the present Boundaries Bill to the constituencies in Rhodesia, many of us would not support it as we would say that it helped the Smith régime.
I spoke against Rhodesia because I believed that people ought to have the right to express their views and to be democratically represented in their Parliament. Having said that on that occasion, I say to noble Lords on this side of the House that my views to-day have not altered: what I felt then I still feel to-day. Just as I felt then that people ought to have the opportunity in Rhodesia to express their views, and to have people elected to represent them in Parliament, so we in this country should do so on as fair a basis as we can. And unless there is anything fairer than the proposals of the Boundary Commission—there may be—and until something better has been found, let us abide by the Boundary Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said at the beginning of his speech that he was glad he had come to this House, because, apparently, in other Houses people had behaved in an irresponsible way and had said unkind and vitriolic things. The noble Lord is glad that he has come here. But why is he glad, when
682
he goes on to say, so far as I can make out, that, having come here, we all ought to have lockjaw and say nothing at all? Apparently, the reason why we should say nothing at all is that we are a non-elected House; to which I would say to the noble Lord, "Whose fault is that?" As noble Lords on this side of the Committee will know, I have no wish to perpetuate a non-elected Chamber, but still, here it is; we are a non-elected Chamber because the present Government refused to go ahead with reform. We come to this matter before us as a curious mixture of Life Peers, non-Life Peers, Bishops and Judges, though that is not our fault. We just have to deal with the matter as it is before us. No matter what our political colour may be, or the colour of the Government, we have to make up our minds on the matter before us.
I would say that there are two things, so far as I am concerned, that will govern my vote. They are, first, respect for politics. May I ask noble Lords on this side of the Committee: suppose the Tories had been in power and brought in this sort of Bill, what would they have said? I know very well what they would have said because I have been with them in their Party meetings on occasions when this sort of thing has arisen, and when I was in local politics. They would have been as distressed by is as are noble Lords opposite, and as I am myself distressed, by what the Government are doing to-day. I believe that far more important than respect for any one particular colour is respect for politics as a whole. Let us to-day uphold our Western democratic way of doing things.
The second thing that will govern my vote (if I may speak to my noble friends on this side of the Committee who may not agree; I only hope that they will take this kindly) is that although I sit on the Bishops' Bench and take no Whip but vote as an independent, as members of this House will know, I have never tried to disguise my political allegiance. I am a Socialist. What distresses me is that in the speeches that have been made on this matter, so many of the values, so many of the standards, seem to me—I may be wrong—quite incompatible with everything that I understand by the word "Socialism". I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham will

683
believe me when I say that I regard him as a friend more than in the sense in which the word is used in this House, and that I respect him very much and value him as a personal friend. But I do not think that I have ever heard a weaker speech from him, or from practically anybody in this Committee—
Several Noble Lords: Shame!
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: Noble Lords may say "Shame!", but I believe it. I can understand the noble Lord having to put up a defence for a weak case. I have often been in the same position—
Lord STONHAM: May I make quite dear to the right reverend Prelate that whatever he thinks of me and the defence I made—I thought it was an attack—I believe every word I said. I was not under compulsion from anybody to say anything and, apart from advice, I wrote every word of it myself.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: I do not question that for a moment. I know very well that when I have tried to speak up for a rather frail clergyman people have come to me and said, "Your clergyman gets drunk." I have tried to say my best for him, knowing my weak position. I have said, "Well, look, but you know he was just in an alcoholic haze"—
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: Yes, my Lords, you can say "Oh" and "Yes", but if the Party opposite had been in power and had done what noble Lords on this side of the Committee have done, and I had said against them what I have said against (if I may so put it) my own side to-day, there would have been whoops of delight and cries of "Hear, hear".—
A Noble Lord: Speak for yourself!
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: I do speak for myself, but I nevertheless make this point. I believe that here is involved not only one's respect for politics but also for the very integrity of Socialism. I know—this is my last point—that here in your Lordships' House we feel deeply involved in these particular matters. I hope to go further outside, where people are not so politically committed. I can think of various
684
groups in South London with which I have been in the past week or ten days, composed of older people and younger people. There one has come across a cynicism and a questioning, a feeling that when it comes to the last resort people care not for the wellbeing of their country so much as for the interest of their particular Party. I may be wrong, and I am sorry if, by what I have said, I have made bad friends with people on this side of the Committee; but I can only say to them that it is because I believe passionately in the wellbeing of our country and the integrity of British politics that I intend to support the Amendment and vote against the Government.
Baroness GAITSKELL: After what the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark, has just said, may I quote from an article by David Butler, who is an expert on electoral practices in Parliament and who has read every word that has been written on this matter in the last century? This is the comment I wish to quote:
"Both parties have acted unilaterally and for partisan advantage, yet mercifully both Parties have shown moderation in doing so. Because Labour's current proposals fall within this tradition of moderation in the pursuit of self-interest I cannot feel deep indignation about them. I do not see them as justifying the excessive rhetoric they have evoked."
4.8 p.m.
Lord HELSBY: Perhaps I may be forgiven if I do not follow the line of thought of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark or of other noble Lords who have recently spoken. It seems to me that there may be some advantage in going back, as it were, to the beginning of this problem. One point on which I think there is general agreement is that there is advantage in linking local government and constituency boundaries. I feel that the coincidence in time of the Boundary Commission Report and the Report on Local Government produced a real problem for the Government. It would be idle to suggest that there was no problem and that the right thing to do would be to ignore this coincidence in time and go straight ahead as though it had not happened. It did happen and it did produce a real problem. But it is a problem limited in time, and I suggest that we should do well to concentrate our minds on the time factor.

685
Nobody would believe it wise to make two major reorganisations of constituency boundaries in a very short time, by which I mean, say, 18 months or two years. But when it becomes a bit longer than that, the argument begins to lose force. The argument has quite a lot of force up to the end of a period of three or four years, and then the force would begin to dwindle. After five years there would be practically none. This means that the vital point on which to fix our minds is how long is it going to take to settle local government in the light of the Redcliffe-Maud Report and thereafter to reactivate the Boundary Commission? The Government have said in effect, "Not so long as some people think". They have also said that they intend that the job shall be done pretty quickly.
I suggest that they were right in their attitude to this, because as a country we simply cannot afford to allow a prolonged argument about our local government situation, bearing in mind that while the argument goes on, and particularly if it is allowed to drag on for a very long time, local government will suffer grievously. Continuity of local government makes it highly desirable that the job should be done as quickly as possible. We were told the other day by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that this could be done in five or six years. I have a great respect for her judgment, but I know from experience in administration that there are many administrative jobs which could be done a great deal more quickly than anybody thinks. The Greater London Council was set up a great deal more quickly than people expected, and I think that, looking back, we would all agree that it was well that the job was done quickly, because government in London would have suffered grievously if it had been dragged out.
It may be that the job of reorganisation of local government can be done more quickly than seems likely now. I believe that it certainly could be done well within the longer time period that has been suggested. On the other hand, while expressing their firm intention to do the job quickly and their belief that they can do it quickly, and while arguing that therefore it is right to suspend the consideration of the Boundary Commission Report until the reorganisation has been
686
carried out, the Government have asked for a blank cheque. They have not put any time on it. They have not told us in terms that the time will be thus short. They have asked that everything should be suspended until the Home Secretary judges it is right to go ahead in the light of what happens about local government—a complete blank cheque.
This seems to me to be the weakness of the Government's position. If they would put a reasonably short time on this I, for one, would support them, but so far they have consistently refused to do that. I think it is illogical. I think it is also unwise, because it has laid them open to grave suspicions which may not otherwise have arisen. I plead with the Government even now to put a time on this. If they do not, I shall feel obliged to vote for the Amendment, simply because it does put a time on it—maybe not a very long time but at any rate a time within which something has to be done, if it is only a review of progress, and produced to Parliament.
Lord STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend. I am grateful to him for what he has said. But we are not considering an Amendment which fixes the time, and there will be no opportunity for the Government to do what he proposes.
Lord HELSBY: My Lords, I should have thought that even on Report stage it would be possible to introduce a time-table. I suggest that it is simply not right to ask for a blank cheque. To ask for a suspension, yes: I think that is far. I would support the Government on that line, but I think that they ought to tell us how long they think it will be, because otherwise we have no means of knowing that the time will be short enough to be covered by the argument that we must not have two constituency boundary devisions within a ridiculously short period of time.
4.15 p.m.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, if I may say so, the last speech largely answers itself. If the noble Lord, with all his experience and judgment, wants to put in a time limit and have it discussed, I think he is at full liberty to do so on Report stage. I can see no reason whatever for voting against the Government on that ground. So far as the right reverend Prelate is concerned, I think that

687
when he looks again at his speech, he will find that it, too, largely answers itself. I did not notice a single right reverend Prelate in the Chamber on Thursday, and I do not think any of them voted or abstained from voting. They were too occupied in a fratricidal conflict about the Methodists.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that I was not engaged in that particular conflict on that day. In any case, I was here for that debate.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I apologise at once to the right reverend Prelate. I did not see him, although he is usually a fairly conspicuous person. If he reads his own speech I think he will find that it answers itself, even if he was here on Thursday.
This is not a Second Reading discussion; your Lordships passed this Bill on Second Reading on Thursday. In one of the newspapers we were called "Heath's poodle", and on Thursday "Heath's poodle" did not bite, did not even bark. The most it emitted was an unctuous growl, of which we have heard some repetitions to-day. It is nonsense to come here and talk about the principles of democracy, the principles of this, that or the other, what we fought and bled for and all the rest of it, when the Bill was given a Second Reading on Thursday. If all noble Lords who are sitting here now thought that way on Thursday, why did they not vote against it? Had your Lordships perhaps not the courage to do so? Or, as I think more likely, did not your Lordships think that there was some tactical, procedural advantage to be gained by waiting for an Amendment today, just as on the Iron and Steel Bill many years ago the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, waited for an Amendment, also about the timing, before wrecking the Bill?
There is not the least doubt that these are wrecking Amendments and that to vote for them is exactly the same as doing what your Lordships were unwilling to do the other day, in spite of all these high principles; that is, to vote against the Bill. I can hardly stand hearing one noble Lord after another getting up and saying that some high principle is involved, when in fact nothing whatever is
688
involved but a rather minor bit of Party tactics as to whether it is better to vote on an Amendment or on the Bill itself.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, as a Back Bench Member who has considered this matter personally and quite independently of Party considerations, I thought that it would be highly illogical that we should oppose what we want to happen in Scotland and in London by refusing a Second Reading to a Bill which would make these changes. Therefore I think we adopted the logical course.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not hear the noble Lord very distinctly, but if I understood him aright he said that he has some conscientious feeling which prevented him from opposing the Bill but allows him to support wrecking Amendments to it. What that conscientious principle can be, I am afraid I fail to understand. I stand here and say honestly that if any question of gerrymandering is raised, I have been told by my old friends, the present Home Secretary and Mr. George Thomson, who have also spoken on this matter that their motives were entirely honest, and if the Tory Liar or the Tory Party tell me the opposite, it is the former I believe and not the latter. I think your Lordships will understand that quite well.
I do not believe there has been any gerrymandering whatsoever about this Bill. I think, as the last speaker quite rightly said, that the Government were placed in a difficult position. They were placed in a difficult position which they had to try to solve by agreement with the Party opposite two or three years ago. The Party opposite refused to agree, because they wanted to exploit the difficulties of the Government for every Party purpose which they possibly could: and they are trying to do it now. I think they are making a mistake. I think this House cannot last for ever—cannot, indeed, last for very long. What emerges from it will, I think, depend on the way it has conducted itself.
When this matter was last discussed in this House I thought that the only serious difference between the Front Benches on both sides was that the Front Bench opposite wanted to choose the last ditch. They had one shot at choosing the last ditch on the Southern Rhodesian Order, but that was a bit too much for them.

689
and now they are trying to choose this as the last ditch. I think it is a very poor one. This is a difficult and doubtful matter. They are trying to add to the elections which the electorate will have to suffer, if I may put it that way, within a comparatively short period of years.
I quite see the difficulties, and I am not going back on them, but they seem to me to be typical of the kind of difficulties that the Government of the day have to face and have to answer, and that a responsible Opposition ought really to co-operate in dealing with. They ought not to try to make a Party advantage out of it. When it comes to this unrepresentative Chamber dealing with the constituencies of the House of Commons, then I say they have chosen the worst possible ground for fighting. I remember Bruce Bairnfather's cartoon:
"If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it!"
I say to the Conservative Peers opposite that almost any hole would be a better one for them than this one. It does not matter how noble Lords here vote; of course these Amendments will be carried, the Bill will be wrecked, and the consequences, which I notice the Prime Minister has been explaining to the Durham miners, will certainly follow sooner or later.
That is about all I have to say to the Tory Party. However, I want to say a word or two to the Liberals. Nobody ever says "Boo" to the Liberal Party nowadays; and I do not think they really mind. I see the noble Lord, Lord Byers (I hope that we are good friends), nodding agreement. I wonder whether he remembers the old Limehouse Liberal slogan:
"In good Lloyd George's palmy days,
When Peers were ten a penny,
David knew how to check their ways.
And see there weren't too many."
And it goes on:
"And nowadays and nowadays"—
and I leave your Lordships to finish the rest of that little Party song. They seem to have forgotten that it was their Party which passed the Parliament Act, including its Preamble.
Where are they getting to now? They are behaving like the B.O.A.C. line. They put up a large notice to say: "The Liberal Party takes care of you"; and they get to the remote parts of the
690
countryside, where people are not very good at political principles—indeed they themselves have only one solid one, and that is proportional representation—and persuade those people that that notice is what matters. It is not the old Liberal Party as I knew and respected it, and I hope that they will have a look at themselves in the looking glass and think again about what they are going to do. The whole business to-day, after passing the Bill on Second Reading, after passing the Bill on Second Reading, and I repeat for the third time, after passing the Bill on Second Reading, is rather cheap and rather humbug.
4.26 p.m.
Lord CONESFORD: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is sincere when he says that he cannot understand it. That was made amply clear in the course of his speech. I know that he finds it almost inconceivable that anybody sitting on these Benches can possibly be sincere if he takes a different view from that which the noble Lord takes. Therefore I will mainly not devote myself to his speech, but I propose to say something about points mace in other speeches.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made the point that these Amendments, taken together, made this measure virtually a new Bill, and that if this was the intention, the right method—and, indeed, he almost implied the only method—would have been to vote against the Second Reading. I think he is wrong for these reasons. In my view there would be something in what he said, if my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor and my noble Leader had not made absolutely clear in the Second Reading debate the nature of the Amendments that they were proposing to put down. That seems to me to change the proprieties. Had we thrown out the Bill on Second Reading—and I agree with the noble Lord that there would be ample constitutional justification for such a proceeding—then there would have been no chance whatever of the Government's remedying what many of us believe to be a constitutional outrage, which we genuinely hope they will remedy.
The noble Lord said that this Amendment, if we pass it, will make it impossible for the Government to lay these recommendations, together with the

691
Orders, in the present Session. But that is already in his Bill, so he can scarcely complain of its being the effect of the Amendment. I think I am the first lawyer to speak in this debate.
Lord STRABOLGI: No.
Lord CONESFORD: I am sorry, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison.
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shackleton): And the noble Lord, Lord Tangley.
Lord TANGLEY: He is a solicitor, not a lawyer.
Lord CONESFORD: I meant to speak of those on the other side, not those with whom I agree.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Need the noble Lord go on apologising for being a lawyer?
Lord CONESFORD: I really was not apologising. I apologise as little for that, as the noble Lord who interrupted me apologises for being a journalist. Apologies are not necessary from either of us; our professions are well known to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, quoted the intervention of the Attorney General in another place, and I think I should say a word or two about that. The Attorney General, as I understood his intervention, which the noble Lord repeated, said that there had been no breach of the duty to lay the draft Orders because the Home Secretary had not even, under the Act, laid the recommendations. There is a dual obligation under the Statute of 1949 to lay the recommendation together with the draft of an Order. He said that there is no breach of duty because the Home Secretary had not complied with either part of the obligation. I think that was his argument. The Attorney General, as I understand it, went on to imply that the failure to do both these things, to lay the recommendations before Parliament under the Act and to lay the draft Orders, was not a breach of duty because the Government had instead brought in the present Bill. The Attorney General's view on that matter is obviously entitled to great respect, but it does not seem to answer the point that is being made against
692
the Government, because it says that this is a tolerable way of excusing the Home Secretary from complying with either half of his obligation. If that is the best that can be said for the Home Secretary, it does not get us very far.
Lord STONHAM: I wonder whether the noble Lord will deal with the point that my right honourable friend the Attorney General made: that it is true the reports of the Boundary Commission have been laid before Parliament, but they have not been laid in pursuance of subsection (5) of Section 2 of the 1949 Act.
Lord CONESFORD: I understood that to mean he had not laid them within the meaning of, and as required by, that Act. That is the point I am making. He gets out of the dual obligation by saying that the Home Secretary has not complied with the first part. I rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and conceivably even the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, might agree with that.
I am sorry if I repeat an argument which I made on Second Reading, but this is the whole core of the argument as I see it and constitutes the necessity for these Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Helsby, in his interesting speech this afternoon, said that although as now advised he supported the Amendment, his view might be changed if he thought, on the assurance of the Government, that the Redcliffe-Maud reforms might be carried into law at a very early date. I hope I can convince him that that is really not a proper ground for not voting for these Amendments. The whole question we have to consider is fairness to the electorate at the next General Election. The next General Election will elect a Parliament part of whose duties will be to decide whether to bring the Redcliffe-Maud reforms into law at all, and, if so, to what extent. There is no possible excuse for preventing the electorate at the next General Election from returning the most representative Parliament that can be returned.
Noble Lords in every quarter of the House are entitled to be as enthusiastic as they like in favour of the Redcliffe-Maud reforms. But, as I reminded the House last week, there are three facts about the proposed reforms which cannot

693
be disputed. The first—which is alleged by the Government in every speech they make—is that the reforms are probably the most important reform of local government that has been made for a hundred years. The second fact is that the reforms are highly controversial, and the third fact, which alone is sufficient for my purpose, is that the decision whether to give legal effect to those suggested reforms must be made by the next Parliament. The more important we think the Redcliffe-Maud reforms to be, the more we are bound to do our duty to the electors by enabling them to elect as representative a Parliament as they can.
I ventured to remind the House on Second Reading, as I now remind the Committee, that nobody disputes that the legal sovereign is the Queen in Parliament. In legislation, the sovereignty of Parliament does not mean the wish of the Government; it does not mean a Resolution of the House of Commons: it means a law carried by both Houses, and given the Royal Assent. That is what the sovereignty of Parliament means. In enacting laws, the House of Commons must always be the predominant partner. It is for all purposes very much more important, and carries more weight, than this House. Nevertheless, the Constitution says that we have limited powers of delay; and there must be a limited occasion when those powers can be exercised. Can any of your Lordships conceive a more proper occasion for the exercise of those powers than when this House is compelled to intervene to prevent the rights of electors from being diminished? That is the perfectly simple issue as I see it. Whatever else you think about these proposals, can you doubt that, if the recommendations of the Boundary Commission were carried out, a more representative House of Commons would result than if there were this wholesale disregard of the considered recommendations of this impartial Commission?
I reminded the House, as I remind the Committee, of what Dicey says. Members of another place, when they are addressing their constituents, or public meetings in the country, always treat the electors with the greatest verbal respect. They say that what the electors want matters overwhelmingly; and so it does. As Dicey says, while the legal sovereign is the Queen in Parliament, the political
694
sovereign is the electors. But, in the words of Dicey, this all-powerful body, the electors, have one legal right under our Constitution, and one legal right only. Let me quote the sentence again:
"The sole legal right of electors under the English Constitution is to elect Members of Parliament."
That is the reason why all these provisions about Parliamentary elections are so important. That is the reason why there has been all this concern always to seek the maximum agreement between the Parties; and always to try to see that, so far as possible, constitutional changes are made by agreement and not otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in his speech, used as a defence of the Government something that was brought in, I think, by the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his speech last week, saying that the Government had actually approached the Opposition a few years ago to ask them whether they would agree to postpone this whole business of the investigation of the boundary reports, and the answer was, "No".
Lord MITCHISON: It was not quite what I said. What was discussed at the time was the difficulty that was inevitably going to be caused for this Government, or any Government, by the timing of the Boundary Commission Report and the main Report, too. That was what was discussed. As I understand it, the discussion was quite general. We were told this in public on Thursday. It was an attempt to get a real difficulty solved.
Lord CONESFORD: I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Lord's speech. I have no doubt that my Party would have said, "No" to that proposal. I have no doubt whatever that the Liberal Party would have said, "No" to that proposal. Why should we, for any purpose whatsoever, give up the right of the electors to be represented as well as could be after the next General Election? But if the Government thought otherwise, if the Government thought that this was a rotten answer by the Tory Part I, that was the time to bring in legislation; not to let the Boundary Commissioners go on, at the public expense, doing all this work, if all the time they intended to throw the Report into the wastepaper

695
basket. That was not the right action at all.
Lord PARGITER: Surely it was impossible for the Government to anticipate what the Maud Report would say until the Report had been published?
Lord CONESFORD: That may well be the case. And when they saw what it said, how far-reaching, how controversial and how impossible it would be to put the recommendations into force before the General Election, I should have thought they would have come to the conclusion that it was a reason for accelerating the carrying out of the Boundary Commission's recommendations so that the next Parliament should be as representative as possible.
We should not treat lightly the traditions and the conventions of our Constitution. This Bill diminishes the rights of the electors. It may be said, of course, that this is not the ideal House for deciding that issue. People may take that view. People often think that a jury is not the ideal body to decide questions of fact in the courts. But what we are really doing to-day is dealing with admitted facts. So far as I have heard, nobody, either in the other House or in this House, disputes that as a consequence of this Bill, if it is carried through in its present form, the electors will not be able to elect so representative House of Commons as will be possible if the Government do their duty, as these Amendments would enable them to do.
Lord PLATT: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that although I may be the only one in the Committee to do so, I dispute this contention. We have heard so much righteousness that I began to get a little suspicious from time to time, especially about the rights of the electorate. There are, surely, two ways in which the distribution of seats can go wrong. One is the one of which the Boundary Commission has obviously taken great notice: there are some constituencies with up to 100, 000 voters while others have 20, 000. But there is another way in which it can go wrong, and that is in the general distribution of seats between those who are likely to put in a Conservative representative and those likely to put in a Socialist repre-
696
sentative. The distribution has surely gone wrong in this respect.
I am not in any way blaming anybody for this, but we know that more than one Conservative Government have had a quite significant majority on a minority vote of the whole country. We are told—and all this argument to-day would not be going on if it had not some substance—that the Report of the Boundary Commission is likely to give the Conservatives a further majority, which has been said to be perhaps between 15 and 20 seats. Therefore, I suggest to noble Lords that either the Boundary Commission has not taken notice of both these points, or else perhaps its terms of reference require revision. For that reason, I shall support the Government on this Bill.
Lord CONESFORD: May I put just one point to the noble Lord? It is perfectly true that it is theoretically possible, if all these recommendations are carried out, for one Party to have more votes in the country and for the other to form a Government. But the bias of which the noble Lord complains, if it exists, is the direct result of the Boundary Commissioners working to certain rules. The Bill before us does not propose to alter any of those rules.
Lord PLATT: I agree. I think that if some nonsense comes out of a report the course to take is to alter the rules.
4.46 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: I have a tremen dous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, but I am bound to say that when he was arguing for the Amendments and against the Bill, it seemed to me that his arguments were wholly tortuous. The fact is that this is a series of wrecking Amendments, and I hope that the Government, and certainly the other House, will treat them as such. This is an attempt to use the overwhelming Tory majority in this House for a purely Party political purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, mentioned the Greater London Government Bill, and was rather proud of it. I took a considerable part during the proceedings in the House on the Greater London Government Bill in 1963. I honestly do not think that during the whole of the proceedings on that Bill and its passage here I ever used I the word "gerrymandering", for I recognised that something had to be done

697
about London local government. The local government of this great area had outgrown the L.C.C. and the county borough structure. No one could have pretended that anything disastrous would happen to London if the proposals were postponed for 10 or so years. Although I did not use the word "gerrymander", or make speeches opposing the Bill on that ground, I was not so naive as to think that the Bill had been discussed in Cabinet and among Tory Ministers of the day without someone using words to the effect, "It will also help to break Labour's hold on London government", with the rest who were present at that meeting at least nodding their heads and accepting it as a very worthwhile, possible by-product of a reasonable scheme. And it was a reasonable scheme. But I would have accepted, had they told me so, that they would look upon it only as a byproduct.
or am I so naive as not to think that somewhere along the line someone might have said about this Bill, "Of course, it is impossible to forecast the results accurately, but it might be that additionally there is some political advantage to us". We are dealing with human beings in a political situation and these are the things that happen. Even if that were said, the fact remains, as I see it, that the postponement of constituency boundary changes until the local government boundaries are changed to fit with what might be done about the Redcliffe-Maud Report, appears to me to be wholly justified.
During my period in the other House I experienced two boundary changes. Both happened to be against me. I started with a nearly 23, 000 majority in 1945 and ended up in 1959 with a majority of 12 against me. I know something about boundary changes. I certainly had no complaint at all to make about the first, for in 1945 the constituency was numerically one of the largest in the country, just escaping the division of the 100, 000-elector constituencies in 1944.
The second boundary change was made in 1954, and I managed to live with it until 1959. Throughout the whole of that period of six years that boundary change appeared to me to be a quite stupid one, although it brought about a little move towards "one vote, one value" as between the voters residing in
698
the two Derby County Borough constituencies and the voters in the surroundingrural district council area. What happened in 1954 was that both the county borough constituencies spilled out over the borough boundary into the rural district council constituency area. There were then three Members of Parliament representing one rural district council area. The two other Members, with myself, who were involved were actually members of my own Party; and fortunately we were on good terms—which is not always the case, even in a brotherly Party. So we never clashed. But I am positive that all three recognised the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the arrangement. This is bound to happen in large towns—it is inevitable--but it ought not to happen any more often than we can possibly avoid.
The other aspect of those two boundary alterations was the major upsets inevitably brought about in the constituency organisations of the three major political Parties. Difficulties were involved in all three of them. There was a complete reorganisation in 1949, which meant for my constituency party cutting off a large part of the constituency party membership and a consequent loss of income and personnel. Then, after a short period of six years, there was another major upset affecting nine political Party oganisations in three constituencies, and this meant that nine political Party organisations representing three constituency parties were interested in the election of councillors for the rural district council that I have mentioned. For the sake of the working of our Party system—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that we know of no better; the party system works in this country and I believe we always have to remember this—a reasonable degree of continuity of structure and historical association in the constituencies and with local government is something which, in my opinion, justifies some sacrifice of numerical perfection.
The situation that I have described is something which I am sure ought to be avoided if at all possible, and had I still been a member of the Government at the time I would, arising from my personal experience, unhesitatingly have urged the action contained in this Bill, despite the inevitability of the sort of charge that is now being levelled. As indeed, had I been

699
a member of the Tory Government faced with the proposal to do something about London Government, at the time, despite the inevitability of charges of gerrymandering, I would have said "Go ahead" if I thought it was the right thing to do.
This afternoon I have listened to all the speeches. I was particularly struck by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby. It seemed to me that he got to the heart of the matter. I, too, would urge upon my noble friend that he should try, before the end of the passage of this Bill through this House, to give us a firm date. I believe that it would be right for this House to ask for that—to pass the Bill but to ask before the end of the proceedings that a firm date should be given by the Government for the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, or some part of them.
I appeal to this Committee not to let this reasonable Bill become a source of conflict between the two Houses. The Parliament (No. 2) Bill, which was dropped, was designed to reform this House in a comparatively painless way. That is why I supported it. It was about as far as I should wish to go in the direction of reform. That Bill was dropped eventually, mainly because of the opposition of those on the Labour Benches who wanted something more drastic to be done about this House than that Bill proposed. I do not want to see that happen. I read yesterday an article by David Butler in the Sunday Times. He ended by saying:
"The Lords are not popular"—
hateful thought, my Lords, but there it is—
"Mr. Wilson must rejoice that they are making their own position an issue. In 1909 Mr. Lloyd George snared the Conservative Peers into an impossible position. In 1969 Mr. Callaghan may have snared them into what is at least an impolitic one."
I do not know whether David Butler is right about Mr. Wilson's feelings or Mr. Callaghan's wiles. All I do feel is that to pass these Amendments—particularly following on the heels of the circumstances of the dropping of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill—would be for your Lordships a very unwise action, and I sincerely hope that this House will not take it.
4.54 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: I was hoping, as I am sure were most of your Lordships, that Her Majesty's Government and noble Lords opposite would not try to obscure this important issue by suggesting that your Lordships would be acting improperly if you used your constitutional powers of delay, and by uttering threats of reprisal, even if done with as much charm as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has used. There have been suggestions—or at least implications—from the other side to-day, that noble Lords on this side of the House, especially hereditary ones, have no social conscience on a matter of this sort but will tramp through the Lobbies at the behest of their Whips. I have been a Tory Whip in this House for the last eight years, and I can assure your Lordships that this simply is not true. Members of this House will not vote against their consciences. Very few of your Lordships have not, on occasion, voted against your Party Whip, and I hope that nothing I say as a Whip, either inside this Chamber or outside, will ever persuade your Lordships to vote in a way in which you think it is wrong to vote.
On Second Reading the noble Lord the Leader of the House said:
"I am bound again to question whether this is a matter in which the House of Lords ought to hold up the decision of the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 548.]
He went on to refer to
"the fourth or fifth year—the fatal years which they always use for this purpose".—(col. 549.)
In parenthesis I would ask the noble Lord to give one example of when your Lordships have ever used the fourth or fifth year for this purpose. The fourth or fifth year argument applied before the passing of the 1949 Act, when your Lordships had the power of two years' delay. Now, only the fifth year applies.
When the Party of noble Lords opposite forced through the 1949 Parliament Act by invoking the 1911 Parliament Act, they assured your Lordships that it would not be improper for you to throw out a Bill in the fifth year. In his speech on the Second Reading of the 1949 Act the late Lord Jowitt said:
"In the fifth year, by common consent, the consent of this House to any legislation is necessary."—[Official Report; 8/6/1948, col. 451-1

701
I have taken these words out of their context, but not, I think, unfairly so. If it is proper for your Lordships to hold up a Bill until the end of a Parliament, how much less questionable is it for you to delay a Bill only for the statutory year?
The 1949 Act was represented to your Lordships, and through your Lordships to the country, as an instrument to cut this House's powers of delay from two years to one, and it was never suggested that these powers should be done away with altogether. Indeed, when my noble friend Lord Swinton suspected that the intention behind the Bill was to achieve what would in effect be single-Chamber government, this was hotly denied by Lord Jowitt. In his winding-up speech for the Government on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House after the Bill had come to your Lordships' House under the Parliament Act—the last official pronouncement upon the Bill before it was forced into law—the noble and learned Earl answered my noble friend in these terms:
"I will tell your Lordships why I, at any rate, am in favour of a Second Chamber, why I believe and hope that for many years to come we shall have a Second Chamber, and what, in my view, its functions should be."—[Official Report, Vol. 165, col. 1036.]
The noble Earl gave two preliminary reasons, which will be well known to your Lordships but are not germane to this particular issue; and he went on (col. 1037):
"Thirdly, its functions should be the interposition of so much delay (and no more) in the passing of a Bill into law as may be needed to enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it. This would be specially needed as regards Bills which affect the fundamentals of the Constitution or introduce new principles of legislation."
It is clear that your Lordships have not only a constitutional but also a moral right, and indeed a duty, to hold up this Bill, should you so think fit. What is more—and let not this be forgotten—should you do so, Her Majesty's Government and another place will have a constitutional duty to consider the Bill and their attitude to it again. If they do nothing but question your Lordships' rights and threaten your Lordships' future they will clearly not be carrying out this duty. Who then will be behaving unconstitutionally? I hope your Lordships' consideration of this important
702
issue will not again during its various stages be distracted by such side arguments, which are irrelevant, unconstitutional and improper.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, may I get in a short word sideways? I found myself first of all in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, when he said that if we were going to oppose this Bill we should have done so on Second Reading. I think my noble cousin, Lord Salisbury, felt the same. In fact, I absented myself on that occasion because I felt that I should have to try to divide the House. However, I am here 10-day, and if it is, apparently, the general wish to amend, and if need be, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested, to destroy by the death of a thousand cuts, I leave it to my political friends to choose the field of battle.
We are taking the Amendments in toto rather than seriatim, and of course the result has necessarily been a detailed discussion, a general debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has played a prominent part. That being so, I shall be excused if I concentrate on what I think to be the general intention of the opponents of the Bill; namely, to change it from its present form, as unconstitutional and drafted in the interests of the Socialist Party, into an instrument we can all accept.
The constitutional arguments have been ably put forward by my noble friend Lord Byers and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and, if I may say so, somewhat apologetically by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I do not need to make use of them again. I simply repeat what was to me the most cogent statement in the course of both debates, that made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who said:
"That is the constitutional issue here, and it is a grave issue. For if independent and impartial bodies charged with keeping the electoral system fair are ignored, what safeguards for the public interest are left? None, except your Lordships' House, which, however it may be composed, is specifically armed with the most important constitutional power of all, power under the law to stop a majority in the elected Chamber from changing the law so as to prolong the life of a Parliament."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 482.]

703
There is a constitutional issue here. I will not put it, naturally, on the level of Magna Carta, but if the proposals of the Government are put into effect we shall indeed have a new Runnymede, a "Power Carta" directed by Barons—we will not specify who they are—aimed not at restricting the power of the King but at strengthening the power of a Government, a Socialist Government.
What right have the Government to tell us, the other House, to "toe the line or else"? As the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said:
"The sovereignty of Parliament … is not the whim of the House of Commons; it is what Parliament expresses in legislation. An Act of Parliament does express the sovereignty of Parliament. A Resolution of the House of Commons does not; a Resolution of the House of Lords does not."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 515.]
Do the Government really regard us as a pack of whipped curs to be put through our paces at their behest? Are we going to allow ourselves to be browbeaten? We face a grave constitutional issue and there comes a moment when I think we must cry "enough". I did not think we should fight over the Rhodesian issue because it was perhaps not a matter of prime concern to the electorate, but as the noble Lord, Lord Strange, said in a very remarkable speech: this is it; it is now or never. Either we buckle under—I am using my own words now—and admit that we are toadies and lick-spittles or we stand firm and fast and obey our only constituents which are our own consciences.
To-day we declare our independence and our integrity or we go down with no band playing and no colours flying except the White Flag. To-day, either we stand for our principles or we abjure once and for all our tradition and our inheritance. If the Government should wish to appeal to the country on the issue of Lords versus Commons, which I profoundly hope they will not do, I believe that they will be soundly thrashed, for it is not a question of the Lords versus Commons, it is a question of the Government versus the people.
I have the right to say this, from my experience throughout Britain, especially among the youth. I think I have told your Lordships I have debated this subject in almost every university in the
704
country. I am reluctantly convinced that the electors are so fed up not only with this Government, which is not tragic, but with the other place, which is sad and wrong and tragic, that they would prefer an institution like the House of Lords, which at least stands for integrity and for the common man. I am politically a centrist; I have no axe to grind, but I will wager your Lordships that we the Queen's Peers will find ourselves in our seats long after Mr. Wilson and Mr. Callaghan have been forcibly evicted from their seats in the other House by the people.
5.8 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, if I may intervene briefly, I have always thought that we have two types of law in this country: the ordinary law enacted by Parliament, ordinary Acts of Parliament, and our constitutional law. I was always of the opinion that the constitutional law is the law under which the statutory rights of the Boundary Commissions surely come. The constitutional law is entrenched in very definite clauses, and I was always of the opinion that before the constitutional law could be changed there had to be a majority in both Houses of Parliament and the approval of the other Estates of the Realm.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, appears to think that we have no rights at all in this question. He calls it a minor Party squabble. If we have any rights at all we have rights here, because as this country has no written Constitution an unscrupulous Government, with a large majority in the House of Commons, could—I am not suggesting of course that the present Government are unscrupulous; far from it—by enabling Acts through ordinary legislation eventually destroy the whole Constitution of this country and turn the people of this country into complete serfs. Therefore, this Committee has a definite duty to legislate in this matter. I just wanted to make that point plain. Having done so, I will now sit down.
5.10 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: May I say half a dozen sentences in expressing the position of an individual Back-Bencher on this side of the Committee? I shall oppose this Amendment because it amounts to a

705
direct negative, and I am opposed to this House in its unreformed state reversing major decisions of the other place. This does not mean that I am at all happy about the Bill itself. I find myself in close agreement with the forthright suggestion, most courageously put forward in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Ben Whitaker, that matters of boundaries should be taken out of political dispute and should be settled with an automatic seven-year review. But this is hardly the moment to bring up that suggestion.
My worries are that I find it intensely disheartening that we on our side should have allowed the real problems—which I do not underestimate—of the Redcliffe-Maud Report to persuade us to throw over the precious quality of visible impartiality; and I think our argument has been slightly weakened by the rather impressive timetable put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, which to my intellect was on the whole more plausible than the one my side has been adopting. Nevertheless, these are questions of judgment over which honest men can differ without rancour.
This is not the position here. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been assailed in the most violent and crude way. His honour and the honour of the Government have been attacked quite openly—not I am glad to say in this House; but they have been attacked in a way that no supporter of the Government could possibly fail to go into the Lobby and vote on their side in this matter. In order to endorse the propriety, if not perhaps entirely the wisdom, of my Government's proposals, I shall support them.
5.13 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: I have already made my speech on this matter; I made it on Second Reading debate. I have really nothing more to say, but I just want to stand up and say two or three words in case noble Lords think that I am afraid of the Amendments to which I have put my name, which I certainly am not. During the debate on the Second Reading I made a quite simple speech—I am rather a simple person. In it I said,
"that as I see it this Bill breaks the rules."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 494.]
706
I was immediately sharply taken to task by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and asked to explain how the Government were breaking the rules. A bit flustered, I said:
"I understand the law to say that the recommendations of the Boundary Commission must be laid before Parliament within a reasonable period"—
whereas the Bill seems to me to make it
"an indefinite period; and that, I consider, is wrong."
The noble Lord the Leader of the House later said that I should read the Report of the Boundary Commission and the Act of Parliament which requires Reports and the necessary Statutory Instruments to be laid. Well,: [have done what I have been told to do; I have done a lot of reading. I have also read Hansard, and in Hansard I note that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said:
"No one disputes or can dispute the undoubted fact that the Home Secretary is under a statutory obligation to lay drafs: Orders in Council before Parliament, with such modifications as he may think necessary, to implement the Boundary Commission's proposals, and to do it ' as soon as may be'". [col. 538.]
Well, nobody did contradict that statement, although I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seems to have said what I said, only more tidily. But I can well understand: hat he is a more formidable person to attack because I have seen him retaliate pretty sharply when he has been attacked.
Said the noble Lord the Leader of the House:
"I find it hard to see that the Government having broken the rules in this matter"—[col. 546.]
I hope he will forgive me if I say that I find it hard to see that "as soon as may be" can properly be interpreted by a Bill which in fact, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Helmsby, "asks for a blank cheque".
5.17 p.m.
Lord HANKEY: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has said. I, too, have read the Report of the Boundary Commission, and there is the fact, which I think has not been brought out in the debate, that there are major changes on every single page except one of Appendix C, and on many pages there are a number

707
of major changes recorded by the Commission. It is quite clear that the speed of change in our country is increasing. I believe that it is basically wrong to let our Parliamentary system get out of date. A strong point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, when he said that the next Parliament will have to decide the question of local government reform and it ought to be brought up to date for that purpose. I do not think it ought to be beyond the wit of man to administer the next election, or, for that matter, the next election beyond that, on the new boundaries now proposed. I have spent most of my life in administration, admittedly largely overseas; but I have derived a great respect for our administrators and I do not think it is beyond their capability to arrange an election in this way. In any case, it is done mostly by the entirely local authorities.
I have been shocked by the way in which this question has been handled. I do not think it ought to have been a Party matter. I personally have been greatly shocked by the use of the guillotine to force this matter through the Commons in a way which has made it difficult for Party agreement to be obtained. You have only to look at the Report of the Boundary Commission to see with what infinite care it has been formed, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair and most eminent people, at whom it would be quite impossible to cast any sort of aspersion, in order to ensure its total impartiality. I believe this is a most important point of our Constitution and that it should not be allowed to go by default.
Therefore I think that the Government ought to have handled this matter like Caesar's wife and be totally above suspicion. I am sorry to say, speaking from these Cross-Benches, that I do not feel that the way in which this matter has been handled has given us much assurance in this case. I am sorry to say this, but I really feel that to be the case. Therefore I shall vote for the Amendment, in order to give the Government time to think again and preferably to bring forward a Bill before next March which will enable agreement to be cerned. I earnestly appeal to the achieved between all the Parties con-
708
Government to handle the matter in this way.
5.20 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: I think it would probably be the wish of the Committee that we should now bring this matter to a conclusion—
Lord TREFGARNE: Guillotine!
Lord SHACKLETON: I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne (who probably does not know what a guillotine is) that this has been one of the oddest Committee stages I have ever known in this House. With that I am sure noble Lords will agree. But we have all been resigned to the fact that we were to have the equivalent of another Second Reading debate. Without precisely echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Stonham about the welcome we give to those whom we do not see so often, it is noticeable that at least on this occasion there are not so many Bishops as we had on the Rhodesia Order, and I confess I could have done without the speech of the one who did speak. That is no personal reflection, but I think he was misguided. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, started off at a tremendously high level—indeed, he started on the Moon—and he almost likened the importance of our discussions here on Earth to what is going on on the Moon. I agree that what we are discussing is important, and our decision is important; but what has been said is rather characteristic of the way in which the whole issue has been blown up and exaggerated out of all proportion.
I say to noble Lords that the Government have a very clear-cut case. It may not be open and shut, and many noble Lords may not agree with that case, but I ask your Lordships once again to listen briefly to the basic arguments and consider the matter not in terms of the extraordinarily high-flown language of the noble Earl, Lord Arran—who waited so patiently and spoke such stirring words that I almost felt that at any moment the shot and shell would rain down from another place and that the noble Earl would be there to ward it off. He does, of course, move with enormous rapidity from one Party to another. I am not quite sure whether he is a Liberal—in fact, I do not believe the Liberals really identify him as one. May I also just say

709
very briefly to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that a short talk with his noble friend Lord Conesford would help clear his mind a great deal on some of the points he raised.
The real issue is—and before the Opposition cheer, may I say that there will only be counter cheers—whether the Government are committing a constitutional enormity in what they propose in the Bill. There has been such a welter of indignation that it has been difficult to get the arguments into perspective—notwithstanding, if I may say so, the characteristically excellent behaviour of your Lordships in this matter. But it has been difficult for nice and honest noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, to say, "A plague o' both your Houses. I suspect the Government are doing something they should not. I wish they were not going to and it is my duty to stop them."
I say to the noble Lord that I slightly resent his suggestion that I interrupted him because I was frightened to interrupt the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he did not mean that. I did not pick him because he was an easy target; I picked him as somebody who was capable of redemption, and this is something I can never hope for the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. What the noble Lord. Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said is," We have rules, and this Bill, it seems to me, is a breach of the rules." I think even the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would say that that must be a nonsense, and that is why I asked him to read the Boundary rules. I do not want to be offensive to him, and I hope that he will read them once again.
There is just a little bit of common sense coming through. A number of noble Lords who sit on the Cross Benches thought that perhaps, after all, there might be something in the Government case. They thought that even if it was something they did not entirely like, there was something reasonable in what the Government were doing, and I think they began to realise that the high sounding phrases about "One man, one vote" did not come with great conviction from noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord. Lord Brooke of Cumnor, even referred to the former Chief Justice, Earl Warren, and talked about "The votes of the
710
electorate being fair and equal". Yet he knows perfectly well that the Conservative Party—and I have to repeat this again—supported the continuation of the City of London and the university votes. That was entirely in contradiction of the views that have been expressed to-day.
Lord CONESFORD: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? The noble Lord mentioned the university votes; would he also say that their continuance was the unanimous recommendation of the Speaker's Conference?
Lord SHACKLETON: Luckily Parliament decided to reverse that decision, and no attempt has been made by the Party opposite, despite a pledge that they gave, to restore the university seats. We also had the business vote, and that was in direct conflict with those highminded phrases that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, gave to us the other day.
"… the weight of a citizen's vote cannot depend on where he lives'. That bask principle of representative government this Bill violates."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 483.]
and so on. I would only say that it is all the more surprising, coming from—not the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—certain noble Lords who, on that side of the House, were prepared to deny "one man one vote" in Rhodesia unless his colour was right. I really think that there has been—and I certainly do not include the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in this criticism—a great deal of sententiousness on the matter.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I wonder whether the noble Lord wishes to include me in his criticism about the City of London and university votes? These were debated in the 1945 Parliament, when I was not a Member in either House, and I cannot recollect ever having expressed the slightest view on either subject.
Lord SHACKLETON: I am only too well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was not in the House of Commons when I first entered it, but I should also like to know whether he made any protests on the subject at his Party meetings. I very much doubt it, because it was of course official Conservative Party policy. But it may well be that he can stand alone in a white sheet

711
as somebody who was opposed to the business vote for the City of London and the university votes. I know the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was in fact a very distinguished Member for a university seat and that he subsequently re turned to the hustings, which not all the university representatives did.
It has also been suggested—and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said it was unfair—that to have constituencies with such a wide range in the number of votes affected their value. He said that 90, 000 to 20, 000 was about five to one, and that this was intolerable. However, he is prepared to tolerate four to one, because the Boundary Commission proposed ratios of this sort. In the English Boundary Commission the range is from 83, 000 to about 30, 000, and we know that in Scotland the constituencies drop to 20, 000. This is a difference in degree, and I do not believe that this great cry, this principle, is one that need affect our discussions to-day.
The crucial issue is the relationship between the Boundary Commission and the Maud Report. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, who also seems to be showing a certain amount of Liberal instability at the moment—I shall come to him in more detail—said on Second Reading:
"Incidentally, it raises the question, which ought to be aired at some date, why we need to keep to local government boundaries when drawing up new Parliamentary constituencies. It is because we are slavishly keeping to these boundaries that we are getting into situations where we have constituencies"—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 489.]
of such and such a size. When I suggested on the Second Reading that he was critical of this relation between the two, he nodded his head in a negative way; but it may be that even then I have misunderstood him. But I think it is quite clear—and I think your Lordships must now accept this—that there is a close relationship between Parliamentary boundaries and local government boundaries, and this was confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It was confirmed to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, and my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy; and others all pointed clearly to this, and I think we must accept it.
712
The question then is: Is there, in fact, to be any correlation in time between the implementation of the Maud Report and the Boundary Commission Report? It is the Government's intention to publish a White Paper this year and to proceed to legislation as soon afterwards as possible. I have already said that this cannot be done—and we accept that it cannot be done—without a great deal of consultation. But I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, that this is something with which we ought to press on as quickly as possible.
I was asked both by my noble friend Lord Champion and by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, to enlarge on the possibility of putting a term to the time for which boundary changes are postponed. The Amendments that are in front of us this afternoon do not bear directly on this, nor has there been any reaction from the main Opposition Party to this suggestion. I can understand why—they are not interested in it at the moment. But we were thinking of a possible fresh Report, rather than the implementation of the current Report. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave an indication of interest, and said that we might well be able to expect new provisional recommendations from the Boundary Commission in 1973. I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the strength of the arguments which have been used on this point. But it would be wrong for me to give any undertaking, beyond saying that I will certainly see that these arguments are considered very carefully, because I realise that they can be crucial.
Lord BYERS: Is the noble Lord really saying that we could get the new Maud boundaries in 1972, and that with in one year the Boundary Commission could have reported on new Parliamentary boundaries? That cannot be true, surely.
Lord SHACKLETON: It would be possible, of course, for the Boundary Commission—and perhaps we shall have another opportunity to discuss this—to start work early. But I think on this—
Lord BYERS: How can they start work, if they do not know what the local government boundaries are?
Lord SHACKLETON: That is precisely where the noble Lord is wrong. They will know what the local government arrangements are. Indeed, there may well be already in existence the new "shadow authorities". This is not an impossibility at all; indeed, it is very much part and parcel of the Government's thinking. Our thinking on this matter has been entirely consistent. We made clear right back in 1966, when we discussed this matter with the Opposition, that difficulties would arise if we went on with the Boundary Commission when the Maud Commission were beginning to examine local government. The Opposition refused to consider the problem and now, confronted by a really difficult problem which would have a most disruptive effect, the Government have come forward with proposals which have been attacked on the grounds that they are breaking the rules.
We have had a lot of Dicey quoted at us. Indeed, I think we have had the same passage quoted three times, twice by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and once by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. But I must say that to attempt to call Dicey in aid of the discussion which we are having is really stretching the argument too far. In some way, I would almost prefer to rely on the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, at the moment, rather than on Dicey, writing long ago in a different context in a very different political situation. Indeed, if we applied the principles of Dicey, that the House of Lords is entitled to, and indeed should, hold up legislation moved in another place for which there is no mandate from the electorate, then all I can say is that the House of Lords has been notably failing in its duty, and I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the matter.
Lord CONESFORD: The noble Lord said that I quoted one passage twice. The only thing I quoted was what is still the law; that the sole right of the electors under our Constitution is to elect a Member of Parliament. I used that merely to show how extraordinarily important elections were, and why we should be very careful not to take away the rights of electors.
Lord SHACKLETON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. This Govern-
714
ment have No intenttion of taking away the rights of electors. I am only sorry that we cannot at the present moment enfranchise the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and other Members of your Lordship's House.
We have also had talk of an indemnity. My noble friend Lord Stonham has made clear—and noble Lords may or may not accept this—that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not in breach of his statutory duty. If in due course this Bill is rejected, we shall have to think again and I do not doubt, depending on the measures which the Government may take on this Bill—whether or not they be the use of the Parliament Bill—that my right honourable friend will carry out any constitutional duty that he has. But in relation to the rules, the truth of the matter is that they are very much capable of amendment. They were amended notably in 1954. At that time, the Government of the day—and the Opposition co-operated—altered the period at which major comprehensive reports should be made from five to seven years to fifteen years. Later on, the Opposition did not wish to be as co-operative as the Labour Party were in those days, for some reason—
Lord HENLEY: The noble Lord cannot blame the Conservatives for that. He claimed that he was overtaken by a difficult situation, because the Opposition Chief Whip refused to co-operate with the Lord President of the Council. I think the Conservative Party may well have been wrong in this respect, but the Government could perfectly well have introduced a Bill long before what the Boundary Commission were going to report was known at all. They could even have left such a Bill to a free vote.
Lord SHACKLETON: It may well be that the Government ought to have introduced a Bill. The fact is they did not at that moment. But now they are confronted with a very difficult situation, and they have made proposals which, provided that the relationship between the Boundary Commission and local government boundaries is accepted, are entirely relevant. The rules have had to be altered time and time again, and now the Opposition have put down Amendments which have the effect of destroying the Bill. They are really pretty "mad" Amendments. They are skilful, but there is a

715
good deal of lunacy behind them. They will make it extraordinarily difficult to carry out the next G.L.C. elections under the new arrangements, and for this reason will be equally unpopular with the Conservative, the Liberal and the Labour Parties in London.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that it is quite right to act in this way, because the object of what I should call this crude manœuvre is to make it easier for Liberals and Cross-Benchers to vote for it. The Opposition know that even if the Government were disposed to accept this Amendment they could not accept it because of its defects.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: What defects?
Lord SHACKLETON: I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, listened to my noble friend Lord Stonham, but if he reads the report of his speech to-morrow he will see that this Amendment is unacceptable, anyway.
Let me now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I find it very difficult to understand his attitude. We have worked together and, on the whole, he is a constructive and helpful Member of this House. But he has succeeded in putting his name to two contradictory Amendments. I hope that he has the support of his Liberal colleagues on them. I am sure that, out of loyalty and affection for him, they will help him on this. But this is an act of the wildest schizophrenia. We are not going to be able to discuss his second Amendment to-day. I think that is rather fortunate, because he is really saying to the Government, if I may find an analogy, "You owe me £5. You must jolly well pay it, but if you do not pay it by the end of six months I shall let you off it". That is the meaning of his Amendment.
Lord BYERS: Surely, the noble Lord did me the courtesy of listening to my speeches, both on Second Reading and to-day, when I pointed out quite clearly that this was a Parliamentary device to make a protest on constitutional grounds.
Lord SHACKLETON: It is a device, but it is a pretty odd one. One would like to have some relation to reality. I will not press it, but he has exposed himself, and I think I must be entitled just to make these few mild remarks.
716
Now we come, at any moment, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The trumpets have sounded the call to duty. We even had Kipling from Lord Ferrier. We had that splendid call from that unlikely martial figure, Lord Arran. At last, after years of frustration, and after an awful "botched" shot over the Rhodesia Order, the Conservative Party are called to strike a blow for constitutional freedom. No longer the soft days when the Duke of Wellington persuaded the House of Lords to acquiesce in the Reform Bill of 1882! My advice to the Conservative Party on this matter is that they keep clear of it entirely. It is too late now; they have not taken the advice. They are very good at picking up the wrong issue. They are almost unerring in their skill, whether it is Rhodesia or this Bill. They know that their action in this matter will be futile; that they cannot in fact compel the Government to carry this out. They have talked about threats of reprisals. There have not been any threats of reprisals. There is nothing for them to resist—very disappointing for the noble Lord, Lord Denham. He was all ready and waited until at last one noble Lord said something, and then he came up and delivered his particular clarion call to duty.
Lord DENHAM: I gather that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister said something over the weekend about this.
Lord SHACKLETON: I do not know what he said. Oh!—this was on the Housing Bill, and the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. That was on another matter, but not on this; and once again the noble Lord, Lord Denham—
Lord BYERS: Do we gather that there will be no reprisals whatsoever on this?
Lord SHACKLETON: I think that if the noble Lord will wait he will hear my analysis of the situation.
I am bound to say that we on these Benches totally reject the right of this House to reject this particular measure. If they wish they have the power to make the Commons think again. The attitude of the Labour Party is perfectly clear: we do not share the views of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that somehow the House of Lords is an emanation of

717
the electorate. As to my own attitude, I am bound to say that despite my belief that it was possible to make sense out of your Lordships (we had the proposals which went so far; I will not attach blame, but it was a tragedy, I think, that we were not able to carry them through), I think the prospects of coming to a sensible solution in the future get less and less.
The only effect of Conservatives' insistence on this Amendment is that they will almost certainly delay the carrying out of the reforms with regard to the Greater London area, and the elections there will be fought on the basis that the necessary adjustments which could have been made were frustrated. I ask noble Lords to think very carefully indeed, and I particularly ask noble Lords who perhaps have been rather inclined to be dragged away by these great cries of "Constitutional issue!" where no constitutional issue is at all that they will in fact think very carefully on this. All I will say is that if to-day this Committee passes these Amendments, as I suspect it will, it will be a bad day for the House of Lords. And when I look at the serried ranks opposite—and, my goodness!, how much more serried have they become, excluding those Members of another place beyond the Bar—I really wonder whether I should advise my noble friends to go into the Lobby at all. Once again the Leader of the Opposition shows that he controls your Lordships' House. However, we shall go into the Division on the first Amendment only, and treat the rest, as at present drafted, with contempt.
5.45 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in his good-humoured, rather condescending and largely irrelevant speech, that it is now time we came to a decision. I too, from this side of the Committee, should like to welcome some pretty strange faces on that side, and particularly I should like to welcome if I may the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. I only hope he will not feel at the end of these proceedings that his journey was not really necessary.
Lord SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I should like to stress that the presence here of my noble friend Lord Caradon is purely coincidental.
Lord CARRINGTON: As a taxpayer I am very glad to hear that. I only hope that as we go into the Lobby his name, as so often happens, will not be confused with mine on this occasion.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has explained with great clarity the purpose of the series of Amendments to which we are seeking your Loidships' agreement. We have had a very long debate upon them, and I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time. The Amendments—and I ask noble Lords opposite to believe this—are put forward for the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and it is a matter of great regret to us that the Government, if we are to believe the noble Lord the Leader of the House, find themselves unable to accept them. The object of the Amendments is to enable the Home Secretary and the Government to reconsider their action, and to have time to reflect upon the debates and discussions which have taken place about this Bill, without fear of anyone taking legal action against them for their failure to implement the Boundary Commission Report.
We have chosen the date of March 31 next year by which we suggest that the Home Secretary should either implement the Boundary Commission proposals or make other proposals for the consideration of Parliament. It is a date which coincides with that chosen by the Government themselves for Scotland and Northern Ireland. I submit that these are reasonable suggestions and are, in the words of the Daily Telegraph this morning, "a mannerly course". If Amendments are needed to my Amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested, because they are not properly drafted, then on the Report stage we shall be only too happy to pay attention to anything which the noble Lord or the Government say about the drafting of these Amendments.
But I want to return to the central issue which is before your Lordships. No doubt we shall all have reread the debate we had last Thursday. I have done so. I have read with great care the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and that of Lord Shackleton, and I hope that they have read what we had to say. At no time during that debate did we impugn the motives of the Government,

719
and at no time have we brought any Party matter into our argument. Indeed, it is noticeable, if I may say so, that the only speeches which have contained Party political matter have been those from the other side, and notably the closing passages of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on Second Reading, about which I shall have something more to say a little later.
We have devoted ourselves solely to the argument that the Government themselves have advanced for the introduction of this Bill; that is to say, that it is necessary because of the Maud Commission Report and the likelihood that its proposals will be put into effect in the fairly near future. For that reason, we are told, the Boundary Commission recommendations, with one or two selected exceptions, should be postponed for an unspecified period of years ahead. No one who listened to the debate on Second Reading or this afternoon can have come away other than convinced that this argument does not hold water. The Home Secretary has suggested that the Boundary Commission proposals and Maud will all be done and finished with by 1973.
Lord STONHAM: My right honourable friend has never said that. I made it quite clear on Second Reading, and my noble Leader has made it clear again to-day. The utmost my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said is that it is possible that provisional recommendations by the Boundary Commission will be ready by 1973.
Lord CARRINGTON: The Government do not think it possible that any of these things can be done by 1973? Am I right? And that, because of this—
Lord STONHAM: If the noble Lord is bringing the discussion to this level, I must say again that I made it clear on Second Reading; it was made clear by my noble friend the Leader of the House and I made it clear again in my intervention that we do think provisional recommendations can be produced by the Boundary Commission in 1974.
Lord CARRINGTON: I do not know to which of my two statements the noble Lord is objecting. Perhaps he can
720
let me know later. The argument is that because of this date two changes of boundaries in so short a time would be undesirable. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, whose experience in these matters is unrivalled in this House (and, I should think, outside it) made it plain that in her view no such time table is possible, and that a more realistic assessment of when both Maud and the Boundary Commission would together be completed is 1978 or 1979, a date I would ask your Lordships to note—not after the next Election but after the next Election but one, leaving a gap of some thirty years between any remedy for the grossly swollen constituencies and those whose electorate has been more than halved. I do not believe, and I have not met anybody outside the Labour Party who believes, that Maud can be implemented in a short time. Even if the present Government were re-elected I do not believe it would be possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton (and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, did so early this afternoon) suggested during the Second Reading that they would be prepared to consider—and Lord Champion would like to see—a date in legislation by which the Boundary Commission proposals would be implemented. If, by 1972, or 1973, or 1974, the argument goes—and this is the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Helsby—the Maud Commission proposals have not become effective, the Boundary Commission alterations would be made. This seems to be attractive to some noble Lords opposite. But the very fact that the Government are prepared to consider such a proposal invalidates their argument for introducing the Bill at all; for by then, by whatever date in the early 1970s that would be, we would be very much nearer the implementation of Maud; and if a change of boundaries were made in 1972 or 1973, it would be much nearer the Maud arrangement than it would be if it were made now. It would make things much worse and not much better. Certainly I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, in what he has to suggest. I must say that the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has made that suggestion indicates to me that there is a doubt in his mind about the date on which all these proposals may see the light of day.

721
I have listened to both these debates. I have heard no other arguments advanced for the Government proposals except that one—except (and I say this with due deference to one or two noble Lords opposite who spoke on Second Reading) the rather extraordinary one of the convenience of Members of Parliament. I am sorry about that. I do not think that any of us would want to put M.Ps. to any avoidable inconvenience; but the fairness of our electoral system really should weigh with us more than the difficulties, however serious they may be, of those who represent the electors.
I want to make this clear. So far as I am concerned, even if the Government were right and the changes could be implemented by 1973 or 1974, I could not support this Bill. It does not seem to me right that the next Election should be fought on boundaries which are 17 or 18 years out of date. Fifteen years was chosen by Parliament as the interval at which these changes should be made. It was felt, and agreed by all Parties, that this was a suitable period since there would be in that time significant shifts of population in many constituencies. So it has proved. I believe that the next Election should be fought on the new boundaries as Parliament laid down in the Statute with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
If this Bill goes through unamended or under the provisions of the Parliament Act we shall in my view have debased our standards of political behaviour; for noble Lords opposite should be under No illusion that they have any support outside their own Party for the course that they are following. There is evidence that some of those in the Labour Party are very troubled at what is proposed. It would be a matter of great surprise to me if, when we go into the Division Lobbies in a few minutes' time there are more than a handful, perhaps not even that, of Members of this House in the Lobby with the noble Lords opposite who do not take the Labour Whip.
If this Bill goes through, a precedent will have been created and one, I think, greatly to be regretted and deplored. No longer could it be said that the proposals from the Boundary Commission, independent proposals from independent people, are something which Governments put into operation at the first opportunity;
722
no longer could it be said that Governments are, with minor modifications, in honour bound to do that and rot to make major alterations and not to postpone their coming into force. There would be the precedent of 1969. And there would, alas—and I am sorry to have to say this—be the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House who when he wound up the debate on Second Reading, said this:
"The simple fact is that if the Conservative Party had introduced this Bill—and they might just as well have done so because they have never been behindhand in pursuing their own interests—."—[Official Report, co. 548, 17/7/69.]
All of us in this House know the noble Lord very well indeed and have great affection and admiration for him. It may be that that was a slip of the tongue; but it was a significant slip of the tongue because behind the implications of that remark lie the misgivings which many people feel about the Government's proposals.
Surely no Government should ever put itself, or be thought to be putting itself, in the position where people w: ll say that it is altering the law and altering the rules to suit its own purposes. For, if it does, it does not only discredit itself but discredits the whole system of government in this country. The consequences of such an action are taking place here this afternoon, a possible clash between the two Houses; and much more serious than that, a tendency for the average man in the street to believe that this sort of thing is inevitable in politics and in our political system. If the Government have eyes to see and ears to hear they must have seen and heard the warning signs that are up wherever they look or listen.
Lastly, I must for one moment deal with the suggestion that was made last time and to-day by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that this House is not entitled to concern itself in this matter. I reject that absolutely. I reject the argument that because this House is unelected and because some of its composition is hereditary it should not concern itself in an Act of Parliament which affects every man and woman of this country. I agree with the right reverend Prelate; and whether one docs or not, one must admire the courage it takes to speak

723
against one's own Party. I reject the suggestion that because the Labour Party have a temporary majority in the House of Commons, a majority which if they put it to the test at a General Election to-day would evaporate, they have the right without opposition from this House to change the rules of electoral representation.
Lord SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? What on earth does he mean by a "temporary majority" in another place? Is he contrasting it with the permanent Conservative majority in this House?
Lord CARRINGTON: I leave the House to judge upon that exchange.
I reject the implication in the Prime Minister's remark yesterday that such a course would be either arrogant or a misuse of privilege. It does not lie in the mouth of the Prime Minister of the Government introducing this measure to talk of arrogance. There are some who say, "Why should the House of Lords with its hereditary composition set itself up as the defenders of the votes of the people?" I should not have thought that the average person who understands the implication of what the Government are doing and believes that they are acting unfairly, unconstitutionally and improperly, will mind if it is a hereditary Peer who says so and is prepared to vote against it. I think rather that he will be
glad that there is a Second Chamber which has some powers left to delay the improprieties of the Government.
We have had this afternoon no threats about what will happen if we pass these Amendments, or at any rate, in the last few days only a few veiled threats. That, to me, is a matter of some significance. On every other occasion when it seemed likely that your Lordships intended to oppose Government proposals dire threats have been issued by all Members of the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards. They have never been slow in seeking to intimidate this House from using its powers. They have been silent on this occasion because they themselves know that the position they have taken up is contrary to the conventions and decencies of politics. But threats or no, I imagine most of your Lordships will be in no difficulty about the course that you should follow this evening. I hope that you will pass these Amendments; pass them because they are a fair and honourable way out for the Government, and pass them because they are just and right. In doing so I believe not only should we be doing the right thing but we should be upholding the standards of our political life.
6.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 270; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Camoys, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Beeching, L.

Carrington, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Belstead, L.

Chandos, V.

Abinger, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Chelmer, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Airedale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Clinton, L.

Aldington, L.

Blackford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Allerton, L.

Blakenham, V.

Clwyd, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cole, L.

Amory, V.

Bolton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Boston, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Amulree, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Colyton, L.

Arran, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Conesford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Bradford, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Atholl, D.

Braye, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Auckland, L.

Brecon, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Audley, Bs.

Brentford, V.

Craigavon, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Balerno, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Barnard, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Crathorne, L.

Barnby, L.

Buchan, E.

Croft, L.

Barrington, V.

Buckton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Bathurst, E.

Burton, L.

Cromer, E.

Bearsted, V.

Byers, L.

Crowther, L.

Beatty, E.

Caccia, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Daventry, V.

Howe, E.

Redmayne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Remnant, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Ilford, L.

Ridley, V.

Denham, L.

Inchyra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Deramore, L.

Inglewood, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Derwent, L.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Digby, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Rochester, L.

Downe, V.

Jessel, L.

Rockley, L.

Drogheda, E.

Kemsley, V.

Rootes, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Dulverton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Rothermere, V.

Dundee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Dundonald, E.

Kindersley, L.

Rothes, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Rowallan, L.

Eccles, V.

Lambert, V.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Effingham, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Egremont, L.

Latymer, L.

Rutland, D.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Sackville, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lonsdale, E.

St. Helens, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Lothian, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Loudoun, C.

Salisbury, M.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Lovat, L.

Saltoun, L.

Exeter, M.

Lucan, E.

Sandford, L.

Falkland, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Falmouth, V.

Luke, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrier, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fisher, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Foley, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Shawcross, L.

Foot, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sherfield, L.

Forbes, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Silsoe, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mancroft, L.

Simonds, V.

Franks, L.

Manton, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Gage, V.

Margadale, L.

Spens, L.

Garner, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stonehaven, V.

Geddes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strang, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mersey, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Gladwyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glandevon, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glendyne, L.

Molson, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Goschen, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Suffield, L.

Gowrie, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swaythling, L.

Grantchester, L.

Monson, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray, L.

Morrison, L.

Tangley, L.

Greenway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Templemore, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Terrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Moyne, L.

Teviot, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Nctherthorpe, L.

Todd, L.

Hacking, L.

Newton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Haddington, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Hampden, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hankey, L.

Pender, L.

Vivian, L.

Harcourt, V.

Penney, L.

Wade, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Perth, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Harris, L.

Plowden, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Poltimore, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hawke, L.

Polwarth, L.

Watkinson, V.

Hayter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wellington, D.

Headfort, M.

Poole, L.

Westwood, L.

Helsby, L.

Powis, E.

Windlesham, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Holford, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hood, V.

Redesdale, L.

Yarborough, E.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Blyton, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Archibald, L.

Bowden, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Caradon, L.

Balogh, L.

Brockway, L.

Chalfont, L.

Beswick, L.

Brown, L.

Champion, L.

Birk, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Chorley, L.

Blackett, L.

Burden, L.

Citrine, L.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L.

Raglan, L.

Crook, L.

Kennet, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Darwen, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Royle, L.

Dinevor, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Rusholme, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Latham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

St. Davids, V.

Energlyn, L.

Lindgren, L.

Samuel, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Faringdon, L.

Serota, Bs.

Fiske, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Francis-Williams, L.

Longford, E.

Shepherd, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

McLeavy, L.

Snow, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Mais, L.

Stonham, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gifford, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Granville-West, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hall, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Pargiter, L.

Walston, L.

Heycock, L.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Platt, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Inman, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("Act") insert ("in the present session of Parliament'').—(Lord Carrington.)
Lord CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("1969") to end of line 2 on page 3 and insert—
("(1A) Subject to subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State, on or before 31st March 1970, shall, in respect of each report of a Boundary Commission submitted under section 2 (1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969, lay before Parliament the draft Order in Council required by section 2 (5) of that Act.
(1B) On compliance with subsection (1A) above in relation to any report of a Boundary Commission the Secretary of State shall be relieved of any penalties imposed on him in respect of his breach, in respect of that report, of the duty imposed by section 2 (5) of that Act to lay a draft Order in Council before Parliament at the same time as he laid the report, and to do so as soon as may be after the report was submitted to him.
(1C) Where subsection (1B) above has effect in relation to a report, any proceedings pending against the Secretary of State in the Supreme Court of Judicature, the Court of Session, the High Court in Northern Ireland or the House of Lords shall, so far as they relate to breaches of duty by the Secretary of
728
State in respect of that report, be treated as stayed.
(1D) Nothing in this section shall affect any order for costs made against the Secretary of State at any previous time, or the power to make any order for costs at any future time.")—(Lord Carrington.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Alteration of constituencies in Greater London and certain contiguous areas]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 2 disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 [Immediate division of constituencies with abnormally large electorates]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 3 disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Altered Constituencies in Greater London and Adjoining Counties]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Schedule 1 disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 2 [Constituencies to be divided under S. 3]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Schedule disagreed to accordingly.
Lord CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("not later than 31 st March 1970; to indemnify the Secretary of State against penalties for breach of statutory duty").—(Lord Carrington.)
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, with the Amendments.

SAINT SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL
6.24 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I think I should say a few words about its background. I would remind your Lordships that in July of last year the House agreed to a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill. That Motion was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and when it was passed and the Instruction was given to the Committee, I reported early in this Session that the Bill, though it was, of course, an Unopposed Bill, should be treated as an Opposed Bill in order that a Select Committee could be appointed and could consider and make recommendations about the Instruction from the House. The Select Committee have made a Special Report giving their decision on the Instruction, and reasons for it, and this Report is now before your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
6.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I should, I suppose, declare an interest, in that I am not unconnected with the Promoters of this Bill. I should like to express our thanks to the Select Committee for the great care which they
730
have taken and the time they have spent in going into this problem. When the matter was last before your Lordships' House I explained, so far as I could, the general attitude which the Diocese of London was taking. We did not consider that the Church of St. Saviour, Paddington, in its present form fulfilled a pastoral need, and we felt that the proposed new church, smaller, would in every way be more satisfactory pastorally.
I also said on that occasion that we should not think it right to spend large sums of money on restoring and maintaining the tower, which was not, in our opinion, justified pastorally, as against the needs of other areas of the diocese where new churches were required. The Select Committee have examined and set out in their Report the relative costs of retaining the tower, of making it an integral part of a new church or of pulling it down. Our feeling in the diocese remains the same.
There was a suggestion, to which the Select Committee refer in their Report, that a new, smaller and much cheaper church would be satisfactory, but, in the opinion of the diocese, that was swinging too far in the opposite direction. We would point out that the Report makes it clear that, although there were those who, on grounds of amenity, wished the tower to be retained, at considerable cost on any calculation, the only person or body which was prepared to help the diocese to do that was the Greater London Council, with a proposed grant of £4, 000, which would not go very far towards the actual capital work required now and would do nothing to ease the parish and the diocese from a considerable continuing liability.
The diocese accepts fully and willingly that there must be the fullest consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission on the form and shape of any tall feature or spire which would fill in the gap at the end of Warwick Avenue if the tower were to go away. But, apart from that, we should ourselves hope very much that your Lordships will accept the advice of the Select Committee and give the Bill a Third Reading.
6.29 p.m.
Lord FARINGDON: My Lords, I shall be quite brief. First of all, I should like to echo the right reverend Prelate's

731
compliments and appreciation of the work of the members of the Select Committee. They operated what was, I understand, something of an innovation, and went to great lengths to inform themselves and to help those of us who were interested in the proposed Bill, giving us time and instructions to get both sides together, and to produce for the Committee some kind of comparable figures. We are all extremely grateful for their work—grateful despite the fact that in the view of some of us the solution they reached was not the right one. It was merely a majority decision, and I hope that, that being so, when the Bill becomes an Act those who have to operate it will be influenced by what was said on an early occasion, and what I am saying at the moment.
Many of your Lordships—probably most—will know the site, Warwick Avenue, which is one of the most handsome specimens of town planning in London. The church and, above all, its spire come at the end of the main access of the Warwick Avenue development. It seems to me, and to those who like myself are interested in this church, that its retention, or the retention of something like it, is absolutely essential if the amenities of the area are to be preserved.
I was, if I may say so, very gratified to hear the right reverend Prelate's undertaking that the Fine Art Commission, and I hope other bodies interested from the amenity point of view, should be consulted. In this connection, I should like to stress two points. One is the siting of some kind of vertical feature to stand on the site of the present tower which the Committee have agreed should be demolished. I do not make much about the demolishing of the church by itself; it was not in itself a very great architectural entity, although by reason of its size and situation it played an essential part in the layout of which I have already spoken. Some vertical emphasis has been undertaken by the church authorities, and my first point is that the tower, or whatever replaces it, must be of the right scale to bring the vertical emphasis, as I have already said, into the proper relationship with the Warwick Avenue layout.
The other point I should like to make is that it is essential that the new build-
732
ing, the new tower, not only should have sufficient bulk, but should be of a material that does not clash with the predominantly stucco buildings on each side of Warwick Avenue. There is in the Bill a saving clause for the town planners, and this matter will fall to the town planning officer of the Westminster City Council. I hope that the plans may in any event be called in by the Minister after that. They have to consider a slightly changed situation since the Bill was first introduced, because this area has now been scheduled as a conservation area where rather special rules and directions will operate in a way they have not operated so far. This will be a test case as to how we deal with the area: how it is dealt with by the planning authorities of the City of Westminister and/or the Minister, for this will be the first important development coming under the new Amenities Act. I hope that the church and the planning officers will bear in mind the strong feelings that many of us have about the preservation of this church not only for its own quality, but on account of the essential part it plays in the landscape or townscape in which it stands. I hope that my few words may penetrate into those planning offices where the decision will be taken.
6.36 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of HOUSING and LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Lord Kennet): My Lords, it is customary for a member of the Government to say something about Bills of this nature, although it is not strictly necessary to do so. I will not repeat what has been said by the Lord Chairman about the progress of the Bill through our House and the Commit tee. The House has received a Report from the Committee, and the question of the Third Reading is before it. It may be of assistance if I say a word about the planning aspect. The Promoters of the Bill will require planning permission for the new development proposed upon the site; that is, for the housing part of it. They will also require planning permission from the local planning authority, the Westminster City Council, for the proposed new church and spire, under three heads: its siting; its access and its external appearance. All this is subject to planning control.

733
I should not go further because it may be that the matter will come before my right honourable friend in one way or another. It could come before him if the Westminster City Council were to refuse permission for what the proposers wish to do in the way of a new church, and if they were to appeal to him. It could also come before him if he were to think it right to call in the planning application in respect of the church and the new housing, or of either. In determining whether or not he should call it in, my right honourable friend will haveregard to the usual considerations in such cases—that is, the intrinsic importance of the matter; the wishes of the Promoters, and of the planning authority; the amount of public interest that has been aroused; and the opinion of the Royal Fine Art Commission. I share my noble friend's hope that the planning authorities, and the Promoters, will be closely in touch with this Commission on what it is planned to do from now on.
6.39 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, if I say a word or two on this subject from this Dispatch Box I trust it will not be thought that I am importing any Party element into the discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I are simply expressing our views—he on behalf of the Government, and I on behalf of myself alone. It happens that I have known the existing church tower since I was about five years of age, because in my boyhood I lived in that part of London, and I entirely sympathise with those who feel either that the tower should be retained or, if it cannot be retained, that great care needs to be taken in whatever buildings may replace it. I think myself that the Committee have come to a right decision.
I cannot help thinking that a number of cases, a series of cases, are likely to come along—and some of them will come on a Bill to your Lordships' House—where very difficult questions arise about the importance of the preservation of the townscape value of a church tower or a church building which the church itself no longer requires for spiritual purposes. My own belief is that the church authorities, whether they are the parochial authorities or the diocesan authorities, should pay very careful thought to views
734
which are expressed, both by members of the public and by professionally qualified people, on the importance and value of a church building, or part of a church building, that has become redundant.
If, however, it is clear that the building, or part of the building, is no longer required for spiritual purposes, it seems to me that it would be wrong to call upon church people to meet the extra cost of maintenance that would be involved if such a building, or part of a building, is to be preserved. There may be an overwhelming case for its preservation, but in that event the additional cost should fall on the public, whether on the statutory authorities or on voluntary organisations, and not on the church people whose money has been given for the furtherance of the work of the church; that money ought not to be diverted to make our surroundings more pleasant, or to keep them pleasant.
In this case it was clear that the amount of money that the Greater London Council were willing to offer was not sufficient to offset the difference in cost that would fall upon the parish or the diocese. It seems to me, therefore, that it is right that the Bill should go through. But I join with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and all those who have spoken, in endorsing the importance of this site and of watching that any buildings which are erected in the course of its redevelopment shall be worth) ones.
6.44 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lores, on behalf of the Committee—I happened to be their Chairman—I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Faringdon for having expressed appreciation of the work of the Committee and of the care which they took to try to get at the basis of the claim, or suggestion, that the tower should be retained, and our consideration of the cost involved. I came here prepared to defend the work of the Committee, or at least the decision of the majority of the Committee, but the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has so perfectly put what seemed to me to be in the minds of the majority of the Committee when they finally took the decision, that I should be wasting your Lordships' time if I in fact embarked upon a speech of something like two hours!

735
I agree with the noble Lord that if the community—and this is something which will have to be looked into—desires to retain some features for its own enjoyment, it ought to be prepared to pay for them. It ought not to expect the Church to pay for it; it ought not to expect private bodies to pay for it. We ought to find some way in which it would be possible for the community in fact to pay for the retention of such a feature as we have here in this town. I must admit that I pass this church every day when I am in London. I do not like to see the tower going. But it seemed to me to be quite impracticable, quite wrong, to consider placing the cost of its retention upon the Church.
I end by asking that those who would be responsible—the Westminster City Council, the Royal Fine Art Commission and all those who will have to help to take a decision in this matter—to try, for heaven's sake, to put on this site a vertical feature which will be worthy of the situation. I sincerely hope that that will happen.
Lord SILSOE: My Lords, may I say one word? I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Kennet, will not think that I ought to declare an interest. When I held a certain appointment a short time ago this church came under my care and attention; now it has nothing to do with me. But I was asked to say that great care had been taken about this tower and this church; and I am asked to commend the acceptance of the Bill by the House.
6.46 p.m.
Lord HOLFORD: My Lords, may I speak very briefly as one who is very much concerned with the planned compositions of London. I should like to say how much I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said about the dilemma which we are in and which we are going to be in in the future with a great number of these monuments. The fact is that this was a composition planned as a whole, and the church of course was partly a place to accommodate a congregation and also partly a monument. Now one has to regard it as a place whose use for holding a large congregation has passed, but the monument, which belongs to London, of
736
course remains; and there is no means, apart from the offer of the Greater London Council of £4, 000, by which that monument can be kept up for the benefit of Londoners.
I personally shall bitterly regret the loss of this church and although it may perhaps be a little ironical to end on this note, I do not feel that anything which is a mini-monument, something which is a shrunken spire, or anything which does not hold the scale which the original monument held in this composition, would in fact be a proper substitute. On the other hand, one cannot dissent from the findings of the Committee, which I have read with great care, and therefore it seems that we are left with the dilemma.
6.47 p.m.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, although I am speaking from this Dispatch Box, I am speaking entirely personally. I could not possibly add anything to what my noble friend Lord Brooke has said, save that since I was sponsor of the Civic Amenities Act in this House—although I really look upon the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as a co-sponsor here—since this is a conservation area, and in view of everything that has been said about the need for a really high quality building in this area, I would make a request to the noble Lord. It is that, if his Ministry are in doubt about this matter, I hope that one, at least, of the criteria of calling in will have been met, and that is the public interest as evinced by this short debate in your Lordships' House. Therefore, if there is any doubt about the matter, I hope that the noble Lord's right honourable friend will in fact exercise his power to call in the application, if need be.
6.48 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, there are two more points I should like to make. My right honourable friend will certainly take into account this short debate in determining the degree of public interest in the context of calling in this matter. I should like to make just one observation about what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said about who should pay for the keeping up of churches no longer needed as churches. This observation does not relate to St. Saviour's, Paddington, where I think it would not be applicable, but in general,

737
I hope I understand him aright, that he would not wish his remark, that it was unfair to expect the Church to contribute anything to the maintenance of a church which was redundant for church purposes, to cast any adverse light on the Redundant Churches Act, which we recently passed by agreement between both sides of the House, and under which of course the Church of England very generously contribute money towards the maintenance of churches which have become redundant.
Lord SILSOE: My Lords, may I say that the Government have generously given an equal amount.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, if I may have leave to speak again, I certainly would cast no aspersion on the Redundant Churches Act, but I have always supposed that that Act would be available to assist only a small number of outstanding churches, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Holford, I think there will be a great many church buildings the future of which will have to be carefully considered during the next few years.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think it would be proper for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in what he said by way of thanking the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, for their kind words about the work of the Select Committee. Members of Select Committees of your Lordships' House give up a considerable amount of time to this work, and I think sometimes that that work is not sufficiently recognised by the House. Therefore I felt particularly glad to hear what was said on this occasion, and those remarks will be passed on to the members of the Committee.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendment and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NIGERIA: ARMS EMBARGO PROPOSAL AND UNITED NATIONS
6.51 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose to the Security Council of the United Nations an embargo on arms sup-
738
plies to both sides in the Nigeria—Blafra war. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not apologise for raising this issue tonight: I feel it desirable that it should be voiced before we go into Recess. But I do apologise to your Lordships for raising it on this particular day and at this particular time. We have had in the House today a difference between the two sides which has led to considerable tension and exhaustion. Some of us did not take to our beds until dawn this morning because we were listening to, and watching, the exciting arrival of the Americans on the moon. For these reasons I have not sought tonight to secure the support of speakers for this Unstirred Question. However I should like to emphasise that I am by no means speaking purely for myself.
I am the Chairman of the Peace in Nigeria Committee, and I have never presided over a more "Establishment" body. It has leading members from all three Parties, including the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, from the Conservative Party; the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, from the Liberal Party, and many of my colleagues on these Benches, as well as representatives of all three Parties in another place. It also has representatives of all the Churches—the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church and the Free Churches. It has a most extraordinary membership from ex-Colonial servants in Nigeria and the Eastern Region, including two former Governors-General. In addition, it has leading figures in every sphere of life in this country.
Our supporters go even further: When we wrote to the Prime Minister putting our views, we had the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, 20 Bishops and a most remarkable list of representative people in this country. Therefore, even though I am speaking to a small House, and perhaps in a lonely way, I am quite sure the Minister will not feel that I am speaking for a minority in this country.
As a matter of fact, all three Parties are united on the proposal which I am now making. The Labour Party Conference carried a resolution which was even more radical than the one I am now proposing. The Liberal Party—and I

739
spoke with their Leader last week—are quite definitely in support. Sir Alec Douglas-Home, speaking for the Conservative Party, has endorsed this proposal. It has the support not only of the Churches and the political Parties but also of such organisations as the United Nations Association. I have not the least doubt that the vast majority of politically alert opinion in this country supports this proposal.
The suggestions which our Committee have made include a cease-fire, an international force to supervise that cease-fire, a cooling-off period while bitterness should be reduced, then political negotiations, and an embargo on arms to both sides in this war. Our Committee have had two interviews with the Prime Minister, one attended by the Foreign Secretary and by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. We have had repeated interviews with the Minister mainly responsible for African affairs, Mr. Maurice Foley. We have seen the Ambassadors of West Germany, of Switzerland, of Sweden, and, in the absence of the Italian Ambassador, the First Secretary of Italy and also the First Secretary of the Soviet Union. We have pressed upon all those Governments the proposal for an embargo on both sides in this war. I may say, in passing, that we have had the support of all these Embassies, except that of the Soviet Union. To its objection I will refer later.
In addition to that, my Lords, we initiated a resolution at the Council of Europe, and the Political Committee of the Council of Europe carried a resolution in favour of an embargo on arms to both sides by all its Member States. The W.E.U. similarly has carried a resolution on these lines, though with certain reservations. In addition, I am quite authoritatively informed that the United States Government has brought pressure both upon our own Government and the French Government to limit at least the supply of arms to both sides in this war.
I want to recognise the difficulties in a quite practical way. The supply of arms to both Nigeria and Biafra comes not only from Governments: it comes from the black market, and it has been urged that it is not possible, by an embargo endorsed by Governments, to prevent the black market supplies. My Lords, surely it is clearly possible for any Government
740
which takes this position to say, at its airports, at its docks, and at all points of departure, that all arms shall be prohibited from going either to Nigeria or Biafra. In most countries such arms have to be licensed, and the Government could refuse licences. I do not accept the argument that it is not possible for Governments to control black market supplies as well as Government supplies.
Both in discussions with the Prime Minister and in correspondence, it has been urged by the Government that an embargo cannot be enforced until there is a cease-fire, and that only under the conditions of cease-fire would it be possible within Nigeria and Biafra itself to have an international supervision which would prevent the entry of arms. If my previous argument is accepted, then a great deal could be done from the points of departure. If, on the other hand, it is regarded as necessary to have international intervention in Nigeria and Biafra, may I put this point? It is now accepted that there shall be international supervision of relief which goes to Biafra. The division between Nigeria and Biafra on that issue is only on the point at which the international supervision shall take place. Nigeria says it must be in Nigerian territory. Biafra accepts it if it takes place from San Tomé, Cotonou, Libreville, outside the area; and I hope I am right in thinking that the British Government themselves have urged upon the Nigerian Government some acceptance of that proposal. If that is true for relief, it can also be true for the embargo on arms.
There is the difficulty of France. The French Government has denied that it is sending arms. I have been to both Nigeria and Biafra, and I have no doubt that French arms are reaching Biafra. It is probably true that they are reaching Biafra through Gabon and through the Ivory Coast, and that the French Government is not directly supplying them but is saying to Gabon and to the Ivory Coast, "You may provide Biafra with arms and we will make it up at a later date". I would very strongly say to Her Majesty's Government that in view of the changed political situation in France a position has now arisen where discussions between the British Government and the French Government could take place upon this issue. I believe from my informants in France that there

741
is now an atmosphere which might lead to an agreement between the British and the French Governments on this matter.
Then there is the difficulty of the attitude of Soviet Russia. Our Committee has had its deputation to the Soviet Embassy. I want to say, quite frankly, that its attitude was on the whole intransigent—in fact, more intransigent than we found when we met the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of this country or when we met other ambassadors. But at least Soviet Russia said this: that if there were a decision by other countries to stop arms going to both Nigeria and Biafra they would reconsider their attitude. I put this point to the Minister very seriously. Soviet Russia is now very anxiously concerned to bring about a detente. It is engaged, in its talks with the Government of the United States, with meetings in Moscow, and because of its fear, particularly of China, the Soviet Union is very anxious to reach a detente. I say that undoubtedly if the British Government used their influence with the American Government, the American Government could bring great pressure to bear upon Soviet Russia in this regard.
Then the difficulty may be urged against my resolution that it is proposing action by the Security Council of the United Nations which, because Nigeria is a member State, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, has said it is difficult for the United Nations to take within its consideration. I want to urge that a different situation arises when it is not merely a conflict between Nigeria and the Eastern Region, part of which now describes itself as Biafra, but also a matter of member States, and leading member States, of the United Nations supplying arms to both sides. It is not often that I can welcome a contribution which has been made by Sir Alec Douglas-Home upon this matter, but he has urged in another place exactly the proposal which I am now making: that the United Nations should consider this problem of an embargo upon arms to both sides and take the initiative to prevent that supply of arms proceeding.
My Lords, before I conclude—and I have tried to be objective in what I have said—may I say this. In December, Mr. James Griffiths, an ex-Colonial Secretary, and I went to both Nigeria and
742
Biafra seeking peace. When we were there we found arms manufactured in eight different European countries supplied to both sides. We found in addition to those arms that there were the supplies from Britain and Russia to Nigeria and indirectly from France to Biafra. There is a very great new danger in this war, with its appalling consequences; that is, not merely the deaths in battle, but the million deaths which have already occurred, mostly among the young children. James Griffiths and I were present at a place where the Catholics were providing one meal a day for 3, 000 children. I have seen the priest who was in charge of that feeding centre; he has now returned from Biafra and he said that the most difficult thing he had ever had to do in his life was to tell those 3, 000 children that there would be no food for them next day.
The new terrible thing about the Nigerian-Biafran war is that it is now becoming not a war between Africans, but a war between Great Powers in their own material and economic interests. Soviet Russia is seeking penetration into Nigeria, when it has largely failed in the Continent of Africa, except in the U A.R., Egypt and Algeria; France, with her ex-Colonies, still dominated by the French economy, on the borders of Nigeria and in competition with her; and I think Great Britain probably muddled into this situation. We had been supplying arms to Nigeria as a Commonwealth country. My complaint is not only that the supply of arms has continued, but that it has intensified since the war began. But it would be a quite naive person who did not think that the oil interests of Great Britain, particularly B.P. Shell, was not one factor in the arms supplies which are now being sent.
There is a moral issue here. Many years ago in another place I heard Mr. Philip Snowdon say that if he filled his hand with pebbles and threw them on to the opposite Benches he could hardly fail to hit someone whose financial interests were in the armaments industry. To-night, I should not have many people to hit. But I put this as a matter of conscience. I put it as a matter of conscience to Her Majesty's Government: How can Her Majesty's Government go on supplying arms which not only mean death in battle, but the starvation of thousands of little children? I

743
put it to those who are shareholders in armaments that I can scarcely think of anything more immoral than making their wealth, their dividends, their own material satisfaction out of the deaths which take place in war.
I want to conclude in a constructive way. Rather remarkably, the differences between the two sides are not now very deep. Nigeria insists on union; Biafra insists on association. There are degrees of unity and there are degrees of association. They are negotiable, and anyone who knows Nigeria finds it difficult to believe that at the end of this war there will not be a reconstruction of the Constitution in which the two points of view, of union and association, will require to be brought together.
The other issue is this; and it is quite extraordinary. The only reason why talks are not taking place to-day between Nigeria and Biafra is that Nigeria asks for negotiations without conditions, and Biafra asks for a ceasefire before negotiations. I am going to read from a letter which the Prime Minister sent to me. I am sorry that my copy has no date, but it is in reply to my letter of May 20. It says:
"The position of the Nigerian Government is—as General Gowon made very plain to me in Lagos—that they are prepared to negotiate at any time without pre-conditions. Colonel Ojukwu, however, still appears to insist on a ceasefire before negotiations, and this is itself a form of pre-condition."
Accepting that one seeks negotiations without conditions and the other asks for a ceasefire before negotiations, is not the solution of that problem within the reach of statesmanship?
I think I may say that in discussions with Mr. Maurice Foley, the Minister responsible for African Affairs, the suggestion emerged that a solution of that problem might be found by talks which place a ceasefire first, an embargo on arms second, and negotiations third. Even if there is a ceasefire, talks have to take place. I greatly hope that Her Majesty's Government are now urging that solution upon Lagos. I promised Mr. Maurice Foley that I would write to African Governments suggesting that they press this point of view upon the Biafran Administration. Only to-day, I have received my first reply from an African Government agreeing to do so.
This war is a terrible disaster. Vietnam has been awful; but more have died in the Nigerian-Biafran war than in Vietnam, and they have mostly been young children dead from starvation. I can see no objective at the present time more worthy of support by Her Majesty's Government than to try to bring this terrible war to an end; and I would urge that one of the methods to do it is an approach to the United Nations through its Security Council, not necessarily to intervene in the conflict between Nigeria and Biafra, but at least to ask its Member States that they shall in future refuse to send arms to either side.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I propose to add only a little more to what we have heard from my noble friend Lord Brockway. He has the advantage of having been to Biafra and having seen the conditions there, and therefore of being able to come back and give an analysis such as we have heard to-day. My appeal is a perfectly simple one, concerned with elementary principles. I find it incomprehensible that we should have to come to a Labour Government and ask that they should cease supplying arms to a primitive country, one absolutely dependent upon agriculture, not having great stores of food, having no means available whereby they can meet an emergency of this kind and dependent upon the men and women in that country to provide then own food from their own little plots of land. And then, suddenly, modern methods of warfare with their appalling cost—guns, rifles, every kind of ballistic material, as they call it to-day—are used against these primitive people.
When first we raised this question I was a little sorry for my noble friend on the Front Bench because I had a feeling that he was being used to come to the House and reply on this issue. But now the months and the years are passing. This is not a Party question. Newspapers with a Conservative bias, Liberal papers and Labour papers have adopted entirely the same attitude. They all condemn a Government which provides arms in consequence of which there is widespread misery and malnutrition. When I am told that we are arranging for the Red Cross to send some kind of relief in terms of food and medical supplies

745
to these children, it seems to me as though we are living in a kind of Alice in Wonderland world, because at the same time we are also giving our blessing to supplies of armaments to destroy those same children.
How on earth can the Labour Government reconcile their conscience with this policy? We are told throughout the country that youth is cynical; we say there is a cynicism abroad, and we adults do not know what to do in order to show these young people that there is so much in life to fight for in terms of the good things—it is an unfortunate expression—and that there are causes to which they should devote themselves. But the young people watch the Government providing arms for the destruction of completely helpless human beings. This is not a fantasy; we see pictures of these children in the newspapers and on television. The most eminent people in every field—and particularly the field of medicine—go to these countries and come back with the most fearful stories; yet the Labour Government continues to be a party to this state of affairs.
I find it difficult to believe that in all those years, up and down the country, members of the Government have stood on platforms denouncing the sale of armaments; and whenever they have denounced it of course the audience has cheered them, because audiences can respond to good intentions of that kind. Yet when they come to power they seem to be utterly merciless. The stupid part about it is that they have forgotten that the Labour Party was built on an idealistic approach.
I believe that this pragmatic attitude towards affairs may well be our undoing next year. The youth of the country watch us; the older people watch us. The older people wonder how on earth this attitude can be reconciled to the promises of the Party years ago. We have not much time. It sounds as though I am pressing a policy of expediency; but how can the Party go to an election next year, and how can its representatives stand on platforms when they will be asked from the body of the hall, "How can you reconcile your promises with the practice of providing armaments in this way?" I ask my noble friend, because surely individuals can do something. I saw the Foreign Secretary on
746
television the other night, and when he was asked about these things he reminded the audience that a few hundred years ago in other wars this policy was adopted. My Lords, to-day we are celebrating the space age. Up there last night those marvellous men put a plaque on the Moon welcoming a world of peace. And here we are, in a debate, asking the Government to adopt a policy which calls for a humane approach to these primitive people. I ask my noble friend—
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I think my noble friend would wish to withdraw a reference to the people of Nigeria as "primitive people".
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, no, of course not; the Nigerian people would agree. Does not my noble friend realise that thousands of babies are suffering from a nutritional disease which does not exist in this country and which has not existed in that form in this country since the last century are primitive people? Has he not seen the pictures of these children with their bandy legs, big bellies and big heads? Only primitive people who are chronically undernourished can suffer in that way. Of course they are primitive people, and that is precisely why we, who are more developed people, should look after them. care for them, and protect them. That the noble Lord challenges me in that way absolutely amazes me. He cannot have studied the reports of the doctors.
Baroness PLUMMER: My Lords, a native can be undernourished and not primitive. It does not mean to say that if you are primitive you are undernourished.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I am sorry; I do not agree with my noble friend. You are primitive if the advanced knowledge of nutrition which other people are able to enjoy has not reached you; you must be in a primitive state of development. Fortunately we are able to enjoy knowledge from research and investigations into things like nutrition. Of course they are primitive, because when we were setting up our little clinics and when we sent our doctors there we had to teach these mothers right from the beginning, just as one would teach

747
primitive people. That is an absolutely accurate expression, and I am sure no Nigerian doctor would object to his people being termed "primitive" because of their complete lack of knowledge of these things, and also the fact that they have not the wherewithal to feed their children. They are again primitive because their methods of agriculture are completely primitive. These people have not got tractors—and my noble friend is an expert farmer. They have not got all the things necessary to produce plenty of food. And these are the people whom we are helping to destroy.
Therefore my final words to my noble friend will be that this is the ridiculous position. Everybody thinks that these wars, like the Vietnam war, will finish quickly. The big nations say, "We will throw in these armaments and it will soon be over". But they do not finish quickly, and we shall soon again find ourselves in the difficult position of having to withdraw and save our face. I ask my noble friend to use his influence in the right place to withdraw now. We shall not be regarded as being unfit to conduct a war. We can withdraw on moral grounds; and we can withdraw in that way with honour.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has played a truly heroic part in this tragic controversy from the beginning, and I can only wish that we had a full House to listen to the heartrending speeches of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who has just spoken. I shall resist the temptation, which might assail me on my first intervention in this kind of discussion, to offer my views at large on all the awful issues involved. I shall come at the matter from a single angle, though I shall not be frivolously brief.
I speak as the President of the British Association for World Government, and I am putting their point of view—a view which of course I entirely hold myself though no doubt in the case of the Association it goes with many different attitudes towards Government policy. So when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, replies to me, I hope he will not feel that he has to defend the Government against something I have said. Perhaps if I ex-
748
pressed all my views he would find ground for criticisms, but so far as this proposal is concerned I hope that he will take it on its merits, and will not feel bound to try to "shoot it down" simply as part of his duty of loyalty to the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has called with deep effectiveness for an embargo on arms, and I am submitting that it would be necessary, for that to work properly, to follow it up by the establishment of a United Nations agency. Of course the agreement of both parties in the civil war might be secured, or it might be that the United Nations would feel able to compel an arms embargo against the wishes of one or both parties. Those are two possibilities. But in either situation it is clear that something like a United Nations control agency will be absolutely essential, if an arms embargo is to be effective.
As I said, I speak as President of the British Association for World Government, but not in the precise position which was occupied until his death by our deeply revered friend, the late Lord Attlee. In working with many of these people, I was Chairman of two Commissions while we were in Opposition, each concerned with the requirements of a permanent United Nations Police Force. I therefore come to this problem with that background. The aim of the Association is to offer suggestions which, if adopted, would equip the world authority—that is to say, the United Nations—with the agency and powers to fulfil its primary function of keeping the world at peace. A United Nations control agency, which I ask Her Majesty's Government to put forward in the Security Council, is one of the agencies necessary to prevent this terrible situation from continuing and, perhaps, spreading.
There are no doubt many steps involved, but these at least would be necessary: the appointment of arms inspectors, observers at the ports and airfields, a central intelligence unit, and frontier control units of Customs. No doubt other provisions would be necessary, and when the proposal has been gone into in great detail, as our Association have gone into it, it will no doubt be found that a good deal of elaboration will be needed. As I have implied, such an agency would be an adjunct to

749
any permanent United Nations force sent to enforce or to impose an arms embargo. But even if there were no need for enforcement, because there was agreement by the combatants, this United Nations agency would still be equally necessary to provide the essential component which would enable both sides to agree to a cease-fire with confidence that it would be observed. It would make the cease-fire more effective, would make the cease-fire much more likely, because it would give both sides reason for trusting the efficacy of the cease-fire.
So far, I daresay, from what has been said by Government speakers elsewhere, it may be that there would be a good deal of agreement in principle with a statement of this sort. But let me deal with some of the difficulties. The right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary, whose complete, integrity I recognise in rather a special degree—I do not mean that I think he is infallible, any more than most of us, but in the general charges and criticisms of public life, to which I myself am subject, I would always exempt the Foreign Secretary—said on July 10, 1969, in the recent debate elsewhere, that the Government wished for a cease-fire but that the Russian Government would not agree unless the Nigerian Government themselves requested it.
Further, he stated that he had been informed by U Thant that it would not be possible to get the subject of an embargo put on the agenda. That was the way he expressed himself, but I understand that he was referring to the agenda of the Assembly. No doubt he assumed that people understood that. But it is perfectly possible for our Government, acting through the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who has done such wonderful work at the United Nations and whom we were all glad to see today, to see that a proposal of this kind is put on the agenda of the Security Council. That is what I am proposing. So there is no possible technical objection to seeing it on the agenda.
Perhaps there are other objections. We are told that, on balance, the Afro-Asian bloc would be opposed, and no doubt we shall be told that other people would be opposed. I remember years ago, when I was chairman of one of the commissions to inquire into the international police force, that we were told at that time that
750
Russia and India would be against it. If one brings forward any proposal of this kind one will always be told that somebody will be against it—very often Russia, and very often somebody else. But the truth is that, however desirable we think such a proposal, it will never, in any circumstances, be accepted unless we have the courage—I venture to say, even in this solemn House, the "guts"—to go after it, to press it. Of course, to bring forward proposals which are not very popular is not something which, on the whole, the Foreign Office likes to do. It is sometimes thought that there is a certain loss of face in finding oneself alone in proposing something.
The noble Baroness and I were once tellers together on a certain Division, and there was not a single Member of this House to support us. A little later our proposal, or the gist of it, was actually carried here. A small example like that, or similar examples throughout the whole of history, shows that, unless one is prepared to go all out—as the Labour?arty in past years went all out for its beliefs, for which they were ridiculed—such proposals will never come about. In other words, to put it more bluntly, if this proposal is worthwhile and serious, it will come about through British initiative, or it will not come about at all. Although you cannot call it a sin of commission if we do not introduce this resolution, I should certainly call it a very grave sin of omission.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway who knows so much more than I do and feels so deeply, as we all do—but he feels particularly deeply because he knows it all so well—has spoken about the arms which flow into Nigeria from these great countries. I think if we looked down from Mars or from the Moon and saw this war going on between these two parties, these separate States or whatever you like to call them, and saw the suffering and all the children dying, and were told that arms were being supplied by great powers, we should regard it as so appallingly criminal that we should refuse to believe it. Even if we were looking at it from below, by satanic standards it would cause rather a sensation. Therefore, I think we must agree that this is a horrible trade and, at the very least, we should be extremely reluctant to have any part in it whatever.

751
But with these remarks I do not want to join anything which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, could call a general criticism of the Government's policy, and for this reason. I want him to consider very seriously this proposal for a United Nations agency to control the supply of arms, and, if he agrees that such a proposal is the best solution, I should like to ask: what possible objection could there be to bringing it forward? Could any harm result from bringing it forward? Even if he says that the prospects are not good, I must point out that the prospects for many great achievements in the world are not very bright at the moment. This is something in which we cannot lose. We may win peace and we may win a spiritual victory, which is at least as important as peace. So it is a great honour to be backing up the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to-day.
7.39 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I say a few words from this side of the House to give wholehearted support to what noble Lords opposite and the noble Baroness have said in speaking on this Question? After this debate we are presumably going out to eat a good dinner and the thought of this war really puts one off one's food. This appalling civil war in Nigeria is an absolute scandal, and the public see it as a scandal.
Though I do not want to make a Party point here (because human lives are involved, and the situation is quite beyond Party politics) we are, I am afraid, paying the price of Fabian doctrine. What I should have liked to see the Government of this country do when this trouble first started—because, after all, this involves part of the Commonwealth—was to send in a paratroop division and to have said, "No, you cannot fight". They should have then gone to the United Nations and said, "We are acting under your auspices, but we are not allowing any fighting here". I am quite sure that you need guts in a situation like this, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said. We have not shown any guts; and, as I say, this involves part of the Commonwealth.
This war is dragging on. It is, I think, in its third year: anyway, it is well into
752
its second year. I have seen people suffering from malnutrition, and I do not like it. I do not think anybody who has seen it likes it. The noble Baroness was quite right in saying that a great number of the people in Nigeria are primitive. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, appeared to disagree with that remark, but he is probably thinking of the people in the offices in Lagos, which is quite a different matter. I should like to ask the Minister to take the arguments of his noble friends really seriously, and, for heaven's sake! to try to give a lead from this country, because the situation is appalling. I am sure that the public cannot understand it. I know why we are supplying arms to the Federal Government: obviously, it is because Russia is supplying arms, and we are presumably frightened that if we do not supply arms then Russia will get a stranglehold on the country. But where tens of thousands of children are dying of starvation I do not think that political theory or the question of political advantage comes into it at all. It cannot when human lives are involved.
I impore the noble Lord to try to take a firm stand. It cannot be impossible because, after all, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Rhodesia, and in Rhodesia there has been no starvation of the Africans, and no murder. If some of the terrorists come over from Zambia then perhaps they may be shot, but there is no murder. Rhodesia has one of the highest standards of living in Africa; in fact, it is the highest standard of living after South Africa. Yet the United Nations were able to impose sanctions on Rhodesia. Am I to be told that they will not put sanctions on the supply of arms to Nigeria, where, if we can believe the reports (and I presume they are correct), tens of thousands of people are dying? There are no adjectives in the English language to describe the appalling hypocrisy of this, and the absolute horror that it raises in the heart of any sensitive person. It is absolutely ghastly. As we sit here there are people, including children, dying of starvation—and the British Government cannot do anything about it. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I implore the Minister to impress upon his right honourable friends: for heaven's sake! do now really take a strong lead.
7.45 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, during my years in your Lordships' House I have been used to seeing strange combinations, such as my noble friend Lady Summerskill with the noble and learned Law Lords, but I must admit to surprise at finding the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, supporting my noble friend Lord Brockway. I do not think my noble friend Lord Brockway would support the idea put forward by the noble Viscount that we, the British, having ceased to be a Colonial Power, should have put a paratroop brigade or division, or a company of paratroopers, into a sovereign, independent country, even though it was within the Commonwealth.
Viscount MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It is better than having tens of thousands of children dying of starvation.
Lord SHEPHERD: Then I suggest we can only beg to differ—and here I think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would agree with me in opposition to the noble Viscount. If the noble Viscount really knew about the Nigerian problem, the way in which it developed and the steps that were taken by this Government over many months to prevent it, he would not have made the strictures that he has made this evening. But I know that my noble friend Lord Brockway, although he disapproves of the actions of the Government in recent months, will at least give us credit for all the steps that we took to stop this war breaking out. My Lords, I shall look at what my noble friend Lord Longford has said, particularly as to the general nature of arms supply; and, if I may, I will deal in a moment with the immediate points that he made in relation to the war in Nigeria and Biafra.
The House will recall that my noble friend Lord Brockway asked a similar Question to that now on the Order Paper on April 16, to which I replied that, as has been said on many occasions, Her Majesty's Government believe that an embargo without the agreement of both sides as a consequence of a ceasefire is impracticable and would not stop the continued supply of arms through other sources. I fully understand the sentiment that the United Nations should be able to take some action to bring
754
this war to an end, and no doubt my noble friend and others who have spoken this evening consider that an external embargo on arms supplies to both sides would powerfully help this war to grind to an end if a negotiated settlement could not be arrived at. But I must beg to differ.
My noble friend himself informed the House on February 11 (and he reminded us of it again this evening) that when he visited Nigeria and Biafra he found evidence of a highly financed and organised black market in arms from Europe which was supplying both sides. This kind of enterprise is not amenable to control by international agreements. Moreover, if we look at the position on the supply of arms to the two sides with the approval of Governments we find a curious situation.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am very interested in this point. Why does my noble friend say that the black market is not controllable? I agree that there are aspects of it which cannot be controlled, as has been shown in the case of sanctions against Rhodesia. But black market arms have to be exported, through ports, airports and so on. They can be controlled at the point of departure. The Swiss Government are doing it.
Lord SHEPHERD: If my noble friend will permit me, I will make my own speech, and I think he will find that I shall deal with that point. I cannot deal with more than one point a: one time.
Lord BROCKWAY: That was my noble friend's point. Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government openly acknowledge that we supply arms to the Federal Nigerian Government. They purchase those arms from this country and, as my noble friend knows, we have made limited quantities available. We have done this because of our long-standing connections with the armed forces of that country. This is well known; yet it is estimated that the purchases of arms in this country by the Nigerian Government amount to less than one-fifth, by value, of the arms purchased by the Nigerian Government. It is known that the Soviet Union also supples arms to the Federal

755
Government, yet I am confident that the Soviet Union would not lay claim to be the only other supplier. We know that the Federal Government is able to buy arms from many other countries and from many other sources in Europe.
Our information is that the Soviet Union intends to continue to meet requests from the Federal Government for arms supplies. I believe that my noble friend's Committee for Peace in Nigeria also found, when it approached the Russian Embassy here, that the Soviet attitude was firm. I think that the noble Lord then went on to say that the Soviet Government would be willing, if other countries were prepared to have an embargo, to consider such action. I do not know at what level he got that assurance; but it is certainly something quite new to us.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend again? It is not quite new to Her Majesty's Government. I informed Her Majesty's Government of this some thirteen months ago.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may have been thirteen months ago; but a great deal has happened in thirteen months. I am speaking of the present time. If my noble friend has any further information he can give us, of course we shall be interested; but a lot depends upon at what level the noble Lord got his assurances from the Embassy.
If we look at supplies to the Biafran secessionists, then we first note that no country admits to supplying arms to them. Yet it is clear from the continuation of the war that very considerable supplies do reach them. Where countries from which supplies appear to reach the secessionists do not admit to supplying arms, it is difficult to believe that there would be much point in enlisting their co-operation in an international arms embargo, or that if they did agree this would lead to a marked diminution in supplies reaching the secessionists.
My noble friend spoke of licences. Is it not a fact that Sweden has an arms embargo on Nigeria? Is that not a fact? Yet it was possible for Biafra to get five, if not more, aircraft capable of a strike capability to attack Nigerian installations? I know how these aircraft
756
got there; but Sweden, with its embargo, could not prevent it. No one would suggest that the Swedes would be willing accessories to such an evasion. Yet those aircraft got through. We know the channels by which they got through. My noble friend also knows how they got through, and how other equipment got through. What my noble friend has not said is how they are paid for. If we could deal with the manner in which this arms trade is financed perhaps we could then have a more effective arms embargo than we can at the moment foresee.
In the circumstances that I have described any embargo would be partial and one-sided. I am aware that Resolution No. 413 adopted by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on May 16 appealed to all Governments to establish jointly a general arms embargo as a step towards a general agreement covering a cease-fire and to adopt strict controls in order to prevent black market traffic in arms. While we sympathise with the objectives of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, of seeking a resolution to the conflict in Nigeria, we must also bear in mind the resolution of the Organisation of African Unity, which called on all members of the United Nations to refrain from any action likely to impede the peace or the unity of Nigeria.
In our view, an arms embargo by itself, imposed from outside, would not contribute to either the peace or the unity of Nigeria. Indeed, an inter-Governmental agreement to suspend arms to the parties in Nigeria would be ineffective unless the two sides themselves agreed not to receive arms. Without such an agreement, backed by effeotive inspection on the ground, for which a ceasefire would be essential, both sides could continue to obtain arms from private dealers as well as from countries which did not adhere to the embargo. It is unlikely that all countries would cooperate in an embargo or follow an example set by this country and possibly a few others. A partial embargo might favour one side or the other but would hardly contribute much towards our principal objective of bringing about a peaceful and durable settlement of this tragic conflict. There are, as my noble friend knows, practical difficulties.

757
I think we must also ask ourselves not only whether it would be right for us unilaterally to go to the United Nations but also, if we were to do so, what sort of success we should have here. Unlike the noble Viscount, I am not a colonialist. I believe that when our Colonies achieve their independence they should be treated like any other country, whether they are in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America or elsewhere. Once they have their independence, they should be treated as such. One of the major features of the United Nations' Charter of which we on this side take so much account is that we do not take to the United Nations matters which concern the internal situation of a Member State.
The Nigerians themselves would be opposed to the internationalisation of their problem and in this they would be supported by an overwhelming majority of other African and Asian countries. So to my noble friend, Lord Longford, and the question of whether this could be taken to the General Assembly. My advice is that if it were taken to the General Assembly there would not be sufficient members of the Assembly for this to be raised on the agenda.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I appreciate that I did not give the noble Lord any notice of my suggestions. I should be very sorry to feel that he was giving some sort of Governmental answer to-night to the point I have placed before him. I should be sorry because I think he would become committed to it; and it would be part of the mystique. So I hope that he will not take the line that my proposal should be, in some way, "shot down". By what he has said, he has clearly misunderstood it. I was talking about the Security Council.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am now dealing with the General Assembly, the question of O.A.U. and other African/Asian opinion in terms of the General Assembly. My noble friend Lord Brockway himself drew attention to the views of U Thant who, when he addressed a Press on April 17 said that if any member were to bring this item—the situation in Nigeria—before the Security Council or the General Assembly, he was sure that the item would not be inscribed on the Agenda.
758
I am bound to say that I believe that we, above all others, as an ex-colonial Power should avoid in the United Nations a confrontation between what would appear to be a group of white nations and those of Africa whose views have been entirely and freely expressed through the Organisation of African Unity. This does not mean that we are against an embargo on any terms. On the contrary: we should welcome an embargo if it could be achieved with the support of the two sides in Nigeria, because only in that way could we get the conditions in which it could be policed on the ground by outside observers.
My Lords, I take one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. He said that now there was very little that divided the two sides; that all that was needed was someone to bring them to the table. I am sure that here again there is one thing that we should not forget. Neither side lacks friends. Those friends have tried, over many months, not only to get the two sides together to negotiate a cease-fire, but also, perhaps with greater emphasis and with greater fear of the consequences of failure, to bring the two sides together so that food, medicine and other materials could be taken into Biafra. But despite all their friends, the two sides are still not prepared to talk. We believe that a ceasefire would work only if it were accompanied by an arms embargo; otherwise a cease-fire would be liable to become merely a period for regrouping and rearming before a renewed outbreak of fighting. This is why we make the connection between an embargo and a ceasefire; and in order to get an agreement there must be negotiations between the two sides.
I assure the House that our efforts are entirely and always directed to bringing the two sides together. However else we may be divided, I believe that there is a recognition on both sides of this House that the British Government have done all in their power to bring the two sides in Nigeria together. However attractive it may appear on paper or in speeches, I do not believe that a unilateral approach by this Government to the Security Council would have any chance of success. I believe that it would do infinite harm at this particular moment when discussions are proceeding in Lagos between the

759
Federal Government and the International Committee of the Red Cross. But, in reply to my noble friend Lord Longford, certainly I will look at the points that he made.

MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NURSES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] KIDDERMINSTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] SAINT STEPHEN, CLAPHAM PARK BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  ABORTIONS UNDER NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  ABORTIONS UNDER NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE