Sitting of 12 March 1969

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

    Chronic Renal Failure (Dialysis Facilities)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision is being made to increase the number of kidney machines; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that wherever possible machines for use in the patients' homes are supplied.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): During the next year or two the hospital dialysis facilities for treating chronic renal failure will be expanded to treat at least 40 to 50 more patients. Plans are being developed to expand home dialysis but no firm figures can be put on this at present. Not all patients suitable for such treatment in hospital could be treated by home dialysis.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for his very full reply to the letter which I sent him on this matter. Could he indicate when the report will be available giving the full extent of the magnitude of this problem and how far and how soon it will be satisfactorily resolved?
    Mr. Millan: I could not give a date at the moment, but we are co-operating with the physicians in charge of the dialysis unit on this. But I hope that reasonably soon we shall have information which will give a better guide about the expansion of the service. I am afraid that, like everything else, expansion in this service depends on the pressure on resources of regional hospital boards as a whole.

    Children (Psychiatric Disabilities)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision exists for the detention of children with serious psychiatric disabilities; and whether there is a separate provision for boys and girls.
    Mr. Millan: Accommodation in which children could be detained under the provisions of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, is available in more than a dozen mental and mental deficiency hospitals including two children's psychiatric units with special facilities for children of about 12 years of age and under. These units and hospitals cater for both boys and girls.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give a great deal of comfort to people in Scotland who must have been very disturbed by the case which occurred recently in Newcastle? Can he give an assurance that if there were a case like that in Scotland it would be adequately catered for?
    Mr. Millan: I am sorry to say that we have some quite young children necessarily detained at the moment. Although there are obvious difficulties in any case, we have, on the whole, provision in Scotland for these very unfortunate cases.

    School Building (Expenditure)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount spent from October, 1964, until the latest convenient date on school building; and what were the comparable figures for a similar period up to October, 1964.
    Mr. Millan: The value of work done on school building in the four years from October, 1964, was £76·7 million and in the four preceding years £57·5 million.
    Mr. Lawson: I compliment my hon. Friend on this considerable stepping up of the work done in building schools, but is he satisfied that the schools are being properly located and that they are fitting in to the wider policy on comprehensive school building?
    Mr. Millan: Yes. All the recent secondary school projects are for either new comprehensive schools or extensions to schools, partly to meet the raising of the

    1345
    school leaving age, but also to enable them better to fit in with the comprehensive reorganisation.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in every year for which the Government were responsible the number of school places, which is what matters, fell? Was there any improvement in 1968, which we looked for? If so, is it adequate to meet the requirements of raising the school leaving age?
    Mr. Millan: The figures for school building places depend on whether primary or secondary school accommodation is being provided. I have given the figures of expenditure, and the figures for 1968, when they are published, will be very, very good indeed.

    Technical Colleges (Expenditure)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount spent from October, 1964, until the latest convenient date on technical colleges; and what were the comparable figures for a corresponding period up to October, 1964.
    Mr. Millan: Expenditure on technical colleges is not recorded separately. Total expenditure, current and capital, on further education by education authorities and the Scottish Education Department was about £37·8 million in the three-and-a-half years to October, 1964, and £57·2 million in a similar period thereafter. I will, with permission, circulate some more detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lawson: While again complimenting my hon. Friend, may I ask him to bear in mind that we are dealing particularly with youngsters between the ages of 15 and 18, which is a most difficult period? Despite the clamour on the benches opposite to cut public expenditure, will my hon. Friend ensure that this type of expenditure goes right ahead?
    Mr. Millan: Certainly. I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the pities of the present situation is that the day release figures, although they have improved, are not going up as rapidly as I should like, particularly in this age group. But further education as a whole has expanded very rapidly and continues to expand.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Was the report in the Press yesterday that the Government are restricting the increase in local government expenditure to 1 per cent. in 1968–69 as opposed to 3⅓ per cent., which we discussed only a month ago, correct?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question deals with technical colleges.
    Mr. Millan: I am not responsible for reports in the Press, but I know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to—the circular which has just been sent out. Estimates of reckonable expenditure for the next two years under the rate support grant settlement—no doubt this will please the hon. Gentleman—allow fully for the extra cost of providing for the expected increase in the number of students in further education.
    Mr. Speaker: We must not widen Questions.
    The following is the information:

    3½ years to October, 1964* £m.

    3½ years from October, 1964* £m.

    Expenditure on further education

    By education authorities:

    current

    …

    17·7

    34·0

    capital

    …

    12·5†

    10·3†

    By Scottish Education Department:‡

    current

    …

    5·3

    9·6

    capital

    …

    2·3

    3·3

    37·8

    57·2

    * Three full financial years plus half the figures for 1964–65.

    † Estimated.

    ‡ Grants to central institutions, etc. excluding the former Royal College of Science and Technology, Scottish College of Commerce and Heriot-Watt College, which have now been incorporated in the University of Strathclyde and the Heriot-Watt University.

    Dundee Schools (Fire Precautions)
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the fire precautions in schools in Dundee; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: I understand from Dundee Education Authority that the Angus Area Firemaster and his staff have, at the education authority's request, embarked on a programme of visits to each of the education authority's schools, so that if there

    1347
    are any deficiencies, steps can be taken to remedy them. I have no evidence however, that the position generally is unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Doig: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will go a long way to relieve the anxiety indicated to me by correspondence from a number of parents with children at school.
    Mr. Millan: I am obliged.

    Roads (Expenditure)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount spent from October, 1964 until the latest convenient date on roads; and what was the comparable figure for a similar period up to October, 1964.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Figures from October, 1964, are not available, but total expenditure on roads in the four local authority financial years 1961–62 to 1964–65 was £131 million, and for the four years 1965–66 to 1968–69 it is estimated at £209 million.
    Mr. Rankin: I thank my right hon. Friend for those figures. Is he aware that not sufficient is being spent on the Glasgow and Edinburgh motorway, only 10 miles of which exist on the most dangerous road in Scotland, and will he say when he expects to complete this motorway?
    Mr. Ross: This is only one of the roads to which we have been devoting additional expenditure. I hope to see considerable improvement in the work being done during this current year, and towards the end of the following year it is hoped it will be nearing completion.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the Secretary of State also give the figures for the total taxation on road users in Scotland for the same periods, since this is highly relevant to the Question?
    Mr. Ross: I think it is highly relevant that we are now seeing a tremendous drive forward in the infrastructure of Scotland—schools, technical colleges and roads. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he had done anything like this we would have had fewer problems.

    Smoke Control Orders (Central Scotland)
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the extension of smoke control orders in Central Scotland.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Local authorities in Central Scotland have so far made 138 Orders, covering 329,000 houses, of which 117, covering 289,000 houses, are already in operation. Most of the remainder will come into operation later this year.
    Mrs. Cullen: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he give comparable figures for October, 1964?
    Dr. Mabon: Up to 30th September, 1964, 60 orders were made covering 172,000 houses, of which 43, covering 102,000 houses, were by then in operation. In other words, it was one-ninth of the houses in Scotland as of 30th September, 1964, and it is now one-third.

    Forestry Commission (Jubilee Year)
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to celebrate the jubilee year of the Forestry Commission.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Forestry Commission is holding a major forestry exhibition at Edinburgh on 5th, 6th and 7th June; and it is organising forest weeks at selected forests and centres throughout Great Britain during the summer.
    Mrs. Cullen: Are special arrangements being made to encourage children, especially children from my constituency, to attend these events?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Forestry Commission is in touch with education authorities, and the response is very encouraging. Many parties of school children are expected at events in various parts of the country, and there is an indoor exhibition at the Glasgow Museum and Art Gallery in the days after the Edinburgh exhibition, from 9th to 21st June.
    Mr. Stodart: Would not the best possible celebration for this jubilee year

    1349
    be for the Forestry Commission and others to be enabled to clear the great mass of wind-blown timber that still exists?
    Dr. Mabon: There is a Question on the Order Paper about this which I shall be happy to answer.

    Multi-Storey Buildings
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the work will be completed of strengthening multi-storey buildings, following the Ronan Point inquiry.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: As soon as possible, but no estimate can be made until authorities have completed their assessment of what has to be done.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that tenants of multi-storey flats who have to suffer the expense of removal or disturbance whilst strengthening is taking place will be recompensed for this expense, and also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will help the local authorities in this expense so that the ratepayers will not suffer?
    Dr. Mabon: This is another demand for an increase in public expenditure which I duly note. I am sure that local authorities will take appropriate steps to ensure the minimum of disturbance and that no undue expense will fall on the tenants concerned. The final settlement remains to be seen, depending on the nature of the structural improvements that will have to be made.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend expedite the strengthening of these flats? Blocks have been standing in Coatbridge for almost a year without progress being made.
    Dr. Mabon: I am quite sympathetic to my hon. Friend's point, and I know that the Secretary of State is very much concerned about this. My hon. Friend will remember that the Report on Ronan Point was published early in November. We have sent out two technical circulars, one on 21st November and the other on 6th January. Each local authority is being asked to get a structural engineer's report if its system is different from the generality of systems. This is
    1350
    not an easy task. I accept that urgency is very important.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the Minister realise that these high flats are not normally very popular, and what is he saying to local authorities to discourage them from building further blocks of this nature?
    Dr. Mabon: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point. These blocks are quite popular, or they were certainly until this event. We can argue with local authorities only on housing densities. The Secretary of State has been very firm in his arguments about the developments in Glasgow. I would not say that applies to Edinburgh, where the densities are rather different.

    Tourists (Caravan Sites)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance is available to local authorities to establish fully serviced caravan sites for the use of tourists.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Such projects may be considered for grant under Section 67 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act, 1967.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Countryside Commission have enough money to help tourism in this way? Is it not true that some local authorities, despite the assurances of the Government that they wish to help tourism, have had their proposals turned down by the Countryside Commission, not because the proposals were bad but because the Government have not given the Countryside Commission enough money to do the job which they set them up to do?
    Dr. Mabon: This is the tenth question and we have now had 11 requests to increase public expenditure. Last year we provided £50,000, we have approved two schemes submitted to us, and this year we are providing £70,000, which I think is quite adequate for the moment.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister say whether the Government will make available to local authorities money to prepare caravan sites for gipsies, as this matter is causing much concern?
    Dr. Mabon: With respect to my hon. Friend, that is another matter. We have

    1351
    been discussing the travellers, as they are called, in a different context. I should like to answer the question if my hon. Friend will put it down in that form.

    Brucellosis
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from the Scottish National Farmers' Union for the eradication of brucellosis; and what reply he has sent.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The union has made a number of proposals to extend the present scheme, principally related to compensation for the slaughter of reacting animals where they are only a small percentage of the herd. I am considering these proposals.
    Mr. Maclennan: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I recognise the scale of the task of identifying the active excretors out of the total number of reactors, but will my hon. Friend discuss with the National Farmers' Union the possibility of proceeding by way of area eradication schemes, and will he say what proposals he has for dealing with the problem of the release on to the market of reactors under the Accredited Herds Scheme?
    Mr. Buchan: I am willing to meet the union at any time it wishes me to do so, and I have been reading its proposal with interest. The scheme has been making reasonable progress. There are problems involved in the last point raised by my hon. Friend, but I am considering it.
    Mr. Stodart: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his attitude and that of his right hon. Friend on brucellosis caused them to be described in the New Year as "guilty men" by the Chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board? Will he say whether they have yet done anything to purge their guilt?
    Mr. Buchan: I have read the issue referred to, not only the remarks by the Chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board at the end of the journal, but the remarks of "Kyle" at the beginning of the journal to the same general double-barrelled effect. We feel no guilt
    1352
    in this. The scheme is making reasonable progress, we are willing to discuss the proposals put forward by the union, and I think this is the best position at the present time.

    Strath of Kildonan (Development)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now received proposals from the Highlands and Islands Development Board for the development of the Strath of Kildonan; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: No, Sir. I understand that the Board is now having final discussions with interested organisations about possibilities for this area.
    Mr. Maclennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his indication that these discussions are final. Will they include discussions with the local crofting communities? Will the development proposed be concerned with the twin objectives of obtaining the most productive integrated land use and better employment opportunities in the area?
    Mr. Ross: There is no doubt that this is the aim of the study. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the time that it has taken, but it involves discussions with a considerable number of organisations. My hon. Friend mentioned the Crofters' Union. I understand that discussions have taken place with that body, and also with the Scottish Landowners, the National Farmers' Union and the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Crofters Commission was set up 14 years ago, it devoted some attention to the Strath of Kildonan and regarded it as one of the best areas in the Highlands for rehabilitation? Is he further aware that, on being set up in 1965, the Highlands and Islands Development Board immediately set to work on the survey. We have been told frequently that the results of the survey would be forthcoming in a short time. I would be grateful to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that they will be published in the near future.
    Mr. Ross: This is not within my personal initiative, but I understand that the Board is at a final stage in respect of its

    1353
    proposals. It has been assisted in its task by the work done by the Crofters Commission and its discussions with that body.

    Tourism
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in reorganising the development of tourism, he will take steps to provide that in the division of duties between Great Britain as a whole and the component countries each will share in the overall administration of the British section as well as being able to campaign for the tourist traffic of the respective countries and that all countries of the United Kingdom will participate in the same way in the British effort.
    Mr. Ross: Clauses 1 and 2 of the Development of Tourism Bill, now before the House, are intended to achieve just this balance of responsibility in Great Britain.
    Mr. Woodburn: Naturally, we all welcome this devolution of power to Scotland, but is there not a danger that it gives the appearance in the general set-up of devolution that what remains, called Britain, is the only part responsible for England? Is England not entitled to have its own tourist organisation, as Scotland has? In the development of this scheme of things, would it not be wise to follow the practice adopted by the Forestry Commission, with each country having its own organisation, and a federal organisation covering the whole country, and where Britain is not assumed to be England?
    Mr. Ross: My concern at the moment is to ensure that we get the kind of freedom in respect of this work that we in Scotland have sought for a long time. Many of the points raised by my right hon. Friend could profitably be taken in the further stages of the Bill.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the fact that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is spending a great deal of money on publicising Scotland, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be able to continue to do this?
    Mr. Ross: I am sure that the Highlands and Islands Development Board will not neglect its special responsibility
    1354
    in respect of its part of Scotland, and will be able to play its part. As it will be working in conjunction with the new Scottish Tourist Board, it is to be hoped that it will do it even better.

    Employment (Grangemouth-Falkirk Area)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the growth in employment in the Grangemouth-Falkirk Survey Area from 1964; and how this growth relates to the projections set out in the Regional Survey and Plan for the area, with particular regard to manufacturing employment.
    Mr. Ross: Between mid-1964 and mid-1967 there was an estimated increase of 3,300 employees in the survey area, of whom 1,100 were in manufacturing industry. The total number of employees in the area by 1967 thus already exceeded the consultants' forecast for 1971.
    Mr. Woodburn: In the development of this area, will it be kept in mind that the movement of population from one area to another is an undesirable use of transport and that, if some of the development can be spread over the area, it will allow people to work where they live?
    Mr. Ross: This has to be taken in a balanced way. It might be that by concentrating industrial development at the appropriate point within an area, advantages would be created which would be lost by dispersal. It is a matter of keeping a balance.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman give details of the decline in employment in Scotland generally and say how this decline relates to the projections set out in his White Paper published just before the last General Election?
    Mr. Ross: The Question on the Order Paper relates to the Grangemouth-Falkirk Survey Area. I will be glad to answer the other Questions when we come to them.

    Derelict Areas, Fife (Clearance)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount spent on clearing derelict areas

    1355
    in Fife from October, 1964, until the latest convenient date; and if he will state the comparable figures for a similar period up to October, 1964.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: From October, 1964, to December, 1968, work had been completed, or was in progress, on three schemes costing £137,000. This included the first phase of the Lochore Meadows project, which is estimated to cost £1 million, spread over seven to eight years. From March, 1960, when grants first became available, to October, 1964, six schemes were undertaken costing £75,000.
    Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of local authorities are extremely grateful for the generous contributions towards this type of land rehabilitation? Is it his intention to further accelerate this process?
    Dr. Mabon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. With the specific grant of 85 per cent. and assistance in the resources element of the rate support grant, we expect more applications for the clearance of derelict land. I should like particularly to commend Fife County Council for the energetic way in which it has done this.

    Teachers (In-service Training)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers received in-service teacher training since 1964 to the latest convenient date; and what were the comparable figures for a similar period up to October, 1964.
    Mr. Millan: During the period 1964–68 about 59,500 teachers attended in-service courses and conferences provided by colleges of education. The comparable figure for the period 1960–64 was about 25,000. I do not have information about attendance at courses provided by other agencies.
    Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there is a substantial incentive for teachers to attend this type of retraining? Does he not think that the subsistence and travel allowances could be higher?
    Mr. Millan: I have not had representations about that. Teachers can go to certain courses on secondment, with full
    1356
    salary. There are special pooling arrangements which allow that to be done without it falling as a charge on the education authority, concerned. In all this, the position at the moment is really satisfactory.

    Drama and Music Students
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students of drama and music qualified in Scotland from 1962 to the nearest available date; what was the student intake during those years; how the figures compare with universities; and what future intake is planned.
    Mr. Millan: From 1962 to 1968, inclusive, 484 students of either music or drama qualified from the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama or from colleges of education in Scotland; the total first year intake during this period was 722; it is planned to increase the annual intake of music and drama students to these colleges by about 30 per cent. in the next five years. I shall write to my hon. Friend about the university figures.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures that he has just given the House will be studied with great interest, because the people of Scotland do not want to be fed on bingo, betting and drink? Will he agree that some of the youngsters coming from our schools and universities are as good as, if not better than, those of previous generations?
    Mr. Millan: I quite agree with that last point. We have a proposal at present to replace the existing Royal Scottish Academy by a new building which will accommodate 470 students, which is about 100 more than at present. Certainly one wants to see the output increasing.
    Mr. Monro: Can the hon. Gentleman say why there is such a very small amount of money available for the encouragement of pipe bands and the teaching of pipe music?
    Mr. Millan: The encouragement is largely a matter for the local authorities themselves. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have spoken to his own local authority about this. He will also know

    1357
    that the Scottish Pipe Band Association has had a grant from this Government for the first time in its history.

    Electricity Generation (Coal)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated coal burn in electricity generation in Scotland for the years 1969 and 1970.
    Mr. Ross: Assuming consumption of the maximum possible amount of coal, about 6·5 million tons in 1969 and about 7·5 million tons in 1970.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his indication of a further increase in coal burn—indeed, coal by wire—will be welcomed by the miners in Scotland? Would he not agree that he could earn their thanks if he now influenced his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to investigate coal derivatives?
    Mr. Ross: There has been a considerable increase in coal burn. In 1964–65, it was 4·3 million tons and my hon. Friend will have noticed that the scheme that I announced a week or so ago in relation to Foyers will, in itself, by the mid-1970s lead to the increased use of another 2 million tons. So we are, therefore, looking forward to the possibility of coal burn in Scotland reaching about 8 million tons in the mid-1970s.

    Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957
    Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities his Department have designated exporting authorities for housing purposes under the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957; what has been the total cost to such authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Glasgow Corporation is the only designated authority in Scotland. I understand that up to the end of its last financial year it had paid just under £720,000 to 45 receiving authorities and that it has estimated its contribution for 1968–69 to be a further £160,000, representing payment for some 11,400 houses.
    Mr. Brown: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this unique burden is
    1358
    grossly unfair to Glasgow? Would he look very closely at the disastrous intention of the Progressive Party to postpone redevelopment schemes and oppose Erskine township because of the financial burden?
    Dr. Mabon: I accept that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about this, and I should view with horror, as would my right hon. Friend, any abandonment or slow-down by Glasgow of any of these housing developments. In fairness, the city should face the fact that, on the latest calculations, for a three-apartment house in a multi-storey, the net rateable burden on Glasgow is £100 over 60 years, as opposed to an exporting authority contribution of £14 for 10 years. There is clearly some advantage to the city in accepting this thin-out. I accept my hon. hon. Friend's point and we are very concerned about the attitude of the present administration in Glasgow.

    Housing Expenditure
    Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount spent from October, 1964, until the latest convenient date on housing; and what were the comparable figures for a corresponding period before October, 1964.
    Mr. Ross: I can give information only for financial years. In the three years ended 31st March, 1968, total public investment in new housing was £346 million, and in the previous three years it was £224 million.
    Mr. Brown: As Glasgow makes a substantial contribution to the solution of the housing problem, would my right hon. Friend continue to look closely at Glasgow, since, if there is a reduction in the number of houses completed, it will obviously adversely affect the overall picture which might be presented on his behalf in Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is right that we should continue to give special attention to Glasgow, when we remember that Glasgow probably has the greatest burden in respect of houses yet to be improved and those yet to be demolished and replaced. But he should not underestimate what we have already done. In the four years since October, 1964, we have, in

    1359
    public housing, built 133,000, as compared with about 98,600 in the years before that.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hesitate to disturb the atmosphere of self-congratulation and complacency on the benches opposite, but could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he expects to reach the target of 50,000 houses a year by 1970, or is this just one more example of Socialist failure and of their promises not matching their performance?
    Mr. Ross: Since the highest number ever reached by the party opposite was 39,000 in 1953, they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. We are not congratulating ourselves; we are just recognising solid achievement.

    Commission on the Constitution
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Chairman of the Constitutional Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: It has not been necessary for me to have any consultations with Lord Crowther since his appointment as Chairman of the Commission was announced, but I am naturally ready to meet him at any time if the need should arise.
    Mr. Campbell: But can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, although the Chairman was appointed some weeks ago, no announcement has yet been made about the membership of the Commission or when it is to start work? Have those who have been approached been unwilling to take on the job, or are they already engaged in a similar task?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has let his imagination run riot. He should appreciate that, before the terms of reference could be fixed, a considerable amount of discussion had to take place with other Governments—the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland. He should appreciate that it was right that that should be so. The Prime Minister hopes to announce the membership shortly, and I am sure that the Commission will get on with its work as quickly as possible thereafter.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, if he were to
    1360
    seek consultations now, even at this late stage, it might help the Government to resolve their obvious difficulties in finding suitable persons to serve on the Commission?
    Mr. Ross: Once again, the hon. Lady is wrong. We have had no difficulties in finding the right people.

    Housing
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made as to when the housing shortage will be over in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: At present there are roughly 50,000 more houses than households in Scotland as a whole, but many of the houses are not where they are needed and many more are of such poor quality that they must be replaced. The Government's vigorous house-building programme must be continued for this purpose, accompanied by the improvement of those existing houses which are sub-standard but need to be kept in use
    Mr. Campbell: The Minister for Planning and Land made a statement recently that the national housing shortage should be over by 1973. Does the Secretary of State also believe that, and does it apply to Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has got wrong the statement of my right hon. Friend. Indeed, he made exactly the same qualifications about the overall position as I have done. I will not fix dates in respect of this. What we will do is build as many houses as possible and improve as many as possible and give the right emphasis at the right time. If the records which we have achieved within two years had been achieved by the hon. Member's party, we would have had no housing shortage in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall that the increase in house building since 1964 has nothing like kept pace with the increases in taxation during those years? Does not he feel a bit ashamed of that, since it is proof that we are not getting value for our money?
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman asks around his constituency, where I have the good fortune to live and the misfortune to be badly represented—by someone

    1361
    who could put a supplementary question like that—he will appreciate that we are getting value for money in housing and that we are getting the housing, which we have been denied for so long in Scotland.

    Licensing Courts
    Sir M. Galpernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the increase in the number of licensed premises and recent cases where the licensing appeal courts have reversed unanimous decisions of the licensing court in cases where they have refused to grant licences, he will now consider the need for introducing legislation to transfer the duties of the licensing courts to the sheriffs.
    Mr. Buchan: No, Sir. Liquor licensing is an administrative, not a judicial function.
    Sir M. Galpern: In view of the widespread and mounting alarm at the 30 per cent. increase over the past nine years in the number of licensed premises in Scotland, will not my hon. Friend take the earliest possible action to implement, at least as a first step, that part of the Guest Committee's Report which is supported by the Law Society of Scotland and which recommends that the duties of the licensing appeal courts should be transferred to the sheriffs?
    Mr. Buchan: I cannot give any guarantee about early legislation. I think that we must keep in mind on this aspect that basically it is a social rather than a judicial decision.
    Mr. Wylie: I think that the Minister is aware that the Law Society has recently been pressing for legislation on this matter. Is he also aware, as his hon. Friend has said, that there is a widely held view in Scotland that the present system is most unsatisfactory? Will he get his priorities for legislation right and get some legislation on the Statute Book on this matter?
    Mr. Buchan: I am aware of the attitude of the Law Society and of the general attitude towards this matter. What I said was that I can see no prospect of early legislation on this matter. This does not mean that I do not recognise the feeling on the aspects involved.

    Secondary School Pupils (Milk)
    Sir M. Galpernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have withdrawn the supply of milk to secondary pupils under Section 3 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act, 1968; how many pupils are involved; what saving has been effected as a result of the withdrawal; and what evidence he has of the effect the withdrawal has on the health of the pupils.
    Mr. Millan: The Act applies to all education authorities. About 306,000 pupils are affected and the saving in this financial year will be about £05 million. I have no evidence of any adverse effect on the health of the pupils.
    Sir M. Galpern: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey undertaken in the London area which established that a large number of pupils go to school without breakfast because parents go out to work? Will he instigate a similar study to ascertain the position in Scotland? Does he now agree that this cheeseparing economy on the part of the Government, which has saved this paltry sum and has denied secondary school pupils of an essential ingredient in their diets, should be reviewed?
    Mr. Millan: No, I do not think that this calls for review. The survey mentioned by my hon. Friend was commissioned by the National Dairy Council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already said that he will look at the figures produced by the survey if the survey will provide certain additional details. The whole question of nutrition affecting school children, and indeed other sectors of the population, is kept under review by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Nutrition. Before we took this decision we looked at the nutritional consequences.
    Mr. Brewis: If it is necessary to withdraw this concession, will the hon. Gentleman seek to ensure that education authorities install vending machines to try to sell as much as possible of this nutritious food, which is essential for the health of the children?
    Mr. Millan: I will certainly look into that matter. I think that there are vending machines in a number of schools at

    1363
    present. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to prevent education authorities doing this.

    Teacher Training Colleges
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase in the number of places available in teacher training colleges since 1962 to the nearest available date; and how many qualified in each of these years.
    Mr. Millan: The increase in places to date totals 3,945. For the rest of the Answer I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Manuel: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that even the number that he has given today certainly proves how successful we have been in providing more places and that it destroys completely the spurious attempts by the Opposition to say that our plans will not succeed?
    Mr. Millan: The number of places has been considerably increased, and the output of qualified teachers has increased by no less than a third over the last three years.
    Following are the figures:

    Session

    Numbers successfully completing main courses

    1962–63

    …

    …

    …

    2,443

    1963–64

    …

    …

    …

    2,679

    1964–65

    …

    …

    …

    2,889

    1965–66

    …

    …

    …

    3,141

    1966–67

    …

    …

    …

    3,384

    1967–68

    …

    …

    …

    3,642

    1968–69

    …

    …

    …

    4,225

    Higher Education (Students)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase in full-time students in schools, technical colleges, universities and colleges of education since 1962 to the nearest available date.
    Mr. Millan: The total increase in numbers between sessions 1961–62 and 1967–68 was 63,937 made up of 40,081 pupils and 23,856 full-time students; but, with permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will give immense satisfaction to many parents in Scotland—hon. Gentlemen opposite may scoff, but the
    1364
    election will show how wrong they are on this question?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not interrupt his own supplementary question.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend also aware that if the Opposition, during their 13 years, had taken up the work that they ought to have taken up in this regard, his job would have been much easier?
    Mr. Millan: I am fully aware of all these facts.
    Following are the details:

    INCREASE IN NUMBERS OF PUPILS OR FULL-TIME STUDENTS BETWEEN SESSIONS 1961–62 AND 1967–68

    Increase

    Reduction

    Schools*

    Primary

    37,268

    Secondary

    2,813

    Central Institutions†

    779

    Further Education Centres

    7,395

    Colleges of Education

    4,728

    Universities†

    12,512

    64,716

    779

    Net Increase

    63,937

    Notes:
    * Pupils at education authority, grant-aided and independent schools (including special schools).
    † The Royal College of Science and Technology, the Scottish College of Commerce and the Heriot-Watt College became universities during the period.

    Kirklands Hospital, Bothwell
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for expanding or rebuilding the Kirklands Hospital, Bothwell; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: The Western Regional Hospital Board accepts the need for replacement of this hospital and is considering where and when this should take place. Replacement, however, will not be possible for a number of years yet.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one of the oldest hospitals in Scotland? Is he further aware that the staff are performing a magnificent job under very difficult circumstances? As this hospital is already overcrowded and there is a large waiting list, will my hon. Friend have words with the regional hospital board with a view to speeding up its rebuilding?
    Mr. Milian: I agree that this hospital is unsatisfactory and overcrowded, but I am not able yet to say when the rebuilding of it can take place. Questions of priority are, in the first place, for the regional hospital board, but certainly this is one of the hospitals that it has very much in mind in determining priorities.

    House Purchase (Conveyancing)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to establish in each local authority area approved conveyancing clerks appointed by the local authority to carry out the conveyancing associated with house purchase, in order to reduce the legal costs associated with house purchase and sale.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir. Apart from the fact that in present circumstances it would not be right to impose such a burden on local authority staffs and finances, I do not believe this is the best way to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one of the bugbears in house purchase? Bearing in mind the conveyancing fees that have to be paid—in some cases the conveyancing is negligible—will he assist young couples to purchase houses by doing what the Question asks?
    Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend knows how complex the conveyancing situation is in Scotland. I think that he knows that the Secretary of State has under urgent review the reform of land tenure and conveyancing law. We are about to make detailed arrangements for the introduction of registration of title, a principle which we accepted some time ago. But we still have the detailed recommendations of the Henry Committee and one or two other matters to consider. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make a statement in a few months.
    Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Does the Minister agree that it might be a useful occupation for some of the members of the useless Land Commission to undertake?
    Dr. Mabon: I think that the hon. Gentleman will regret that if he looks at what the Land Commission has done so well in Scotland in relation to the
    1366
    acquisition of land both for local authorities and private owners.

    Agricultural Holdings (Rated Buildings)
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proportion of buildings on agricultural holdings in Scotland that are now rated.
    Mr. Buchan: Precise information of this kind is not available, but I estimate that about 2 per cent. of the agricultural holdings in Scotland have some rated buildings on them.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the calculations in the Price Review take into account agricultural buildings that are rated?
    Mr. Buchan: All such costs are taken into account in discussions on the Annual Price Review.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that figures given the other day showed that in Scotland the total value of buildings rated is half that in England whereas normally it would be only a tenth? Even if the calculations are being taken into account in the agricultural Price Review, how is it possible accurately to bring back this amount into the Scottish agricultural sphere?
    Mr. Buchan: I accept the point that there has been a disproportionate increase in the rating of agricultural buildings in Scotland so far. The hon. Gentleman knows the reasons for this increase, and the difficulties in making a precise allocation back in terms of the Annual Price Review. The Annual Price Review makes a general distribution of the costs as the industry and agriculture require it.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Local Authority Tenants (Fire Fighting Equipment)
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to ensure that local authorities in Scotland provide their tenants with

    1367
    adequate fire fighting equipment, particularly in high blocks of flats and buildings of more than two storeys.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Local authorities will no doubt be concerned with recent tragic house fires and look to the maintenance of fire fighting equipment. In addition I hope they will consider sending to all their tenants an advisory leaflet on fire precautions and action in the event of fire, as the Scottish Special Housing Association has done.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Could the Minister clarify whose responsibility it is to provide fire fighting equipment? Does it rest solely on the tenants or do the local authorities have to provide any such equipment?
    Dr. Mabon: Without notice, I could not give a definitive legal answer on that point. I should have to look it up.
    At the moment local authorities accept the primary responsibility here, and they have a duty to make tenants aware of the need for ordinary care. I hope that they will follow the example of the Scottish Special Housing Association. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

    Feudal Reform (Scotland) Bill
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will move to refer the Feudal Reform (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee to be considered in relation to its principle under Standing Order No. 62.
    Mr. Ross: No, Sir.
    Mr. Davidson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that he is not in favour of the feudal system nor of the continuation of feu duties in perpetuity? Why is the right hon. Gentleman opposed to debating this issue in the Scottish Grand Committee, and when may we expect legislation appropriate to the case?
    Mr. Ross: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants about my feelings about the feudal system and the perpetuating of feu duties. I have never made any secret about that. I have never made any secret, either, of the fact that to review a system which has been in operation for centuries is a very complex
    1368
    matter, and not one appropriate for private Members' legislation. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that, as the House knows, we have been engaged in a study of this problem for a considerable time, and we hope to be able to make a statement about it within the next few months.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), but would he further agree that it might have been a suitable subject for a referendum among Scottish people, in line with Liberal Party policy?
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) thought it was of overweening priority he could have got this Bill in, instead of his referendum Bill, and the House could have discussed it.

    Gaskin Report
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the economic uncertainty prevailing in the North-East of Scotland, due to the imminent run-down of the British Railways workshops in Inverurie, he will expedite publication of the Gaskin Report.
    Mr. Ross: While I am arranging for the Gaskin Report to be published as soon as possible, I should point out that the Government have contingency plans in hand to deal with the situation if the British Railways Board decides to close its workshops at Inverurie.
    Mr. Davidson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I know the great difficulties facing the Government in this issue. May I ask for an assurance that the Government realise that the introduction of a new industry to Inverurie, particularly an engineering industry with growth potential, could stimulate the economy of the whole North-East region of Scotland? The Government have power under the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968, to provide precisely this stimulus.
    Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we appreciate how valuable a replacement would be in this area if it were necessary. The hon. Gentleman has discussed this with me, and brought

    1369
    delegations to see me. I am grateful for his co-operation in this matter. I think that he should wait to see what we do if and when an announcement is made about the future of the workshops.
    Mr. Dewar: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are many people who do not doubt the wish of the Government to help in this difficult situation, but still feel that the apparent inability of the Railways Board to come to a conclusion about its plans for the future of the workshops is inhibiting the Government and everyone else, is adding to the confusion which is jeopardising the situation, and is continuing the anxiety which tempts the skilled labour force to disperse?
    Mr. Ross: This is regrettable, because there is no doubt that—if a decision were taken to close the workshops—the existence of skilled personnel would be an attraction for many people. I regret the premature rumours which may well have led to the dispersal of some of the personnel.

    Intensive Livestock Houses (De-rating)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the extension of agricultural de-rating to intensive livestock houses; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Buchan: The Scottish National Farmers' Union and the Scottish Landowners' Federation have asked me to consider introducing legislation to de-rate intensive livestock buildings. In addition several hon. Members have written to me on this subject and two individuals have made direct representations. In all cases replies have been given to the effect that the matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Brewis: Is it the case that the Government are not going to do anything about this until the question of local authority rating has been considered in general?
    Mr. Buchan: We are considering this, and when we have come to conclusions we shall say so.
    Mr. Stodart: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this matter is receiving urgent attention? I see the Secretary of State nodding assent. May
    1370
    we therefore have an assurance that the deliberations will take a shorter time than those on the Hunter Report?
    Mr. Buchan: As Shakespeare said, comparisons are odious, but we are giving the matter urgent consideration. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Minister for Planning and Land, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and myself, met the three unions not long ago to discuss this.
    Mr. Manuel: Before my hon. Friend proceeds any further with the derating of any more agricultural buildings, will he ensure that none of the buildings so derated is sub-let by owners for other purposes?
    Mr. Buchan: I am looking at every aspect of this very complex problem.
    Mr. Brewis: May I raise the same point of order as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) on Question No. 30?

    Eggs (Transport Costs)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance will be given towards the transport costs of egg producers in remote areas on the Scottish mainland.
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the Government's proposals for a subsidy for the transport of eggs from certain areas.
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be able to announce details of his proposals to assist small egg producers in remote areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to announce his detailed policy to assist egg producers' transport problems following the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission.
    Mr. Buchan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) on 7th February. Details of the subvention to be given for sea transport are still being considered.—[Vol. 777 c. 188.]
    Mr. Brewis: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that the land costs of transport from remote areas to the mainland can be more expensive than, say, sea carriage from the Orkneys to Aberdeen? Has he taken that into account?
    Mr. Buchan: As always, all matters are taken into account. The hon. Gentleman will know the recommendation put forward by the Reorganisation Commission which referred to the Orkneys.
    Mr. Stodart: What particular reasons are the Government adopting for giving special assistance to a form of transport which is much cheaper than land transport, particularly when the subsidy to Northern Ireland transport is opening up to them a market in Glasgow in much more favourable circumstances than those on the mainland of Scotland?
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is asking for the reason. No point of principle is involved. The difficulty of sea passage is recognised in the Special Assistance Scheme for the Isles and Northern Ireland which has operated under successive Governments, including his own.
    Mr. Grimond: May I thank the Government for small mercies, and come to their assistance over this issue? Will the Government bear in mind that it is not only a question of the sea transport of eggs south, but the sea transport of foodstuffs north, which is extremely heavy, and that it is not the case that it is cheaper than rail or road?
    Mr. Buchan: I am aware of all the problems. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not have his long experience of the Isles, but I have considerable experience of them.

    Inner Ring Road, Glasgow
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the Inner Ring Road, Glasgow City.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Construction is keeping pace with the programme envisaged in the Corporation's "Highway Plan for Glasgow". Stage I of the Town-head interchange has been completed; stage I of the Woodside stretch is almost complete; the Kingston Bridge and its approaches are two-thirds complete; and
    1372
    work has started on stage II of the Woodside stretch.
    Mr. Hannan: Is my hon. Friend aware that many citizens in Glasgow recognise in these projects a great tribute to the previous administration for its planning and its work? Is my hon. Friend aware that since the advent of a new political administration in George Square there has been a trend towards retrenchment, and a cutting back, not only of these projects, but in the development areas? Will he do all that he can to defeat these efforts?
    Dr. Mabon: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It causes some concern. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the final part of the inner ring road that we authorised, that is, the Charing Cross section, is estimated to cost £6·2 million, of which the Government will contribute £4·7 million. I take my hon. Friend's point that it is important to keep these road developments and other developments going at the present pace.

    Glasgow Fire (Inquiry)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take following the inquiry into the James Watt Street fire in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 5th March, 1969.—[Vol. 779, c. 113.]
    Mr. Hannan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both sides of the House would like to express their appreciation of the extent and thoroughness of the report? May I ask when it is likely to be published? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we await the Holroyd Report on future provisions for fire prevention, there is a moral obligation on all owners of factories to ensure that the bars on old buildings comply with the existing legislation, and thereby help to ease the minds of many people in Glasgow?
    Mr. Ross: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said at the outset of his supplementary question. He will be aware that as the inquiry was in public the public were kept informed of all

    1373
    that was involved. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity promised a statement following the interdepartmental discussions on the recommendations of the jury, and I shall bear that in mind. There will be a meeting on this subject next week, I hope, between Glasgow Corporation, officials of my Department, and the Department of Employment and Productivity.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any requests from Glasgow for assistance in its present campaign to clean up potential fire traps? Is he considering introducing legislation about barred windows and can he comment on the unfortunate development relating to insurance cover in respect of the relatives of victims?
    Mr. Ross: I do not know of any requests for additional financial help. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about legislation, the discussions and consideration of the recommendations of the jury may lead to legislation, but it is too early to be specific on this point.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY (STRIKE)
The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I will, with permission, make a statement on the present situation in the Ford dispute.
Since I reported to the House on Monday, talks with representatives of the unions and of the Ford management have continued at my Department.
In these discussions the unions represented unanimously to the company that the continuing possibility of legal action against the T. & G.W.U. and the A.E.F. was an obstacle to a return to normal industrial negotiation. In view of this, the company yesterday gave an assurance that it would not pursue further legal action and so instructed its legal advisers.
In the subsequent talks the unions put forward yesterday—I understand by a majority decision—the following demands as prior conditions for a resumption of work:

(1) Implementation of the pay increases and related provisions of the
1374
package deal, but with the dropping of the so-called penalty clauses;

(2) Withdrawal of a provision in the package deal that the unions should give 21 days' notice of constitutional strike action.

(3) An indication that the company would improve the pay increases provided in the package deal following a return to work.

The unions also indicated that in the subsequent negotiations they would wish to query certain points in the provisions of the package deal setting out guide lines for the introduction of productivity improvements.
For its part, the company has taken the line that it is prepared to renegotiate the package deal, but only within the agreed negotiating machinery following resumption of work. It has pointed out that, since the package deal negotiated last month has been implemented from 1st March at the request of the majority of the trade union side of the N.J.N.C., about 7,000 Ford employees who are still at work are already enjoying its benefits.
The company therefore proposed that resumption of work should take place on the basis of the new deal on the clear understanding that the company would immediately negotiate with the unions the substitution of alternative provisions for any clauses not found acceptable. Alternatively, the company was prepared to revert to the previous agreement reached in 1967 as a basis for resumption of work and enter into immediate negotiations for the production of an entirely new package deal.
This morning the trade unions rejected these proposals from the company, again, I understand, by a majority, and the talks have, therefore, broken down.
The House will, I am sure, share my profound regret at this outcome and my deep concern at the continuing serious loss of production and exports. My Department will, of course, continue to keep in close touch with both sides and will be ready to help at any time when this seems possible.
Mr. R. Carr: The whole House will, I am sure, wish to underline the extreme gravity of the situation, not only for its immediate effects but for the longer-term

1375
implications affecting employment and investment in the motor industry. I am equally sure that the House will wish to make it quite clear to all those concerned on both sides that any undue intransigence, from whichever side it might come in this affair, would be condemned by the House and the country.
Having said that, would the right hon. Lady answer two questions? First, has she expressed, or does she intend to express, any view to the parties concerned on whether the union demands, about which she has just told us, would or would not comply with, and be acceptable to the Government from the point of view of, the prices, incomes and productivity policy, for it seems to many of us that both sides should know that, even if only privately?
Secondly, when will the union leaders be available again for renewed negotiations? Is the report in the Press true, that they will not be available until next Monday? If so, might it not be wise to make it clear to all concerned that first things should come first?
Mrs. Castle: I have not been asked by either side to express a view on the union proposals in these negotiations for the simple reason that the company itself has not accepted the union proposals. As I made clear to the House last Monday, the package deal was costed as a whole by my Department and was acceptable because, as a whole, it yielded savings of about 15 per cent.; and, clearly, any new agreement would have to be similarly examined.
To answer the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is true that the union negotiators are leaving London for York. This does not mean, of course, that my Department cannot continue to keep in touch with them.
Mr. John Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the report that the Ford Company is now abandoning its projected £20 million development programme at Dagenham? If so, has she made an estimate of what this might mean in terms of employment and exports?
Mrs. Castle: I understand from the company that it has felt obliged to urgently reconsider this plan in view of the present situation A final decision
1376
has not yet been reached. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact estimate of the effect on employment and production that would be felt, but, clearly, there would be a loss of jobs and exports.
Mr. Lubbock: Does not the matter go much further than a single investment decision amounting to £20 million? If a satisfactory solution of this dispute cannot be reached, will not this deter other foreign investors from increasing their capacity in this country and so seriously jeopardise the future economic prosperity of Great Britain?
Notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Lady has not been asked to consider the union proposals, will she look at them as a matter of urgency, because if she was able to announce that they did not fall within the terms of the Government's prices and incomes policy then the demands being made by the unions would be academic and they would be able to see clearly that there was no possible hope of achieving them, even if the company agreed to them?
Mrs. Castle: There are, of course, implications wider than the £20 million extension plan at Dagenham. For example, there are implications concerning the export of components to Ford firms in Europe. These are very serious for us all; for workers seeking employment and for the country, which urgently needs to improve its balance of payments situation.
To answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the important point to remember at this stage is that the union proposals are unacceptable to the firm because they conflict with the constitutional procedures which the firm has always tried to honour. I have made it sufficiently clear that the package deal previously negotiated stood together as a whole and that any future package deal will have to do the same.
Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House appreciates the efforts which she and her Department have been making to bring this dispute to an end?
Is it correct that the future investment programme of the company involves not only Dagenham, but South Wales and Merseyside?

1377
In my right hon. Friend's efforts to achieve a solution to this problem, has she considered asking the Prime Minister to ask the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. to see whether they can bring pressure to bear on both sides to reach a solution?
Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the work of my Department's negotiators. They are extremely wise and skilled in these matters and work tirelessly in a situation such as this. I am, therefore, glad that my hon. Friend paid that tribute to them.
Because they are wise and experienced, I do not think that at this stage there would be any advantage in calling in the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., though, of course, I would be prepared to consider any possibility which might enable us to get an early resumption of work.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the right hon. Lady consider inviting or challenging the unions to hold a secret ballot of their members to find out whether they would find acceptable the terms proposed?
Mrs. Castle: This suggestion was put at an early stage by the company to the unions which said that their members found the package deal unacceptable. The firm suggested that they should consult their members by ballot, but the unions said that it would take too much time to go through the executives and they were not prepared to pursue the suggestion. I understand that the firm tried to explain the situation in a personal letter to each employee.
Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Ford workers have a justifiable claim for a wage increase above the 3½ per cent. norm, particularly as Ford skilled workers are no better off today than they were 30 years ago? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is a claim which Ford workers are prepared to prove by facts.
Will my right hon. Friend inform the Ford management, therefore, that there is no future in trying to negotiate conditional bonuses and advise both management and unions that there is a possibility of getting together to negotiate entirely new agreements on productivity?
Mrs. Castle: The package deal agreed and negotiated, and approved by us, provided a pay increase well above 3½ per cent. It provided an average increase of 8 per cent. and it was possible to approve that because it was part of a deal which ensured continuity of employment and greater productivity. These are the criteria which must be observed when we are assessing the costs and savings in any such agreement.
As for my hon. Friend's other point, surely if he had listened to my original statement carefully he would have heard that I said the firm has offered to renegotiate every clause in the agreement or the whole package deal following a resumption of work and to do so urgently, but it is saying—and I think that it is surely legitimate in saying—that it either has the new agreement negotiated last month or the current agreement negotiated in 1967, and, therefore, this should be done constitutionally through the constitutional negotiating machinery following a return to work.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Lady referred in her original statement to loss of exports involved. Can she quantify this? How much a week?
Mrs. Castle: As I told the House on Monday, £20 million worth of production had been lost up to that point, half of which is for export, and there is a continuing loss of £2 million a day, again on a fifty-fifty basis; so there is a current loss of £1 million of exports a day.
Mr. Howie: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether or not the statement made on television last night by one of the trade union leaders closely involved in this dispute, that the so-called penalty clauses would not have cost anybody a penny, is correct or not?
Mrs. Castle: I heard that statement made and I was a little mystified. It was made by Mr. Scanlon. If Mr. Scanlon was implying that there has been no unconstitutional action by the firm's employees during the last 30 years he is being wildly optimistic, because in 1968 alone 137,000 working days—about I million man hours—were lost by unconstitutional action in the firm itself.
So if these bonus clauses had been in operation and this action had not taken place the firm would have paid out about

1379
a quarter of a million pounds in lay-off benefit last year in addition to the fact that every one of the 46,000 employees at Ford's would have had the £20 holiday bonus.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: While the house can understand the Minister not wanting personally to intervene further at this stage, has not the time come when, in the national interest, the Government should give a clear lead? For example, on the evidence of her balanced statement today, would the right hon. Lady say whether the unions or the management are being unreasonable?
Mrs. Castle: No, I do not think that that would be helpful. I think the House is pressing me to see that my Department continues its efforts in this field. We shall do so wherever the parties are and however difficult it is to reach them. This is our policy and I have made it sufficiently clear that there are constitutional points here of very great seriousness and importance.
Mr. Paget: Will my right hon. Friend agree that this lamentable state of affairs illustrates the folly of trying to bring the law into an industrial dispute?
Mr. Castle: I am sorry, but I think that my hon. and learned Friend has got the situation confused. The law was not brought in at the stage when the dispute started. This is the difficulty we face. The trouble has arisen because of the attempt by the firm to find an alternative to legal action by putting inside its agreement both a guaranteed week for its own
1380
workers, who have been complaining about loss of employment as a result of other people's unofficial strikes, and, at the same time, clauses in the package which meant that certain bonuses and the lay-off benefit would be forfeited if they took part in unconstitutional action. That was an attempt at negotiation across the bargaining table to find an alternative to the law. It is the spirit in which the firm proceeded.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS (PROTECTION OF SUBSCRIBERS)
  Bill to protect prospective subscribers to periodical publications by enabling them in certain circumstances to rescind the agreement to subscribe; and for purposes connected therewith, presented b. Mr. James Scott-Hopkins; supported b. Mr. Julian Ridsdale. Mr. Peter Emery. Mr. John Osborn. Mr. Peter Bessell, an. Mr. Cyril Bence; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 21st March and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

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

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES (INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS)
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the liability of main contractors for industrial injuries sustained by sub-contractors or the employees of sub-contractors.
My Bill does not pretend to relate to any of the more dramatic issues which confront the nation, but to a limited number of families it may be of very real importance. It is a tribute to the tolerance and versatility of the House that such matters are from time to time considered sympathetically even if briefly.
The situation with which the Bill seeks to deal results in what to many families is a double tragedy. An industrial accident ends or gravely diminishes the earning capacity of the breadwinner and they then find themselves without any financial redress to mitigate the hardship. That is a situation which arises from the practice which is growing in certain industries of setting on labour not in the capacity of employees, but as self-employed contractors frequently as labour-only sub-contractors. They do the same work as if they were employees, but this arrangement is part of what has become the national pastime of giving artificial names to everyday situations to evade paying money to the Government.
Honest people who would not dream of "missing their turn in the local" regard it as legitimate to cast the burden of social expenditure upon other people's shoulders. If a workman is described as a sub-contractor the management evades liability for Selective Employment Tax, the combined National Insurance payments are lower, and the worker pays Income Tax under Schedule D instead of Schedule E, so that he pays 12 months in arrear. I do not suggest that every agreement between a principal and a sub-contractor is prompted by such motives, but this is the probable explanation of the recent fashion for this kind of arrangement.
Those concerned often fail to appreciate a further consequence. An employer is responsible to his employees for proper safety precautions and if he
1382
fails to take them and an employee is injured he can look to the employer for damages. Normally, the employer is insured against liability and if the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) becomes law this will become compulsory.
Therefore, the employee will be compensated for his suffering and for the loss of his earning capacity. But if he is not an employee, but a sub-contractor, the main contractor is responsible only for a very limited range of precautions in a very limited range of situations. Outside those situations the sub-contractor must make his own provision. And if the subcontractor employs his own gang, it is he who is responsible for their safety. This is a situation which was pointed out by the Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Phelps Brown, which reported in July, 1968, on the Building and Construction Industries.
A number of very serious consequences follow. First, accidents happen which might have been prevented. I say this first, because I imagine that all of us would prefer safety to a claim for damages. There are today cripples who might have had their health and strength. There are widows who might have had their husbands. It would be quite unfair to suggest that every sub-contractor is careless of his own and his employees' safety, but some—too many—simply, cannot afford to provide safe equipment. That is why they are labour-only sub-contractors; and the main contractor has little inducement to concern himself with the matter.
Secondly, if an industrial accident does happen the sub-contractor may find that he has no financial remedy, except very limited benefits under the industrial injuries provisions, and the family's standard of life may be seriously affected.
Thirdly, an employee of a sub-contractor, if he is injured, may find that any redress he may have is simply against the head of the gang, who may have no money to satisfy a judgment. There have been cases of workers being misled by information from the main contractor about his insurance policy. I do not suggest for a moment that they were deliberately misled. I have no doubt that the main contractor was misled himself, but it is explained that there is a clause in the insurance policy stating that the main

1383
contractor is covered against liability to sub-contractors as though they were employees. So he is, but only against liability. If a claim is made under the policy, it is then pointed out, quite properly, that since he has incurred no liability the clause does not apply.
The Bill seeks to adopt the proposal in paragraph 441 of the Phelps Brown Report, though in a rather simpler form. The main contractor would become responsible for the safety of sub-contractors and their employees as though he were the employer. He would have no complaint, as he could easily cover himself against the risk by insurance, and no doubt he would bear his responsibility in mind when he made the contract, as an employer does when he negotiates the conditions of employment.
I appreciate that this rule may not be readily applicable to all industries. The Phelps Brown proposal related only to the building and construction industries. So for the maximum flexibility, the Bill proposes that it should apply only to any industry or operation specified by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stale for Employment and Productivity.
I will not delay the House further. If the House gives leave, and the Bill proceeds, the law will be modified by a limited measure which will help to avert some tragic accidents and which when accidents occur, will help to ensure that the inevitable suffering is mitigated so far as financial provision can do so.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is——
Sir Harmar Nicholls rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
3.53 p.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Yes. Mr. Speaker.
I do not think that the House should give the hon. Member leave to bring in the Bill. I accept the morality behind the hon. Gentleman's argument. We can all have much real sympathy for the victims of the present situation where small contractors have not made proper provisions to cover any of their employees in case of accident, but I think that we should resist putting any more burdens
1384
on the main contractors. They are already overburdened with all sorts of Government restrictions and all sorts of charges which I will not take up the time of the House by disagreeing with or objecting to now.
However, we must put a stop to this process of adding burdens to contractors and making it almost impossible for them to know for what they will be tendering. We know that in many industries—the industries which I presume would be the ones the Minister would put on the register—the main contractor does not know who his sub-contractors are until he is well on with the contract. A tender is made on the basis of the quantities. The main contractor has a general idea of how the project will develop and he does not actually employ sub-contractors until he is well on with the job and has put in his tender.
If main contractors are to be made responsible for the omissions and difficulties of sub-contractors whom they do not even know when they enter into contracts, they may well have to put prices into their tenders over and above what they ought to because of the uncertainty of it all.
Although I think that some way should be found to meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman, I am certain that the Bill as he has described it to us would not be the right way. I believe that we should use every endeavour with contractors, who may well be subcontractors on bigger projects, to see that they have protected the legitimate and proper interests of their employees all down the line. I believe that to pass a Bill and put extra responsibilities on to main contractors is not the best way of doing it in the interests of the nation.
I will join the hon. Gentleman in any alternative way to try to meet the legitimate claims of employees of subcontracting firms, but I hope that the House will refuse to add one extra burden, albeit on the face of it a small one, on to main contractors, who are already facing many difficulties to remain competitive as it is.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in b. Mr. Peter Archer, Sir Eric Fletcher. Mr. John Ellis. Mr. James Hamilton. Mr. Eric S.

1385
Heffer, Mr. John Horner, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, and Mr. David Watkins.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES (INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS)
Bill to amend the law relating to the liability of main contractors for industrial injuries sustained by sub-contractors or the employees of sub-contractors, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th May, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1969–70, VOTE A
  Mr. Speaker: Before the House enters upon the business of Supply, I would like to refer to the Amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Epping (Mr. Newens) and for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—
  That the Vote be reduced by 1,000 men.
  I cannot forecast whether these hon. Members will be successful in catching the eye of the Chair during the debate, but if either of them is sucessful he, like any other hon. Member, will have an opportunity to move such an Amendment.
  3.57 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I beg to move.
  That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 210,000, all ranks, to be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970.
  The total of Army Votes for 1969–70 is £598 million. We have had to find about £30 million for pay and price increases and it is notable that this has been achieved and an Estimate produced which is, in fact, about £3 million lower than that for the present year. The largest reductions are those in military and civil manpower, amounting to £15 million, and in purchases of stores and equipment of about £11 million net. We have completed the special housing programme for Servicemen returning from abroad and this has reduced the new Estimate by a little over £11 million.
  On the other hand, expenditure on pensions will be higher next year, and we do not expect to receive so much from the sale of land and properties. This means that the measures of economy announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in January last year, and included in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy, 1968, are now being reflected in the Estimates. This is a matter for satisfaction, but a smaller

  1387
  part of the saving is also due to the decline in recruiting in recent month; but that is only about £2½ million.
  It has been customary, in the opening speeches in these Estimates debates, to start off by a reference to the Army's operational activities during the course of the year. This year, for the first time for many years, there have been no military warlike operations. All the operations have been peacekeeping operations. They have been conducted with the Army's usual efficiency and discretion. In January, 1968 we were asked by the Mauritius Government to assist in controlling communal disturbances. Troops of the 3rd Battalion The Light Infantry were promptly flown from Singapore and played a considerable part of maintaining law and order. The troops were withdrawn in November. On the other side of the world, the 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Rangers were sent to Bermuda when rioting broke out in April. Their prompt response to this threat was crucial in restoring peace to the area.
  I am glad to report that the situation in other areas of the world where our troops are still stationed has remained remarkably quiet throughout the year. In Hong Kong, the presence of our troops has done much to kep the peace and to reassure the population of the Government's determination to maintain law and order in the Colony.
  Our troops with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus have continued to play a vital part in improving the atmosphere in the island. As a result, we have been able to reduce our forces there.
  The Royal Engineers have undertaken a number of useful tasks, ranging from survey work in Malaysia, Thailand, and Australia, to airfield reconstruction in the Solomon Islands, Gilbert and Ellice Islands and El Adem. At Beef Island, in the British Virgin Islands, the Sappers have just completed the building of an airfield. The task was formidable, calling for a number of skills and trades in which Royal Engineer craftsmen need constant practice for their operational rôle. Besides leaving behind a fine airfield, they will leave a fund of good will. As a sign of their appreciation, the Government of the British Virgin Islands had a stamp issued bearing the insignia of the Royal Engineers.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I approve very much of these activities, but will my hon. Friend say something about financial relations with the Treasury? Some of us feel that these good works should not be put entirely on the Defence Vote.
  Mr. Boyden: I shall have something to say about that later.
  In Germany, the Rhine Army continues to make an invaluable contribution to the North Atlantic Alliance. Because it is the only all-Regular Army in Western Europe, and because we have equipped it with sophisticated equipment, it has achieved a standard of professionalism which is second to none. Every man in B.A.O.R. knows his job and how much depends on his personal effort. To sum up on the Army's operational activities during the year, it would be fair to say that no blood has been shed, and to great advantage.
  Now that a greater proportion of the Army is to be stationed in the United Kingdom, we continue to attach great importance to maintaining a high level of overseas training, particularly for the units stationed in the United Kingdom and in Germany. This will be essential if our forces are to remain experienced and efficient, if we are to preserve our operational techniques and skills in different climates and terrains, and if we are to overcome the limitations of our training areas in this country and in Germany. This will also give Service men opportunities to go abroad.
  During the last year, exercises were carried out abroad in 25 different countries by 39 major and 73 minor units of the Regular Army, as well as 10 major and 62 minor units of the T & AVR. These exercises have included six formation exercises, one of which saw 6 Infantry Brigade, now stationed at Catterick and Barnard Castle, training alongside its fellow formation units in Germany.
  There have also been N.A.T.O. exercises involving the United Kingdom element of the Allied Mobile Force, and a recent successful exercise involving a brigade of 3 Division stationed in the United Kingdom, which moved to the Baltic area to exercise with units of the German and Danish Armies.
  Next year the expenditure for equipment shows a reduction of nearly £9

  1389
  million on the amount required for the current year. As this includes £3 million for increased price levels, the reduction in real terms is nearly £12 million—without any fall in standards. This satisfactory situation arises directly from the cutting back in our commitments, which should, in the long term, enable us to afford the higher costs of the more complex equipments coming forward.
  During the next year, deliveries of Chieftain tanks, Swingfire long-range anti-tank guided missiles, and FACE—the field artillery computing equipment—will continue; while BRUIN—the semiautomatic trunk communication system in B.A.O.R.—has proved so successful that it will be extended in B.A.O.R. and a limited form will be developed for Army Strategic Command. Perhaps the most important item of equipment coming into service is the new Surveillance Drone, which is an unmanned aircraft designed to photograph areas in enemy positions, to identify targets and to collect intelligence. This is a very good example of a collaborative development of three N.A.T.O. countries—Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom—with development costs shared on an equal basis.
  Among the other more important equipments there are new ground surveillance radar, the starlightscope passive individual weapon sight, and three types of bridging. The German M2B self-powered amphibious bridge-ferry and the British developed medium girder bridge will both be capable of carrying the Chieftain tank, and there is a lighter air-portable bridge. All these new equipments will add considerably to the Army's ability to locate targets, to fight by night, and to ensure that the mobility of its new equipment can be used to the best advantage.
  Over the whole range of Army equipment we are continually striving to widen the field of collaboration with our allies to ensure the sharing of development costs and the lower production costs arising from larger production orders. To date, we have entered into collaborative arrangements with the Federal Republic of Germany in the development of a 155 mm towed gun and its ammunition; with the French Government on two helicopters; and a quadripartite project, MALLARD, for the development and
  1390
  production of a fully automatic tactical trunk communication system.
  Progress is being made in the reduction in the Army's order of battle by 26 major units as a result of the decision to cut our military commitments and concentrate our major effort in Europe. Already, seven of these reductions have been effected; seven more will be effected before the end of this year; and the whole programme will be completed by the autumn of 1972.
  I am well aware that reductions of this sort are very painful for the Army and those involved, and we are doing everything possible to ease them. We are trying to give units concerned an interesting final tour of duty. One of the battalions affected is in Hong Kong, and three others will serve with the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus in due course. Some reductions are being linked with an appropriate ceremonial occasion. The Welsh Regiment and the South Wales Borderers will amalgamate just before the Investiture of the Prince of Wales, which they will attend in their new identity of The Royal Regiment of Wales.
  I now turn to the decision to amalgamate the 3rd Carabiniers and the Royal Scots Greys. The Royal Scots Greys are the only Royal Armoured Corps regiment untouched by previous reorganisations. Every other R.A.C. regiment has either been amalgamated or has suffered disbandment. In these circumstances, the choice logically and inevitably fell on the Royal Scots Greys, as many hon. Members expected. The Colonel Commandant of the Royal Armoured Corps recommended an amalgamation rather than disbandment, and the Army Board endorsed this recommendation. This solved one problem, by creating another; the choice of partner.
  The Royal Scots Greys are traditionally a regiment of Dragoons. In the past, Royal Armoured Corps regiments have always amalgamated with their traditional counterparts—Hussars with Hussars, Lancers with Lancers, and Dragoons with Dragoons or Dragoon Guards. There remain in the order of battle only four regiments suitable by this criterion; one of these had been amalgamated only recently and had to be ruled out. Of the remaining three, the Army

  1391
  Board decided, after very careful consideration, that the 3rd Carabiniers were the most suitable.
  These decisions were taken by experienced senior officers, who have much at heart the honoured traditions of the Royal Armoured Corps.
  The House will be interested to hear the progress being made in the infantry divisional re-organisation. The new divisions of infantry were established in July of last year. By the end of June this year, the new headquarters of divisions will have completed their takeover of control, and brigade headquarters will have disappeared from the chain of command.
  The new organisation has got off the ground well. There has already been a measure of cross-posting across the division, and a start has been made with the intended improvement in the manning of units. At the same time, we are maintaining the identities and traditions of the individual regiments.
  Our own reserve forces play a large part in our contribution to N.A.T.O. That contribution is not only regular forces—the three divisions of the British Army of the Rhine. Our mobilisation plans aim to bring Rhine Army up to a fully mobilised strength of 120,000 men, more than double its peacetime size. The bulk of;his reinforcement is volunteer and regular reservists.
  To ensure that our Reserve forces will be effective, we are equipping them, by and large, with the same weapons as the Regular forces, and we are giving high priority to their training. In 1968, over 12,000 volunteers trained in the Rhine Army or with N.A.T.O. headquarters. For their efforts in a recent exercise, the volunteers earned high praise from SACEUR. We are confident that, should the need arise, we shall be able to reinforce Rhine Army with well equipped, well trained, purpose built reserves, worthy to take their place alongside our regular forces. I would be grateful if hon. Members would from time to time visit the volunteers on exercises. I am sure that they would agree with what I have said about the excellence of their morale, their good equipment and the splendid service they give in their voluntary capacity.
  Unfortunately, these reserves are not yet quite able to meet with all our requirements,
  1392
  and I must, therefore, turn for a moment to the Army General Reserve, which appears later in the proceedings of the House. This reserve of former National Servicemen would be called on only when the volunteer and regular reserves could not supply particular ranks and trades. When, last July, the Supplementary Statement on Defence policy announced the Reserves Review, it explained that one of the aims was to find a means of providing from alternative sources, the reinforcements now found from the Army General Reserve.
  At that time, I entertained some hope that the alternative sources could be tapped quickly enough to enable us to dispense with this reserve. However, the review showed that, with the TAVR below establishment, and the Regular Reserve deficient in some ranks and trades, on current plans about 15,000 Army general reservists are still needed to fill gaps in the mobilisation order of battle.
  Although it is about six years since these reservists saw service with the colours, they are, nevertheless, valuable reinforcements. Those earmarked for recall are carefully selected on the basis of the records of their military experience and qualifications. Many of them—such as the medical personnel and pay experts who form a sizeable proportion of the requirement—are in civilian occupations similar to their military roles.
  Hon. Members will want to know why it is proposed that the whole of this reserve, numbering 168,000, should be kept in being when we currently need only 15,000. We have tried to find ways and means of limiting the incidence of the liability to those actually needed. Unfortunately, this has not proved feasible. The requirement is for a great variety of trades and ranks in many arms and services. It would be impracticable to define such a varied requirement. The only practicable way of limiting the incidence would be to fix a cut-off date later than 31st December, 1962. Unfortunately, this would deprive us of many individuals whom we want. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to retain the reserve as a whole.
  I hope that the House and the country will put this matter into perspective. In the first place, this is not active liability.

  1393
  The great majority of the 168,000 National Servicemen who completed their service after 1962 are reservists in name only. If they have not been served with specific instructions to show that they have been selected for possible call-out, they are not needed. Further, there is the question of the liability itself. The A.G.R. can only be called out in circumstances of "imminent national danger or great emergency". This means, in effect, in preparation for general war. It is our hope that the liability will never be exercised. It is extremely unlikely that any former National Serviceman will be called out again; if he were it would be a time when all of us, I fear, would be facing a very grave situation.
  We are, of course, building up the alternative sources of these ranks and trades. We are taking steps to increase the strength of the TAVR. The strength of the regular reserves is building up over the next few years and as these developments come to fruition, we shall be able gradually to reduce our reliance on the Army General Reserve. In five years' time, by 1974, we expect to be getting all the reinforcements we need from the regular and volunteer reserves. Until then, we shall have to keep the Army General Reserve. Without it we would be unable fully to meet our N.A.T.O. commitments.
  Mr. James Ramsden: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the long-term reserve is coming along? He will recall that this was invented as a possible substitute for the Army General Reserve in later years.
  Mr. Boyden: I will gladly deal with that point when I wind up the debate. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's mentioning it.
  I will now say a word about the steps we are taking to improve the strength of the TAVR. Our aim is to encourage many Territorials to transfer and also to attract new recruits. All the Territorial training centres are being retained and nearly all of them are being used for volunteer units. So Territorials will on transfer to the volunteers, have a chance to continue to serve at the same centre. I appreciate that there may be difficulties where the new volunteer unit is not of the
  1394
  same arm as the outgoing Territorial unit. But experienced reservists are invaluable, notwithstanding differences of arm.
  Secondly, we are introducing an alternative lower training obligation designated to encourage fully-trained reservists who have heavy personal commitments to continue to serve. This will currently help to encourage Territorials to transfer to the volunteers.
  I very much hope that Territorials will not sever their connection with the reserves, but will seek to continue their service by transferring to the volunteers. Time is being allowed until the end of March for this.
  The measures I have mentioned have not only immediate value in encouraging transfers from the Territorials, but will be a permanent encouragement to recruiting and extention of service. As an immediate stimulus to recruiting to the volunteers, we ran in January an advertising campaign. Hon. Members will have seen some of the advertisements in the papers. This is being followed up by local campaigns run by the TAVR Associations.
  Recruiting is currently our biggest problem. No doubt it will be discussed during the debate. During the financial year 1968–69, we expect to recruit about 11,700 adult males from civil life and 4,000 boys. Our total requirements over the period is 26,700, but since we include in that figure an allowance for normal recruit wastage, the total shortage will be 9,000 men on 1st April, 1969. Recruiting is made more difficult both by short- and long-term changes. In the short term, public attention on the defence cuts and the change in the rôle of this country from a world to a European Power has led to the erroneous impression that we no longer need a strong and efficient Army. I am confident that this climate of opinion will swing in the other direction once the full importance is realised of our European obligations.
  In the long term, recruiting is made more difficult by a number of interrelated factors, such as the demographic one of the shortage of young men aged 17 to 19, and this trend will not be reversed until 1974. There are also changes taking place in our society which do not encourage recruiting for the Army.

  1395
  Young men tend to get married earlier. They tend not to like authority.
  There is also the fact, mentioned in the defence debate by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence for Administration, that recruiting, particularly for the infantry, suffers because the Army has not recently been in action anywhere in the world. It is an unfortunate fact that a little war acts as an incentive for recruiting.
  Having said all this, I should not like to leave the House with the impression that the recruiting situation is all bad. In the first place, we are still recruiting boys at a rate not far below that of last year: 5,300 boys as compared with 5,450 in 1967–68. I am sure that anyone who has occasion to visit the Apprentices' Colleges, or the Junior Leader Regiments, will agree that the training is first class and that nearly all the boys are happy there. If boys are not happy, the Army takes steps to get rid of them and is as anxious not to have them as the parents are for their return home. But this is a very fine part of Army service.
  Secondly, as the House will be aware, we are also experimenting with pilot schemes for the centralised selection of adults and apprentices. First indications are that they will significantly reduce "in-service" wastage and lead to a much more economic and efficient use of Army manpower.
  Thirdly, there are the comparatively good rates of prolongation of service which are very encouraging—for the six-year men, over 50 per cent. as compared with 42 per cent. in 1966 and 36 per cent. in 1964 and 1965. This clearly shows that men in the Army are of the right type, enjoy the life and are willing to go on to longer service.
  Mr. William Baxter: To get the comparison right with the various N.A.T.O. countries, can my hon. Friend give numbers and percentages of their armies in relation to the populations?
  Mr. Boyden: Not off the cuff, but they are all conscripts, and my point about prolongation would hardly apply, since most of them take themselves out as soon as they can. The Danes in the U.N. Force in Cyprus are given considerable sums to prolong their national service, but
  1396
  they usually save it for university or college later. We have a voluntary professional Army which we are trying to retain. All the armies to which my hon. Friend refers are conscripts, except for the cores of senior N.C.O.s who run the armies.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Before leaving recruiting, would the hon. Gentleman say something about the apparent absence of any effect on recruiting from the larger unemployment figure? Would he not agree that, historically, high unemployment leads to an increase in recruiting? Why has this not happened in 1966?
  Mr. Boyden: When I went to the Army Department, I expected to find a connection between those two things, but all the figures show that there is no immediate connection. There may be a long-term connection in that, in an area with unemployment, people thinking of a steady career might enter the Army, but there seems to be no immediate connection. At least, the Department has not been able to advise me that this is so.
  The Government are fully aware of the importance of pay, which is the fourth good feature—I hope that it will be so—in connection with recruiting difficulties. In May last year, the National Board for Prices and Incomes recommended an interim award of 7 per cent. and we hope that a further report will be available in May of this year.
  A small Army will require fewer officers and we are obtaining almost enough cadets to meet our target. Voluntary retirement, which was causing concern in the first half of 1968, is now lower. We shall continue to maintain the necessary career prospects and in one respect we have improved the prospects of short service commissioned officers by linking the commission with the very imaginative Confederation of British Industry scheme. This has had a good result already.
  Lastly, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration explained in the defence debate, we have decided to extend the three-year engagement to certain categories in the Army. By extending this engagement, we hope to attract many more young men to sample the opportunities that a career in the Army can provide. It will be open to young soldiers and adults of the age

  1397
  of 17 and over, although the number of vacancies will be limited.
  To begin with, no one who wishes to become a highly specialised skilled man will be able to enlist on a three-year engagement. On the other hand, it will be possible to enter the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry on this engagement and in some areas of R.E.M.E. For instance, it will be possible to enlist for three years in R.E.M.E. to become a driver or a storeman, but not a radar technician or vehicle mechanic. Where there is expensive training, the Army wants value for money and requires men to sign on for at least six years.
  No corps will be allowed to have more than a certain percentage of men serving on a three-year engagement. The number will be flexible and will vary between corps and trades, depending on the manning requirements and states of recruiting. Probably, it will be 10 per cent. overall to begin with. We are determined to maintain a long-service professional Army and we do not propose to divert extra resources in accommodation and training and staffing of the training organisation.
  The Army will have a strong incentive and probably accepts this. We think that it is a good thing to persuade the men on shorter engagements to stay on for six or nine years, so the Army, to some extent, will be on its metal to make the Army career attractive. We want to gain more recruits and to absorb them. Prolongation at the six- or nine-year point is good and indicates that, when a man becomes a soldier, he likes the life.
  I am, therefore, sanguine enough to hope that we shall be able to guard against the risk that those who would have served for a long time will now volunteer to serve for a short time, for three years instead of six or nine. We should be able to tap a new field of recruits, of somewhat footloose young men who want to try a number of jobs—this happens in recruiting—and who will try the Army for three years, but would be put off by a longer period. We hope that, having tried it, they will stay.
  I wish to say something about military aid to the civil community. This will deal with the point of my hon. Friend
  1398
  the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Daly-ell). During this year, we published a pamphlet setting out the rules for the guidance of civil organisations. This is not new. The Army has always had a good reputation for assisting the civilian population at home and overseas, but we hope that the pamphlet will make it easier for local authorities and other organisations to understand exactly where assistance can be sought and the conditions which govern it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) will get some satisfaction out of the clarity of explanation of the pamphlet.
  Among the most important of the conditions are that tasks of this sort must take second place to normal military training and operational requirements and must have a definite training value to the Services and that there must not be objections by local employers, local associations and trade unions. Normally, work will not be done for political or profit-making organisations. To defend the status quo, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is always raising with me, it seems much better that the Ministry of Defence should keep responsibility for this, since the main emphasis is an making training more interesting and useful to the Army, and, if there is a benefit to the civil community, making that flow from it, but it would be wrong to charge all of this to the civil authorities.
  I am sure that there are many areas where the training can be made to benefit the civil community. The general response from organisations and local authorities has been most encouraging and I hope that, as the scheme gets under way, they will lead to a closer integration of Service life with the civil population.
  The Army is actively responding to the need to make economies and streamline its organisation in an energetic and up-to-date way. There will be a run-down in the number of civilians employed in the Army world-wide. In 1968–69, there was a reduction of 9,000, from 173,000 to 164,000. This process will continue into the 1970s. A wide variety of studies is now in train covering all the future deployment in the United Kingdom of the smaller Army of the 1970s.
  The rationalisation of work to provide a better service at reduced cost is

  1399
  already well advanced in two different fields—the Army pay and record offices and the R.A.O.C. stores depots. On the former, the Defence White Paper announced that the Army record offices and regimental pay offices, now concentrated in 19 different places, are to be grouped together in five locations. They will be served by the computer centre at Worthy Down, which will be re-equipped with modern computers. The flow of information from these computers will enable us to provide a high standard of personnel management and more effective career planning. At the same time, there will be a substantial decrease in manual clerical work in both record offices and pay offices. Reductions in the size of staffs will follow. By the mid-70s, we hope that this project will be saving us £750,000 a year.
  As regards the R.A.O.C. depots, the selection of central depots and installations in the long term is not yet complete, but the part covering R.A.O.C. stores organisation in the Home Command is well advanced. It has been found possible to streamline the present system of command ordnance depots, sub-depots and barracks stores, and it is intended to replace these by two new types of units—regional depots and ordnance support units. The former will hold mobilisation stores and pools of equipment for use in training, and the latter a range of faster moving items.
  In addition, greater reliance will be put on direct issues to units from some central depots where this is practical. A detailed selection of the regional depots with Ordnance support units is not yet complete but it is clear that the new system, once it is in operation, will lead to substantial savings in staff.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of the run-down of the forces, will he tell us how many troops will be left in the United Kingdom for home defence in the event of an emergency?
  Mr. Boyden: I can certainly do so later, in winding up the debate I shall have a lot to say on that.
  Mr. Rippon: If the hon. Gentleman leaves it until he is winding up, it cannot be debated. Why cannot he give the figure now?
  Mr. Boyden: I would prefer to deal with it then rather than at some length during the course of an intervention. I would say "many thousands", but I will elaborate that later.
  In addition to the widespread use of a computer as an aid to management, considerable progress has been made in introducing cost accounting and budgetary control systems. The adoption of these systems enables performance to be continually measured and compared against pre-determined standards. This is increasing efficiency by the best use of manpower, materials and equipment. Already, as a result of advice tendered by civilian management consultants, systems of budgetary control and standard costing are now being introduced into three R.A.O.C. depots and four R.E.M.E. workshops; and pilot schemes are in hand for introducing similar systems into certain Royal Engineers' and Royal Corps of Transport units. Cost accounting units are also widely in use in all Army commands.
  The Army is also in the forefront of another technique for the improvement of training, known as instructional technology. This ugly description means the radical reassessment of the objectives and methods of training soldiers, using the most modern teaching aids. It has been used recently with striking success in designing a course of instruction to convert gunners to the use of the highly complicated field artillery computer equipment. This system and method is being applied in a great many areas of training and if hon. Gentlemen care to see something of it I will be only too happy to make suitable arrangements for them to do so.
  In June this year the first Junior Command and Staff Course will begin and thus establish an extra division, the Junior Division, of the Army Staff College. The course is to train junior Army officers in all arms tactics and in basic staff procedures. The new course will train officers aged 26 to 29 years to fit them for senior captain's appointments at regimental duty and as junior staff officers. In addition, students will receive tactical instruction in the employment of all arms up to battle group level, and in the specialist command techniques involved in an all arms combat

  1401
  team. The course will be held at the School of Infantry, at Warminster.
  In our efforts to achieve greater industrial efficiency and at the same time share the benefits of improve productivity with our employees, we have been making steady progress. Although only one productivity agreement has been signed so far—at 38 Central Workshop R.E.M.E., Chilwell—discussions and negotiations between managements and trade unions have taken place at both national and local levels and we are optimistic that before long we shall have a number of agreements signed to our mutual advantage.
  There are some particularly difficult areas from the point of view of work measurement, for example, in the research and development field, or what one might call the domestic field—gardeners, waiters and handymen. But we are hoping that even in these difficult fields we can make progress and I pay tribute to the co-operation we have had from the trade union side at all levels.
  In a time of rapid social change in the Army it is heartening to know that the great traditions and achievements of the British Army from 1560 to 1914 will be on display to the public in a suitable setting in a few years' time. Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer has put an astonishing amount of work into this project and the Army is greatly in his debt. Work started on the building of the National Army Museum in the grounds of the Chelsea Hospital in April last year, a most appropriate place for it, and much of it will be completed by early 1970. So far, £820,000 has been raised towards the cost of the new building by public subscription to the National Army Building Appeal Fund.
  I am sure that the museum will prove a great and popular attraction in London to those of the public who have the interests of the Army at heart and I thank Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer for all that he has done in this respect.
  Mr. Ramsden: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much he will get out of the Treasury?
  Mr. Boyden: The amount is in the Estimates, but I do not want to comment upon it against that figure. There
  1402
  has been a small amount for capital cost. The Army was having discussions on this recently.
  I am pleased to inform the House that good progress is being made in the United Kingdom in providing soldiers with permanent modern accommodation as good as they would enjoy in civilian life. I give credit for starting much of that to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Work began last year at Catterick on a new artillery barracks and a contract has been placed for a new training centre for the Royal Signals. Projects in the planning stage include a new military hospital. In the public mind much of the picture of the Army is very out-dated and so is the picture of Catterick as it is in the minds of many who served there in the last war. It is almost a new town.
  At Aldershot, the military town plan which was approved in May, 1962, is now more than half completed. During the past year at Aldershot the Parachute and Airborne forces depot has been completed as has accommodation for provost and the W.R.A.C. We expect that next year the R.C.T. Training Brigade barracks will be ready for occupation. Other major projects in other parts of the country are mentioned in the Statement. Altogether 1,160 married quarters were built during the year, and a further 2,100 are at present under construction. The special programme introduced in 1966 to provide married quarters for Service families returning from overseas is now complete and I do not anticipate that any further exceptional measures to house Army families will be necessary. I am glad to see that in the Army Estimates, under "Mobile homes", there is a dash.
  I pay tribute to the Minister of Public Building and Works for the kind thought he gives to the Army and for his willingness to consider our projects. There is at present a very imaginative report on using what are called "flexible barracks", a rather more flexible method for grouping Army units together. I have not time to go into that, but it is most imaginative. I am glad that that should be the result of co-operative effort between my former and my present Departments.
  A new body responsible for the organisation and administration of Service children's schools overseas, to be called the Service Children's Education

  1403
  Authority—S.CE.A.—will become operative from 1st April, 1969. It will provide one authority for the education of children of all three Services and has been made the immediate responsibility of the Army Department. The mobility of Service children and the incidence of family separation and paternal absence are all causing educational and social problems to local authorities in the United Kingdom; and discussions are taking place between the authorities and the Ministry of Defence to see what can be done about this.
  A Youth Service run by a chief Youth Service officer and three assistants to cater for the needs of British Service families in Germany has been established. It will organise activities around voluntary youth organisations similar to those provided in Britain by local authorities.
  One of the pleasures of my office is to visit Army units. During the financial year, I visited 70 in the United Kingdom, the Persian Gulf and the Far East. Nearly everywhere I found a progressive attitude to our military problems among generals, factory directors, Under-Secretaries and trade union officials and a willingness to work with or in the Army; and my private office is equally efficient and progressive. Soldiers in our Army are fit and adaptable to the demands and in good heart.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's peroration. He has talked a lot about reserves and the run-down of the forces. Did he, in his travels, go to Hong Kong and see anything of the Gurkha troops there? If so, has he anything to say about them, or are we to have this dealt with, again, during the hon. Gentleman's winding-up speech, when we cannot discuss it?
  Mr. Boyden: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have punctured my peroration, though no doubt it can be resumed.
  I did visit Hong Kong and found the Gurkhas in good form. Their morale was excellent. All from Army Board members down to the warrant officer in charge of the smallest units of the Army, show a professional skill which is quite outstanding. Their devotion to the service of their country deserves the full appreciation of the House and a unanimous vote for them tonight.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I am sure that we are all glad to hear that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army has had opportunities for travel during the past year. We congratulate the Under-Secretary on his presentation of the Army Estimates. However, as I listened to his speech, I could not but wonder what title one might choose for these Estimates, if it were the practice to give these somewhat mournful documents titles.
  The Army has not been on active service or engaged in fighting in the past year. Therefore, "In Place of Strife" might have been appropriate if it had not already been pre-empted by the Department of Employment and Productivity. As the hon. Gentleman said, 26 major units are soon to disappear from the Army, so "In Place of Defence" might be an appropriate title, although I doubt whether that would have got through the hon. Gentleman's efficient private office.
  Perhaps the best title for the Statement accompanying the Estimates and for the Under-Secretary of State's speech would be "The meek shall inherit the earth—we hope."
  I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the rightful tribute that he paid to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) for having laid some of the groundwork for building barracks, which forms one of the brighter aspects of the Defence Statement this year. He might also have paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) since much of the equipment now coming into service, which again forms one of the brighter pictures of the Defence Statement, was developed and ordered when he was in office.
  In his Munich speech, the Secretary of State made much of the massive preponderance of Russian tanks now in Central Europe. Clearly, the development and deployment of a cheap and effective anti-tank weapon would have a profound influence on the military balance in Central Europe. What, then, has happened to Vigilant, about which we used to hear so much? I note that the Germans are developing an anti-tank weapon as light and mobile as Vigilant

  1405
  which they believe will revolutionise antitank warfare. The Secretary of State often tells us how close he is to the German Defence Minister. I hope that we are sharing in this development.
  Our closest military partners continue to be the Americans. It may not be fashionable these days to talk about Anglo-American projects, but during the past year I understand that there has been some discussion about the possibility of the Americans taking Rapier, our most effective air portable surface-to-air guided weapon system and that as part of the bargain we should take Red Eye, which is an infra-red unit air defence weapon, the development of which is well advanced and which works most effectively, as I have seen. It is similar to our own developing weapon Blowpipe. I wonder whether there are possibilities of this exchange of equipment going through.
  I note with regret that, because of our contracting military rôle, the Americans are becoming increasingly reluctant to share certain military information with us.
  But it is no good having weapons, however effective they may be, if we cannot raise the men to use them. The catastrophic position revealed by the recruiting figures must be the central point of our debate. The year 1965 was not a good one for recruiting compared with 1961 or 1962. But compared with 1968–69 it was heaven indeed. In 1965 we obtained 13,848 male adult recruits. In 1968 we obtained 8,337. There is no sign of a reversal of this trend.
  The full impact of these figures has been obscured by the fact that boys' recruiting has held up very well indeed, and so, to a certain extent, has recruiting for the Women's Royal Army Corps. But there are drawbacks. The enlisted boys' training is, as the Under-Secretary of State said, first-rate, but it is also expensive. I have heard it suggested that it would be cheaper to send every enlisted boy—and there were 5,392 of them last year—to Eton or even Millfield than to train them in the Army. But, apart from the question of expense, we need a man's and not a girls' and boys' Army. If the present trends continues, the dominant groups in the Army will be militant schoolboys and fiery amazons.
  1406
  We also appear to have reached the point where the number of Servicemen purchasing their discharge from the three Services last year was larger than the number of adult male recruits for the Army—a deplorable, even perhaps a shocking, state of affairs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was told on 12th December 1968, by 1967 the number of Servicemen purchasing their discharge was almost 2,000 higher than it was in 1964. We should be grateful if, at the end of the debate, the Under-Secretary of State would give the 1968 figure and could say how many enlisted boys left the Army last year and did not go on to become adult soldiers.
  There is the nebulous question of quality. Could the Under-Secretary say how many of the 8,337 adult male recruits last year have already been discharged as unsuitable for military service?
  What can be done to correct this sorry state of affairs? It would be churlish of me if, having urged the Government to extend on a much wider scale the possibility of enlisting for a three-year period, I did not welcome the action that they have taken. The six-year term of recruitment is much more convenient for the Army, but I can remember how long that period seemed when, during the middle of the Second World War, I signed on for 'seven and five", the old term of enlistment. At the age of 18 it seemed that those seven years would be a lifetime. Today, young people are even more mobile in their habits than we were in those days, and six years at the age of 18 seems a very long time.
  I recognise that the Government are in a dilemma. If they pay a three-year recruit on joining almost as much as they pay a six-year recruit, then people will be tempted to sign on for three years rather than six. If, on the other hand, they pay the three-year recruit much less than the six-year recruit, then Army life will appear to be just that much more unattractive to those young people whom they are trying to attract. The present pay balance is, if anything, weighted against the success of this experiment, and I would like the Government to look at it again, particularly in view of the study

  1407
  of the National Board for Prices and Incomes
  Whether or not this experiment succeeds fully, we should all recognise that the introduction of a three-year term is likely to have a bad effect on re-engagement figures in three or four years' time The whole purpose of the scheme is to attract into the Army men who are somewhat uncertain about their taste for military life. One cannot reasonably expect that everyone will like it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate said so forcefully in the defence debate, one cannot expect to get recruiting right unless the pay is attractive.
  I do not under-estimate the size of the problem. The Services are now regarded by much of the country, only too understandably, but sorrowfully, as contracting dead end occupations which are at the mercy of every Socialist Chancellor's axe. If we are to get anywhere, the new pay award will have to be large enough to create the impression that the Services are well paid.
  Meanwhile, the Chancellor has to find the money and to guard against a general reaction in the rest of Government service and in industry. The Armed Forces are never the pace-setters in the wages spiral, but if we are to succeed in getting recruiting trends reversed, and getting the men that we need, then the Army must get its nose ahead for a while.
  The National Board for Prices and Incomes might look also at the problem of scarcity in the various arms within the Army. To go outside this country for a moment, in the Israeli defence forces, where pay is organised on a fairly rational system, certain technical warrant officers in the air force get more money than infantry battalion commanders. The reason for this is simple. Twenty battalion commanders could be replaced overnight, but the loss of 20 technical warrant officers could paralyse the whole air force. We may be forced to look at the differentials between the various arms in the Army.
  I view with extreme misgivings—and I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State did not refer to it this afternoon—the idea of introducing the concept of a military salary, which was gone into at some
  1408
  length by the Minister of Defence for Administration in the defence debate. The idea is that soldiers in future should be charged something approaching a fair market price for such items as food, accommodation and clothing, which are now provided free, but in return they should be paid a higher cash salary.
  This is basically an American idea. The Americans are much further along the road towards this concept than we are, and last week they took another giant step along it with the announcement of a revised pay structure costing an extra 1·2 billion dollars a year. I have my doubts about this. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) so wisely pointed out during the defence debate, much the same system is applied in our hospitals by charging nurses and some doctors for their unkeep, but the friction created by these residential charges is substantial.
  The Minister also wisely omitted to mention the tax position that would arise. The American tax authorities estimate that they will claw back in taxes more than half the proposed 1·2 billion dollar Army pay increase. I can see a host of anomalies arising if we try to introduce (his system here.
  Then there is the question of danger. What should one's pay be for one's breakfast if one has been shot at during the night? How close does the bomb have to burst before one gets a free lunch?
  The Under-Secretary has talked about concentrating all the tax experts in a number of centres. I can see that every battalion in future will have a section of tax and allowance experts. If the scheme should ever come to pass, in future the Army will advance into battle with its accountants at the ready.
  While the shortage of other rank recruits has been growing more serious over many months, I am surprised by the optimistic view taken by the Under-Secretary about the position of officer recruitment, because I fear that the situation here is deteriorating even more quickly than is shown by the gloomy position outlined on page 67 of the Defence Review.
  Here pay alone is not the answer. Officers of the right quality will not be forthcoming in the right numbers until potential officers can see once again that

  1409
  there is a worthwhile job to do and a sensible career structure for them. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to say more about the future career structure of officers than he felt able to do. Until we have an authoritative pronouncement on the subject, answering such questions as, for example, the age at which a young man of ability can hope to command a battalion, what is likely to be the proportion of officers who will be commissioned after substantial service in the ranks, and the whole picture of the officer position in the Army, I do not think that we shall solve the problem of shortage.
  Our difficulties in obtaining regular recruits merely underline the folly of cutting back on the reserves—a policy which, rightly, has been condemned by experts both inside and outside the country. In his farewell testament to Congress after almost seven years as American Secretary of Defence, Mr. MacNamara said:
  "The greatest deficiency in the European N.A.T.O. forces is the lack of an adequate mobilisation base."
  Our own Secretary of State's answer was a further cut in our own mobilisation base.
  Adequate reserves give us some insurance against the unexpected, as everyone except the Secretary of State seems to recognise. During the past two years, three wars have dominated the headlines: the Vietnam conflict, the Nigerian civil war and the Arab-Israeli conflict. All three have taken an unexpected turn and confounded the experts, but still the Secretary of State believes that he can foretell the future with precision.
  The right hon. Gentleman is most obstinate when it comes to home defence. Of all the statements that he has made, the one which best reflects his frame of mind is his dogmatic assertion, on 16th December, 1968:
  "If home defence were ever needed in the United Kingdom we would already have gone nuclear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1005.]
  How can we be so sure of the outcome of a conflict that we would not need home defence when we do not even know from year to year what defence policy our own Chancellor will allow the Secretary of State to pursue?
  During the last 25 years, I have spent some time either taking part in or observing conflicts where a comparatively small
  1410
  number of terrorists have done great damage. In May last year, we saw militant students and strikers in France combining to paralyse much of the capital city of that country. We have not yet reached that position here, but already one English university has made informal approaches to the Army to see what military protection could be given if student rioting got out of hand.
  Mr. Stan Newens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson rose—
  Mr. Goodhart: I will give way to the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens)
  Mr. Newens: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put it clearly to the House whether or not it is the policy of his party to provide for this contingency in our defence expenditure, making the Army available for quelling student riots or similar civil disturbances
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Before the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) deals with that point——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. We had better take one Intervention at a time. Mr. Goodhart.
  Mr. Goodhart: The point can be reached—we have come close to it on one or two occasions—where civil rioting and disturbances are such that the police run into difficulties and the military might be called out to aid the civil power. It is perfectly possible to foresee circumstances in which ugly internal disturbances were timed to coincide with periods of external pressure.
  Meanwhile, the Army, whether it be the regular Army or the reserve Army, will not thrive unless it can be assured that it has a worthwhile rôle to perform. The rôle that this Government have chosen is not that of protecting our universities, though it may perhaps come to that. It is to build up our strength in Europe. Yet the Secretary of State has made it plain repeatedly that he does not think that N.A.T.O.'s conventional forces could hold a determined Soviet thrust, although a concentration on Europe might just enable the inhabitants of 10 Downing Street to play their desert island discs once again while a decision was

  1411
  taken in Washington about whether to go nuclear or to surrender. Gaining an extra day or two may be a laudable objective, but is it right that it should be the overriding objective to which everything else in the defence sphere is sacrificed?
  Only three years ago, the Secretary of State said in his eagerly awaited Defence Review:
  "In recent years, the threat to peace has been far greater outside Europe than within it. When such instability leads to open war, it may imperil not only economic interests in the area, but even world peace. … In some parts of the world, the visible presence of British Forces by itself is a deterrent to local conflict. No country with a sense of international responsibility would surrender this position without good reason, unless it was satisfied that others could, and would, assume a similar rôle."
  I think that the Government were right then and are wrong now.
  I wonder whether any Minister seriously imagines that the prospects for peace have altered materially in South-East Asia, in the Middle East or in Africa during the three years since those words were written. In South-East Asia, where the chances of war are always with us, the Australians, who are obviously more closely involved than we are, believe that even a small force of 42 Mirages, 1,200 men and a small naval force would be of value in——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wider than Vote A of the Army Estimates.
  Mr. Goodhart: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will try to return to these shores.
  The fact remains that unless soldiers are sure that they have a rôle of value, it will be exceedingly difficult to get the numbers that we require. But, as has been said, the concentration is now to be on B.A.O.R.
  It is now five years since the party opposite sat on this side of the House during a debate on the Army Estimates. On that occasion the spokesman for the Labour Party was allowed by the Chair to say that the British Army of the Rhine could be regarded as a disposable reserve for the rest of the Army. In other words, what is now the central core of our defence policy was then looked upon by Members opposite as a sort of "military kleenex".
  1412
  But circumstances change. I note that the then spokesman of the party opposite went on to make a specific pledge which, as he subsequently revealed to the House, was made with the full knowledge of the then Leader of the Labour Party and also with the full knowledge of the shadow spokesman on defence, now the Secretary of State for Defence. The official spokesman promised, during that Estimates debate, that Service pensioners would have parity. I acquit him of any wish to mislead the House. He made that pledge honourably and he believed that his party would carry it out. But, during the past two months we have had the Pensions (Increase) Bill and the Government's long-term pension plan. No reference has been made in these to that pledge made a scant five years ago.
  During the past four years the Government have broken faith with Army pensioners, and during the past two years Ministers have come perilously close to breaking faith with the Army itself.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: This is the first time that I have attempted to take part in a debate on defence questions. I have listened with great interest to debates on these matters for some years. I have heard suggestions from hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should continue to spend more on defence and I have heard a number of my hon. Friends suggest that we should spend less, or even very little. These views have been sincerely put. I have always hesitated to join in these debates lest I be caught in the cross-fire that takes place between the military experts on the one side and the paciflists on the other, no matter how sincerely they hold these views.
  I have been tempted to enter the debate today because I have been sorely troubled by articles in the Press and suggestions in speeches over the past few months that there should be some sort of return to compulsory National Service, either because people have no alternative to offer to our present recruiting difficulties or because they are bent on creating some kind of political mischief. I know from personal experience that this can happen.
  I was returned to this House almost five years ago at a by-election shortly

  1413
  before the General Election of 1964. At that time the Conservative Party in Scotland was very anxious about its political position. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, now ennobled and sitting in the other place, came to Rutherglen and solemnly warned the electors that if I was returned, as sure as night followed day, we should have conscription in this country. I do not think that he meant any personal slight on me, nor did he take my personal views into consideration. The emphasis of his suggestion was that if the Labour Party was returned to power we should have conscription very quickly.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that following the debate we are to discuss a Bill dealing with reserve forces, which maintains an element of conscription?
  Mr. Mackenzie: That is very different from a compulsory form of national service about which I had been making comments.
  The right hon. Gentleman at that time was proved wrong. From the speeches by the Secretary of State for Defence that I have heard over the past few days I am delighted to know that we do not propose to reintroduce national service on a compulsory basis. I feel that compulsory national service would be exceedingly wrong from the individual point of view and because compulsory national service in itself is a bad thing for the Armed Forces.
  I want therefore to deal with the narrow point of recruitment, re-engagement and the use of manpower. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) had to say about manpower and how some of our forces might be used. I do not think that he seriously meant to discuss student unrest—he put it rather facetiously—but I think all in this House have great regard for the way in which these demonstrations, particularly those of last October, were handled by the civilian authorities without any assistance from the Armed Forces. I hope that we shall continue to maintain this situation.
  Recruitment in general is a subject that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and it was raised last week by the right hon. Member
  1414
  for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) and other hon. Members. Most of them dwelt on the degree of uncertainty. This is a factor which we all appreciate. Listening to the speeches in the defence debate last week, I got the impression that this had only arisen in the course of the last four years. However, from my reading of defence debates over a long time dealing with amalgamations, disbandments, the purchasing of equipment and the like, I discovered that this factor of uncertainty has been with us for a decade or more.
  I think that we now have an appreciation of where we stand. Rightly or wrongly, we know our forces' commitments. I think that this will be to the benefit of the Armed Forces as a whole, and people will be able to make up their minds, on this basis, how they propose to conduct their lives.
  During the last few months—as a Scot I might be expected to say a word or two on this—we have discussed the question of uncertainty and the policy of this Government and previous Governments. But, linked with it, has been the question of amalgamations and of regiments being disbanded. This lack of regimental appeal has been a considerable factor in Army recruitment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear hon. Members applaud this. There is no doubt that there is difficulty in this direction. But I took the trouble—as I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite have—to look back to ascertain whether our record is any better than that of the previous Administration. This point has been flogged wearily. We discussed the amalgamation of Scottish regiments last year and the question of reserves. But I notice that in the infantry alone, between 1955 and 1961 some 30 regiments were amalgamated and 10 others—I could not understand this—were placed in a state of suspended animation. I confess that my mind boggled at the prospect of a regiment being placed in a state of suspended animation nevertheless. Whether it is disbanded, amalgamated, or placed in a state of suspended animation, the effect is that the regiment disappears from the order of battle, and to all intents and purposes disappears completely.
  In view of the record of what happened between 1955 and 1964, I thought that it was just a bit much that such a fuss was made about the decision to disband

  1415
  the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. I have a great respect for people who have served in that regiment, and for the traditions of the regiment, as I am sure many people in Scotland have. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who raised a petition, to keep the regiment in being did so from the worthiest of motives, but—I do not mean to be offensive, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands this—I am sure that if he could have got a little political mileage out of doing that he would not have objected.
  As I have said, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman organised the petition with the best of motives, but a number of people jumped on the bandwaggon for motives which were not entirely worthy. It became one of the biggest political stunts that Scotland has seen for a long time. Some factions of the hon. Gentleman's party used this issue for political purposes, and, strange as it seems, in my area the spearhead of the attack on the Government was led by members of the Scottish Nationalist Party, whose policy on defence I have had a little difficulty in discovering over the past two or three years.
  When people are asked to sign a petition to keep a certain regiment in existence they generally know that if that regiment is maintained some other regiment will have to be disbanded, or that more money will have to be spent on this branch of the Service, but the people who spearhead the attack in my area suggested that we could save the Argylls, and all the Scottish regiments, and at the same time reduce our spending on defence.
  I believe that in many areas this petition became a bit of a stunt. It was overplayed and I very much regret that because many of the people who put forward this concept were particularly silent, in the House and in the country, when the previous Government decided to amalgamate the Highland Light Infantry and the Royal Scots Fusiliers. They were not nearly so vociferous about that amalgamation as they were about the disbandment of the Argylls. Although that was an amalgamation, both regiments lost their identity and their barracks. Though they now continue under another name, their traditions have disappeared.
  1416
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Beckenham said about pay in the Army. I do not want to spend any more on defence or to have more people in the Army than are essential, but I am sure that those who are in the Armed Forces should receive a rate of pay which is commensurate with the job they do. It should be remembered that when men go into the Armed Forces they give up a number of privileges which they might have in civilian life. In the forces there is no form of trade union or bargaining to settle disputes, as there is in civilian life. Service personnel are obliged to go abroad, probably without their families. I therefore do not see why a man should be paid less than he would receive in civilian life. On the contrary, I think that he should be paid a better rate.
  We have never been able to get across to members of the public that pay in the forces is good. This is generally because pay in the forces is hedged around with all kinds of allowances. I think that we must make it clear what a man will get in money terms if he goes into the Army and the allowances position should be clarified.
  There is one further point. If a man is based in an area, perhaps rather an exclusive one where rents are high, he is given a certain allowance for his hiring, but it may not be enough to cover the rent which is demanded. This is a matter of some concern to many people and I hope that this issue will be considered, along with the whole question of pay in the Services.
  When we are considering the whole question of Service life, it is easy to try to file the issue down to one or two points, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said last week, questions of education and demo-graphical factors are exceedingly important. As we know, three times as many people go to universities now as used to be the case, and more young people stay on at school to take their "O" and "A" levels. The difficulties encountered by the Army in attracting qualified people are similar to those found in civilian life, and we cannot deal with the problem by adopting a sort of Gilbertian solution and promoting everyone immediately they join the Army. Still on this question of education, I think

  1417
  that people who join the Army should be given a second chance to acquire the education which they did not acquire under our ordinary education system. They should be enabled to take advantage of the facilities provided by the Army Education Service, and this should be publicised.
  We also discussed last week the changes brought about by the demographic factor. I do not think that one can say very much about the reduction in the number in the age group concerned, but one important factor is that young men of 19 and 20 who might now think of joining the Army are often the sons of people who were conscripted into the Army immediately after the war, and we have to bear in mind the impression which those conscripts have made on their sons. They often paint a poor picture of life in the Army in those days. Perhaps conditions in the Army then were not what they might have been. Their judgment has been coloured and they have ever since been poor recruiting sergeants for the Service. I think, therefore, that we ought to paint a picture of better prospects and a better life in the modern Army and show that it offers more than mere ceremonial.
  I confess that I am shockingly ignorant about the rôle of certain regiments and I apologise to my hon. Friend for this. However, I was tremendously impressed when I visited the Far East to see the Army in action. I have always thought that the Life Guards spent all their time parading on Horse Guards Parade or performing ceremonial duties throughout London. It was only when I visited the Far East and saw what the Life Guards did in the field with their motorised units and the skills that they could acquire that I developed an appreciation for them. My view and my lack of knowledge are probably shared by many people so, when we attempt recruitment, it should not necessarily be through posters and films, but through exhibitions and physical displays where the young men can meet the people and give them at first hand an idea of what is happening.
  The most important consideration to many young people going into the forces is their prospects when they come out,
  1418
  whether they will be fitted to do a useful job in civilian life and can acquire any training which will benefit them. I said that I was impressed, on my visits to the Army, by the skills that could be acquired, but we do not hear enough of this or of whether those skills will be acceptable in civil life.
  The White Paper says that Mr. Roberts, I think, will be in charge of resettlement and so on. Will he talk to trade unions and management about acceptance standards? This worries me a great deal. I know that, at this stage, young men and women who are trained in Government retraining centres face a great deal of resistance to their entering certain trades. I hope that my hon. Friend will counse. Mr. Roberts to begin negotiations with trade unions and management about acceptance standards and that some assurances can be given to young men about these points.
  I have already raised the second resettlement matter with my hon. Friend. When men leave the forces with a good deal of money, they are often tempted to enter some business—I have brought examples of this to the attention of the Army authorities—for which they do not have much training. Their knowledge of accountancy and book-keeping does not fit them for this job. I understand that welfare organisations associated with the Army are prepared to help them, but it would be no bad thing if the Army authorities looked to the interests of these people for perhaps one or two years after they leave the forces. They have given us service and we should assist them as much as we can.
  I turn now to housing. I appreciate the service which the Army gives those who intend to buy their houses on leaving the forces, but many people, on leaving, do not want to buy a house. They might not be certain of their future and tend to rent houses. There are parts of the country, including my own, where renting, particularly from town and county councils, is the normal practice. If a young man leaves the forces and gets married, he often lives in the area where his wife was born and brought up, so he does not qualify for a council house. Repeatedly, my hon. Friend and his colleagues have suggested to local authorities that help be given in this matter, but,

  1419
  unhappily, speaking for my own area, these pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
  I should like to think that a good deal of thought is being given to renting houses in this way. The worst advertisement for the Armed Forces is someone who has been refused a house or who finds it difficult to re-settle in civilian life. It is worth remembering that one well-publicised case of someone who cannot get a house or a job will undo all the good which might be done by the most expensive recruiting campaign.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army deserves a great deal of encouragement. The re-engagement figures show that he and his colleagues have clearly been able to persuade young men in the Army to make a career of it and continue to do a useful job, but, unhappily, we have not been able to get this concept of the modern Army across to the public. I hope that he will continue to make these efforts and that my suggestions will be of some help to him.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) declared himself almost a maiden speaker in these defence debates. Perhaps, therefore, I might be allowed to welcome him to the club. Indeed, it would be a bad thing if these debates were participated in only by a very limited number of hon. Members, and it is no particular credit to this House that the attendance at our debates upon the Armed Forces is commonly so scanty, on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member seemed to be anxious about the possibilities of conscription, a matter to which I shall refer later; but all my remarks will be directed towards the single subject of the volunteer reserve. The story of the volunteer reserve in the last three or four years has been a very sad one. We have followed a long, a tortuous and a largely circuitous course which has brought us back, after three or four years, not, indeed, to where we started from, but at any rate looking towards the point at which we started.
  Nearly four years ago, it was suddenly announced that the Government had discovered that the only function for the volunteer reserve was to provide certain
  1420
  specific additions to the order of battle of the British Army of the Rhine and to supply men and units, logistic units, to the Army overseas. There was no question, it was announced, of home defence; and therefore the Territorial Army, as we then had it, would be reduced by about two-thirds of its then size.
  Six months went by, and the Government were persuaded to think that there might be a rôle for a volunteer reserve in home defence after all. That was when we first heard about TAVR III. Of course, this survival of the greater part of the old Territorial Army was to be treated in a very stepmotherly fashion. They were to have very few arms and very little equipment; but at any rate they existed; they were able to continue the units and some of the traditions of the Territorial Army.
  A couple of years after that, it was suddenly announced that they were not to be allowed to exist at all. They were to be abolished and home defence was to be put on a care and maintenance basis. So that was the end of TAVR III. However, they have proved to have a certain resilience; during the course of last year, we began to hear rumours that the execution had, apparently, not been complete and final; and at last, in November, we heard the news of the reprieve.
  We learnt that almost all the units which it had been proposed to abolish would be allowed to continue in a "cadre" form. That is an important word. It was the first time it had been heard in recent years in the context of our defence debates. However, I will return to that later. We were told what the function of these cadre units would be. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence for Administration, on making the announcement on 28th November last year, said that these cadres would provide nuclei for a number of purposes, including that of expansion in emergency. Better still, we are told in the Defence Green Paper—I am glad that we have got round to using the convention of the Green Paper for our Defence Statements, for a Green Paper indicates provisionality, and, of course, all the Defence Statements of this Government should have been published in green covers—that these nuclei, this reprieved vestige of the old Territorial Army, "will provide the framework for

  1421
  any expansion that might in the future be necessary".
  In the recognition, for the first time on the part of the Government, of the prospect of expansion as a function for our volunteer reserve forces—particularly in the concept of having these units as cadres—lies the germ of an important idea. In it we perhaps see the beginnings of our salvation.
  Just over three years ago, when the destruction of the old Territorial Army was announced, a remarkable plea was made by six of the most distinguished soldiers in the British Army. They told the country what they considered to be the supreme function of a Volunteer Reserve. It was to be
  "… a flexible organisation on which to build the nation's defences"
  and
  "… a framework for military expansion in dire emergency."
  This concept of an expansion of the Armed Forces, and of the need to have a basis for such expansion, could not exist so long as we lived with the theory that, to quote the memorable words of the 1958 Defence White Paper
  "The world is poised between the hope of total peace and the fear of total war."
  In other words, it could not exist so long as we were taught to believe that any war which threatened the existence of this country would either not happen or would come to a speedy end with our being frizzled to cinders. In such a concept there could be no place for expansion of the Armed Forces.
  Happily we are now moving out from under the shadow of that mushroom cloud and all the nations are coming to realise that they might in future, as in the past, have to fight for their survival and that the easy way out, by mutual suicide, might not be available or might not be chosen.
  Mr. E. Shinwell rose—
  Mr. Powell: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might interrupt me.
  Mr. Shinwell: I intervene only because the right hon. Gentleman is apparently not aware that the decision taken in the 1958 White Paper was taken not by a Labour Government but by a Conservative one. Does he deny that?
  Mr. Powell: I dated the White Paper from which I quoted. I am well aware of the complexion of the Government in power in 1958, but it will be an ill thing for the nation if any person, party of Government, having once taken up a position, is tied to it for eternity.
  As I was saying, we are at last beginning to envisage that salvation for a country in the future, in the supreme emergency, may lie in ability to expand its forces and maintain them until victory is achieved, and that victory may go to the side which can survive and fight the longest. Along with this goes the belief that in the future, as in the past, the survival of a nation in war might literally depend on its ability to expand, to whatever extent may be necessary, its peacetime forces.
  For all our continental allies this problem is simply solved. They maintain their armies on the principle of conscription Their regular forces are, therefore, simply a mould through which is poured one generation after another of conscripts, so that there builds up with the years a huge-conscript reserve, trained and formed, ready to be mobilised, as were those masses of men who sprang into existence over Europe in 1914 and again in 1939 Though not again on that scale, our continental allies still have reserve forces which are huge by comparison with ours.
  To us, with a professional, long-service, standing Army, that form of reserve—that means of expansion in emergency and war—is not available. We must, therefore, look in another direction. If we were to rely on our Regular Army alone for this purpose, the prospect would be bleak indeed; for a regular, long-service Army, though it produces a reserve, produces only a relatively small reserve compared with the size of the standing forces.
  The Regular Army would then itself have to provide the means of expansion, the cadres; but if the Regular Army happened at the time to be heavily engaged in operations, such an expansion would be inconceivably difficult, if not impossible. This is the supreme reason, whatever other reasons there may be, why this country must have, in the words of Conservative policy
  "… a genuine citizen volunteer reserve …"

  1423
  Its supreme purpose must be, in the words of the Field Marshals, to provide
  "… a framework for military expansion in dire emergency."
  It is to be a cadre: the basis and germ of the future forces.
  After the First World War, when Germany was forbidden conscription by the Treaty of Versailles, it formed, partly in anticipation no doubt of the time when it would be freed from those limitations, a remarkable army which was known as the "hundred-thousand man army"—the Hundert Tausendmannheer—of von Seeckt—and the essence of it was that it would be a cadre army. Its function was to be the basis and germ of a future German army. That might serve as an analogy for the fundamental purpose of a citizen volunteer reserve in this country.
  The function is a real and vital one, which would give the morale and purpose we must have if we are to recruit and maintain a Volunteer Reserve of adequate size. When the Government announced three years ago that they were going to limit the function of the reserve to providing supplements for B.A.O.R. and for the Army overseas, largely of a logistic character, the Field Marshals observed that this function was
  "too dessicated and lacking in humanity to attract the right numbers or quality of volunteers."
  I believe that that is so. Whatever may be the marginal reasons, the central reason why men voluntarily undertake the obligation of service in a reserve is to be trained as soldiers, in order, if need be, to fight as soldiers in war. They need to see in a real context the function of the reserve to which they are to belong.
  If the citizen Volunteer Reserve is to be the basis of an expanded Army, then it must be the shadow of the Regular Army. It must have a correspondence with the Regular Army and, I need hardly add, its units must be closely linked, physically and morally, with the units of the Regular Army. Of course this is not to say that there is any simple ratio—as it were, of one-to-one—between the regular forces and the volunteer forces. The principle we have constantly to remember here is that the function of the volunteer forces is to be a basis for expansion. Certain elements which will
  1424
  be required in a expanding army will be obtainable in emergency and war from the civilian population with relatively little military training and relatively little trained cadre. Others will need just that. Again, of the fighting units of the Army some will require longer in war to raise and train than others.
  It is an obvious principle that the longer an element requires to raise and train, the higher relatively must be its representation in the reserve forces. So we have to have a balance in the order of battle of the reserve army which is not related like a mirror image to the order of battle of the regular army, but which is governed by the factor of expansion. The logic of expansion, the rate and ratio of expansion, must underlie the order of battle of our reserve army.
  This undoubtedly will result in a citizen volunteer reserve with a substantial preponderance of what are called teeth arms. Sometimes the fact that the Territorial Army has consisted so preponderantly of teeth arms has been made a mockery, as though there were some contradiction between this fact and its proper function. The order of battle will not necessarily be that of the old Territorial Army—quite certainly not—but the order of battle to which the logic of expansion will lead will be one in which teeth arms will still preponderate. Happily, I believe that will be of great assistance in maintaining the spirit, projecting the spirit, of the old Territorial Army, and in recruiting the new reserve.
  The word "Army", which one still uses in the context of Territorial Army, is of course an historical deposit. It reminds us that 60 years ago, when the term was first used, the Territorial Army was conceived actually as an army, an army more or less complete in itself; which would go to war as an army; which had its divisions, its brigades, its army organisation; which could fight as an army. That concept in the modern world is long ago obsolete. Indeed, all I have been saying about the citizen volunteer reserve as the cadre and framework of an expanded Army implies that it cannot also be at the same time an army ready to march away when the bugles blow. Yet there is a significance in the term "Army" in this context which ought not to be lost.
  The Territorial Army, until its dismemberment a year or two ago, was

  1425
  organised in brigades, divisions and commands. A great deal of fun was made of this, as though it were absurd that a force which was not going to take the field as an army should nevertheless be organised in lower and higher formations. I believe this mockery was entirely misconceived. One of the requirements in expanding an army is to have a reserve of, and a means of expanding, the staffs and the command structure; and the formations of the old Territorial Army did provide a genuine reserve and a genuine basis of growth for the necessary staff and command structure of an expanded Army in emergency and in war.
  It is an excellent thing that the citizen volunteer reserve should not only provide unit training and unit cadres, but should also provide, both for regular officers and for volunteers, the means of training staffs and commands and of holding in reserve the staff and command structures which will be required in war. One of the inveterate weaknesses of the British professional Army has been that traditionally, in peacetime, operation with large formations has been foreign to its thought and training. The small size of a professional Army and its wide dispersion over the world, has made it rare and difficult for the British Army to operate in large formations and to practice the theory and philosophy of major war. Fortunately, in the organisation of a citizen volunteer reserve we have the means in part of making good that deficiency and of holding the reserves both of men and staffs and imparting the training which would be requisite in such an event.
  In thus speaking up to this moment of the citizen volunteer reserve Army wholly in terms of men, I have been guilty of two grave omissions. The first is material. It is no use talking about expansion of an army in terms of manpower unless one thinks simultaneously about expansion in terms of material. Indeed, the speed and capability of expansion in terms of material may well dictate, among other factors, the size and composition of the citizen volunteer reserve. Obviously, an expansion plan must include an industrial expansion plan. But there is something else here which is too often overlooked and which the world has learned, or been reminded of, by the events of the Arab-Israel six
  1426
  days war—that is, how much can be achieved by a reserve which is armed, not with first-line material, but with second-and with third-line material.
  It is again a national characteristic of ours, and I think a characteristic of the British Army, that we tend to be perfectionist in our material. We have tended to say: "Either we will be completely armed with the latest mark and let the rest go, or else it is no use." I think we have to take a different view if we are thinking in terms of a standing Army plus a volunteer reserve. We have to think in terms not only of the material with which the standing Army is equipped but also material held in reserve for equipping the forces that will be raised in the gap between the emergency and the commencement of the wartime production programme, which will thereafter keep pace with the expansion of the Army in terms of personnel. So material is one factor which must be brought into relationship with the factor of manpower.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument with the greatest of interest. How does he relate the lessons and conclusions he would draw from the Israeli success in the six-day war to the rather different situation in which the British find themselves?
  Mr. Powell: The point of comparison is that the reserves which the Israeli Army was able to call on, not only from its own population in Israel but from all over the world, were able to be equipped and able to operate effectively with equipment less good, older, more obsolescent, than that with which their standing forces were equipped. Although this equipment was not up to the standard of the arms of the standing forces of Israel, it enabled the reserves on the first impact of war nevertheless to play an effective part in operations. That is the analogy; I do not carry it further than that; but many of the armies of the world have found this to be one of many significant lessons of the six-day war.
  The last factor which has to be added is the air. To talk about an army reserve at all without considering the element of the air is an absurdity. There is no such thing as landward operations carried on by an army. Landward operations consist of land and air operations. They cannot be separated. The third dimension is for ever part of war by land and by

  1427
  sea. I do not propose to stray outside the ambit of this debate upon the Army reserves; but be it said, as we consider the citizen volunteer reserve for the Army, that such a reserve would be incomplete—I am prepared to say that such a reserve would be meaningless—unless it were matched by a comparable reserve, to perform the corresponding function, for the air component of our military effort.
  So I believe that, at last, after the long and unhappy journey of the last three or four years, there are hopeful signs. There are hopeful signs in the recognition, even amongst hon. Members opposite, that our reserves may have a function of expansion, recognition that the survival of the old Territorial Army, even in the form of cadres, may be of value. This is only a glimmering; but the Conservative Party has pledged itself, as soon as it has the opportunity, to create or to recreate a genuine citizen volunteer reserve. It will be a reserve which will have the spirit and the tradition of the old Territorial Army. Yet it will not be the old Territorial Army. It will be the reserve which Britain will need in the 1970s and beyond. I believe that the greatest days of the Territorial Army, whatever its name is to be, lie not behind but ahead.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I think that on the last occasion on which I had the honour of following the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) I had the opportunity of welcoming him into the defence club, as he today welcomed my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), and I congratulated him upon his maiden speech in the club. To renew the pleasure of following the right hon. Gentleman has taken some years, but it is none the less real, particularly as he has dealt with a subject which I, too, want to deal with.
  Like the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that there is a necessity for a volunteer citizen army. I do not think that it should take the form which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, but I shall come to that. I do not think that the concept of the old Territorial Army is probably suitable to the new requirement; this I do not think will fit in. The only party point that I shall make is
  1428
  that the whole trouble now, where we have reached an incredible nuclear capacity and a non-existent conventional capacity, is a perfectly logical derivation from the 1958 revolutionary Defence White Paper—I think that it is in order to describe it as the "Duncan Sandys White Paper". That is where the trouble started. It is from that that we have drifted to where we are now.
  I want to deal with the position in Germany, the first commitment we are making and with which I agree. What is the purpose of N.A.T.O's army in Germany at the moment? It is not to defeat a Russian invasion. I think that needs saying and repeating—it is not to defeat a Russian invasion. This decision was taken right back in 1952 when, for political reasons, the N.A.T.O. command had to accept the commitment to defend the borders of Germany. Once that was done, once the forces had to be committed to and stationed forward on that area, it meant that they could not defeat an invasion or, indeed, defend themselves from it. I remember the debate at the time. If an invasion were to be defeated, the forces had to be held back behind the Rhine. Once they were put in front of the Rhine, they were put there as symbols or as trussed up ducks. This is the reality.
  I do not think people realise quite how helpless troops are in barracks and cantonments. Our Army—I refer simply to B.A.O.R. in Germany today—is in barracks and cantonments populated with followers, women and children—that outnumber it. It is spread over areas in which units have to move up to 100 miles to get to their deployment situations to meet a Russian attack. Those movements to the deployment positions are, in the main and by and large, across the communications of the country and across the front of the enemy they are to meet. They could not reach their deployment positions, possibly, any of them, in much less than 48 hours. The trouble is that those deployment positions are less than six hours from the Russians.
  What do the Russians face? They are in East Germany. In East Germany they have at present 10 mobile armoured divisions with about 4,000 tanks. Behind that they have seven airborne divisions with a simultaneous lift capacity of three divisions. They have 60 or 70 motorised divisions in that part of Europe. What

  1429
  do they face—not so much as a strand of barbed wire, not a mine, not a bridge prepared for demolition. They face a road system designed precisely for conveying troops from east to west at the maximum speed, quite unlike the communications which they had the other day when, with astonishing speed, they moved in Czechoslovakia. As to deployment within that area, they have vastly better security than we have, because theirs is a closed system and ours is an open one. They have a Communist Party in West Germany, barely underground, to give them every possible information on everything in that area, while they are behind a closed frontier. Some years ago they were able in winter to put on six divisional manoeuvres, and they had been going on for three days before we found out about them.
  I once worked out—it is true that this was some years ago—a war game as to the capacity of the Russians to act without presenting a nuclear target. We felt that if they set out on a moonlight winter night in the heavy frost which is very usual in that area they could have three divisions on the Rhine before first light, on three separate lines of road communications, that they could have another three divisions in the follow-up, and that within 48 hours they could turn down the Rhine and have their advance units on the Swiss frontier. During those 48 hours N.A.T.O. would be in a position to offer really no resistance, because it could not post its troops. Could nuclears be used on the first night? Inconceivable. Afterwards? In this game we conceived their airborne forces being used behind the armoured spearheads and lining the corridors. I believe that the whole of the N.A.T.O. forces would probably have to violate Austrian neutrality and make for the Brenner Pass as their only escape on about D-day plus four. That is the kind of situation I think we face in Germany.
  So what is the object of putting troops into this position? It is an object that I support and believe to be right, but we should identify what it is. It is not to defeat a Russian invasion. It is not to trigger off a nuclear exchange, because I believe that it would be within the Russian capacity to inhibit the use of nuclears at any rate during the initial battle by refraining from offering nuclear targets
  1430
  and compelling N.A.T.O. to do so. They could, I believe, create military circumstances within which it would be suicidal for N.A.T.O. defenders to initiate nuclears.
  But the object is one that is sufficient; it is to make general war a certainty, so long as we have forces sufficiently substantial in Germany to make their defeat so serious and humiliating that nobody can doubt that general war must result from that defeat, and that it cannot produce a new status quo that is conceivably acceptable. That is what those troops are there for.
  Mr. Powell: I take it that the hon. and learned Gentleman is using "general" in its literal and not technical sense, not in the sense of nuclear war, but literally of general, international war.
  Mr. Paget: I mean general international war. With the steady, ascending, inexorable pressure of a greater industrial and nuclear power. Nuclears will be involved steadily in this. It is a horrible thing—pressing, indefinite, ascending, uncompromising. That is the deterrent, and it is the deterrent which a force put there to be defeated, and only put there to be defeated, can alone produce. That is the reality of the situation. I feel that there is no harm m saying this, because the Russians must know it as well as we do. They are not fools. They have every intelligence means available to them.
  I remember von Rundstedt saying something that I thought profoundly interesting about the time when Hitler ordered von Kleist's forces to withdraw from across our escape corridor to Dunkirk, and by his personal intervention opened the door to the sea to us. von Rundstedt said, "When I challenged him, Hitler's answer was, 'I could not afford to inflict that kind of humiliation on the British. I wanted to make peace'". His calculation was wrong; he could not make peace with us anyway. But it is the kind of calculation people make when they have to price and face the price of a victory. This is what we are presenting the Russians with in Germany.
  I regard war as most unlikely, and I do not think that it has been made in the least more likely by the Russian action in Czechoslovakia. In terms of

  1431
  East and West strategy, I believe that that action was purely defensive in concept. From the Russian point of view, the danger is that if the West attacked them Czechoslovakia would take the whole hinges off their defence of Eastern Germany. That is what they feared. Although I think that they paid a very unwise political price to meet a danger that did not exist, their purpose was defensive. It was a very old-fashioned thinking thing for them to do. But I regard it as a purely defensive action, designed entirely to maintain existing stability in Europe.
  I feel that there is something to be said for at least doing something to put oneself n a position to meet the contingency for which we are planning—the worst possible contingency, which is that the N.A.T.O. armies have been destroyed and one is committed to a long-term war. What is to stop the Russians adding the occupation of Britain to the occupation of Germany for that war? I would say immediately that it is not the threat offered to them by four Polaris submarines. Whatever else is certain, the Russians know that they are in a position to deter our deterrent. Even if they used nuclears on us, we would not dare to use them on the Russians. There would always be something else the destruction of which we could not accept. I remember seeing the Rand analysis that 13 nuclear bombs would totally destroy this country, and the Russians have 500 medium-range ones on us anyway. It is a game that we can be bluffed out of so easily. This is an absurdity.
  The thing that would stop them doing it would be the tremendous weight of holding down a hostile population which is in a position to defend itself. The Russians would already be committed to holding much of Europe and if, by a citizen army, we are in a position to make life hell for an occupation, that occupation will probably not be attempted. It is what I believe to be the most credible deterrent in the circumstances.
  What kind of a force do we want? I do not believe in the cadre ideal, because I do not believe that, at the time one wants the deterrent, one would not get an adequate interval to expand. We have
  1432
  to think far more of the resistance force—more of the Hagenau force—more of the kind of organisation designed for resistance. The Swiss give us the best example of this type of organisation.
  I should like to see a very small but universal amount of military training as a universal commitment. This seems perhaps to be very wide thinking, but I should like to see every boy at about school leaving age having at least one summer working hard under canvas in a unit, with that unit perhaps almost on a tribal basis, comprising the age group. It would be an annual camp; it would become a social organisation in the locality where the boys lived. It could have its own football team. It would be an organisation and probably it would go to camp for the next 10 or 12 years.
  It would be something local, something on the spot. It could be brought into existence at once and it is something which could make the occupation of every single street hell to an occupier. It would provide the kind of localised, almost cellular, organisation for an occupied country which makes life almost impossible for the occupiers.
  These are wide ideas at this time but this is the kind of reserve which the country needs much more than the more formal Territorial Army type.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. George Younger: We spent some time last week discussing the general defence questions facing the country and this debate is confined to the problems of the Army. Already, we have heard interesting contributions and I hope to add something myself, particularly on the subject of the reserves, which, I am glad to say, is a major feature of the debate.
  First, I want to refer to the Defence Review as it affects the Army. I begin with two or three comments on points that we should rightly recognise and welcome. The first is that, despite the criticisms that many of us have and have had over the years, at this time the skill, training and standards of the Army are as high as they have ever been and probably in some respects even higher. This is a great tribute to those who serve in the forces, subject as they are to all the other problems which we perhaps spend

  1433
  more time discussing than in congratulating them on the work they do.
  Secondly, although I have many criticisms to make on the way money has been spent or not spent on defence during the last few years, on the whole we can say that the equipment which is being issued to and used by the Army is extremely good. The Chieftain tank is an exceptionally fine tank of its kind—probably the best we have had, certainly for a long time. All concerned deserve great credit for it. But I must add that I think—and I know why it has happened—that it is probably very unwise to have cut the expenditure on research and development by as much as £30 million in 1969–70.
  I sympathise with the problems that any Secretary of State for Defence must have in trying to keep the budget down and to get value for money, but it is my experience—not very long, but genuine—that we have always been struggling against inadequate research and development in providing for the forces. It has always been the case of equipment being ready next year. "You will get new wireless sets next year." "You will get new anti-tank guns next year." It is always "next year". This is the result of the understandable cheeseparing of research and development.
  I understand the difficulties. I hope that the Ministry will take these remarks about research and development as a warning. I hope that the Secretary of State will be very careful before he allows any further cutting of research and development expenditure. He should also look carefully at what he has cut this year and consider whether he is not laying up big trouble which will arrive in five or six years' time in order to achieve no doubt welcome economy now.
  Thirdly, I want to deal with a rather more local matter which deserves, nevertheless, full mention. This is the outstandingly good work which has been pioneered in Scotland by the Army under the code name of "Op-Mac". This has been an imaginative idea, brought about by the realisation that, as more and more troops will be stationed at home, there is need for two things. The first is to give them more interesting and more useful work to do instead of, as too often happened in the past, their having to stay in a city doing guard duties and fairly ordinary training duties.
  1434
  The second and more important is to bring the soldiers into a real and meaningful relationship with the civilian population.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Among the civilian tasks which the hon. Gentleman is envisaging for the Army, would he have the Royal Engineers at work on building new houses in Glasgow? If they did, would the Army have time for anything else?
  Mr. Younger: My good nature gets the better of me when the hon. Member wants to intervene. I should have resisted the temptation to give way, because he always leads me into attractive byways which take me off the mainline of my argument.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is strategy.
  Mr. Younger: I will be delighted to discuss it all with the hon. Gentleman sometime, but it is the case that the Royal Engineers and infantry men constructed two airfields in Scotland in 1968—one on the Isle of Colonsay and the other on the Isle of Unst. They have also constructed not houses exactly, but buildings at Brodick Castle on the Isle of Arran, and a water supply for a village at Lochaber which did not have one.
  These are examples of what has been done and I want to pay tribute to those who organised the projects and those who did the work, which was extremely well done. I hope that this is a foretaste of work to come in future, because it is excellent for those who do it, good publicity for the Army, and reflects great credit on everybody involved.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I can readily understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm. Nevertheless, I hope that he is prepared to add a caveat in that he will acknowledge that there have been some rather disastrous enterprises—for example, the Army exercise at Loch Coruisk. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned two notable projects, but some of the schemes which the Army is engaged upon in assisting local interests should be scrutinised to a degree which some in the past do not appear to have been. An example of this as I have said, was the Loch Coruisk project, which was completely desecrated by Army engineers despite the opposition of the amenity organisation.
  Mr. Younger: I could not agree in any respect with the tone of the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made. That operation may have had problems associated with it, but it was successful, and is not one I would criticise in any terms.
  The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): It was not the idea of the Army. It was carried out by the Army at the request of the responsible local authority.
  Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the Minister for refreshing my memory.
  Against this background we are facing a real crisis of confidence among our soldiers at the moment. The reason for this is the result of death by a thousand cuts, leading to a tremendous loss of self-confidence among the people thinking of joining the Army. This leads us to the question of recruiting.
  The Minister gave us some figures; and we have figures in the Defence Review. It is extremely serious that we are having a shortfall at present of about 25 per cent. of the recruits we need to bring the Army up to even the Government's present planned ceilings. What is surprising is not that this has happened—a year ago this was discussed and forecast; I remember being told that this was an unnecessarily alarmist view to take.
  I cannot understand why the Government are surprised that people are having second thoughts before joining the Army. Is not the reason the simplest one of all? The Government have steadfastly refused to believe it; I have been telling them for years. A very large number of people join the Army—and this is certainly true in Scotland—to join a regiment. I have been told time and time again by various Ministers that this is nonsense. In answer to a Question a few weeks ago, about a regiment which was recruiting better than another, I was told that this was "most misleading".
  Have not the Government steadfastly refused to believe what is crystal clear to anyone who knows anything about the Army? That is, that men join the Army because they want to join a regiment.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: They are not joining.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to mention that one of the highest recruiting areas for Scotland last year was the town of Ayr.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is falsifying figures. Give the actual figures.
  Mr. Younger: I will not detain the House by giving the figures, but it was one of the highest recruiting figures for Scotland.
  One of the chief factors in all this must be the lack of confidence created by the disbandment of famous regiments which had good recruiting records. It does not merely confine itself to the effects on those particular regiments; it spreads a lack of self-confidence in the recruiting function throughout the Army and the divisions concerned. Is it surprising, when the Durham Light Infantry, one of the best-recruited regiments in that part of the country, was abolished a year ago? Was it surprising when the best recruited regiments were involved in an amalgamation of the Royal Scots Greys?
  Mr. James Allason: Would the hon. Member mention the two best regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps?
  Mr. Younger: Yes, both selected to be amalgamated.
  Then there is the classic case of all, selecting last July, at a time when recruiting was causing trouble, the top recruiting regiment and disbanding it. Much has been said about this. It is not any exaggeration to say that this regiment was the top recruiting regiment of the Scottish Division. Last year, the best of the other regiments in the Scottish Division recruited 58 men; the worst of them recruited 35 men; the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders recruited 85.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is not enough to defend Inverary Castle.
  Mr. Younger: That is nearly twice as much as the others, taking the whole of 1968, and comparing the Argyll's recruiting to the total recruits to the Scottish Division. The Argylls alone produced 23 per cent. of the recruits for the Scottish Division and 39 per cent. of the recruits for the Highland regiments.

  1437
  I am not claiming this is the only reason that recruiting has gone down. But it is straining credibility too far to expect anyone to think that there is no connection whatever between the disbandment of the top recruiting regiments and the fall in Army recruiting generally. I would ask the Government to think about this yet again and to see whether they are not wrong.
  Looking at recruiting in Scotland as a whole, about a quarter of the men who join the Army join the infantry regiments in the Scottish Division; adding the Scots Guards and the Royal Scots Greys one gets a figure of a third of the recruits in Scotland joining the regiments. The outstanding and unique contribution Scotland makes to our defence forces is in the provision of outstanding Scottish regiments. We do not perhaps provide as much to the defence of this country as we might. Some of us feel the proportion spent on defence in Scotland is not what it might be, but Scotland's provision to our defence of outstanding infantry and cavalry soldiers is unique.
  There has been a great deal of talk about the Argylls' petition since it was presented to the House last December. A number of people have felt that this was a political gimmick. They should pause to reflect on whether, if this had been done as a political gimmick, it would have been done so inefficiently. To make a political campaign of this would have been the easiest thing in the world. It could have been spearheaded in every constituency where the Argylls recruit on a political basis.
  Hon. Members who sit for these seats could have been bombarded with meetings and speeches, held by myself and others. None of this happened. The organisers of the campaign have done everything conceivable, within the context of trying to make their point, to avoid any charge of being politically biased. No fair-minded person could deny that this has been achieved to a remarkable extent. These things can never be entirely insulated from party politics.
  Mr. Dalyell: If it was so non-party-political why was the hon. Member so unwise as to give as the address to which names for the petition should be sent, Conservative Party headquarters in Edinburgh?
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is on an extraordinarily bad point. That was one of 50, 60, or more addresses. I can see no reason why any address should not be used—the hon. Member's address could perfectly well have been used. If he believes that there are over I million people in Scotland who will follow, in a docile way, a supposedly political campaign by one political party, then he is very much out of touch with things.
  Having produced this petition with over I million signatures, it is beyond belief that the Government have made no effort to meet the wishes expressed in it. Even if they had thought the whole thing to be nonsense, they could have recognised that this was a manifestation of ordinary people, unconnected with me, or anyone, expressing a strong opinion and that something should have been done to meet the feelings expressed.
  It has not been stated clearly enough that those concerned have gone to great lengths to suggest alternative ways in which the Government could avoid what must be even to them a distasteful thing. These alternatives have all been brushed aside. They have probably been studied by the Minister, but all I can say is that I do not think that he considered them sufficiently critically. No doubt he got his advisers to tell him what they thought but he went no further. Some of these suggestions must be possible.
  Mr. Reynolds: Most of the alternatives had been considered long before they were put forward by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. Most had been considered by the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), in connection with earlier disbandments and rejected for the same reasons.
  Mr. Younger: Perhaps that is the trouble. Perhaps fresh minds are needed to consider these matters.
  Having produced this massive expression of public opinion, I have been receiving letters recently from people who are against the petition and who have said so, but who have added that while they did not agree with the petition they thought that there must be something very much wrong if the views of over one million people could be completely ignored. The door must surely still be open for some reconsideration of this

  1439
  matter, to see whether something cannot be done to meet the wishes of these people.
  Surely it cannot be the case that there is only one way in which the Government's defence policy can be carried out? It is inconceivable that the best brains and resources of the Government cannot devise another way.
  Mr. Dalyell: The regiment can amalgamate.
  Mr. Younger: All I can say to that is that no proposal has ever been made about amalgamation. It is the Ministry's policy that there shall be no forced amalgamations, and it is one which I support.
  I say a word now about the Army reserves. I agree with a great deal that was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and I agree very strongly with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said. The worrying thing about this Defence Review, as it affects the Army, is that the Regular Army has been cut, some of us would say too low, and at the same time the reserves have been cut. It is possible, either to cut the Regular forces or to cut the reserves, but it is utterly irresponsible to do both, and this is what the Government have to think hard about before their next Review. We have now reached the position where there are, quite literally, no effective reserves to draw upon.
  First, we must be clear about what a reserve is. A reserve and a reinforcement are two different things. The TAVR, what the Minister refers to as the volunteers, is immediately earmarked in case of a crisis to make up the regular Army units, to increase them to war establishment. I associate myself entirely with the tribute paid to the TAVR. It is doing very well, with a high standard of training and morale. There has been talk about the two other sorts of reserve we are supposed to have, the Regular Army Reserve and the Army General Reserve—168,000 of them ex-National Servicemen.
  It is quite unrealistic to regard these people who did National Service six years ago as being troops which could be used immediately. I call in aid the experience of a previous Government at the time
  1440
  of the Korean war, when troops, including the Argylls, were sent out there very quickly. They had to be reinforced by reservists, and I am told, and I have never heard it denied, that it was necessary to call up twice the number of men that were really needed, because so many had moved away, were sick, were in reserved occupations or could not be found.
  It is unrealistic to expect the Army General Reserve to produce men in anything like the numbers needed immediately. The Minister has acknowledged that, because he says that only 15,000 would be needed anyway. It would be impossible to obtain any usefulness out of these men for many weeks after call-up. On the day after hostilities the TAVR disappears, and the Ministry has to call up these reserves. We will begin to get raw people from civilian life, who many years ago, did National Service. There is no command structure, no one will be used to the job they will be doing, no one with a uniform.
  All of these people will have to be fitted out and put into new jobs. During that time of national crisis, with, perhaps, a war going on on the Continent, no one will be here, except the eight men left behind as a cadre when the volunteers go overseas. What is to happen? What will protect the bridges from being sabotaged?
  Who will protect power stations, and be available to do the numerous internal security jobs which crop up at a time when the country is threatened with danger? Who is to administer the bringing in of the new reserves, putting them into formation, training them and telling them what to do? There is nobody whatever left behind to do these jobs. That is the gravamen of the charge we must bring against the defence policy of the Government over the past four years. They have deliberately squandered an effective reserve and left us today, as we must realise, with no reserve at all to meet a crisis when it comes.
  What is the effect? It is that home defence is put on a care and maintenance basis, which means that it does not exist at all. There is no home defence—which is fine as long as nobody decides to attack us. There is nobody to build up the forces called up as reserves or to do any of the kind of jobs that will arise.

  1441
  What shook me last week was when the Secretary of State for Defence—I thought for the first time, but I now gather for the second—referred to the fact that people criticised him for not providing for the unexpected. Looking round with that look of supreme self-confidence with which we are so familiar he said, in effect, "Really, who could expect me to think about the unexpected?" The one absolutely first principle for everyone who has organised military forces throughout history has been to allow for a reserve to meet the unexpected; and this means something that one cannot at all foresee.
  The Secretary of State for Defence may, of course, be right in saying that we cannot earmark forces to do this or that specific unexpected task, because if it is unexpected we do not know what it is. But any military commander who leaves himself without an uncommitted reserve to deal with an emergency is nothing less than grossly irresponsible. The Secretary of State for Defence is not such a Secretary of State at all. He should really be renamed, for it is the Treasury who are really behind our whole defence policy. That policy has been geared to one thing only, the saving of money.
  Has it ever occurred to the Government that if that is the only criterion of defence we could save the whole lot if we did not have to consider what defence is for; and some hon. Gentlemen would like that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I do not agree with that view, but at least it is logical. It is absolute folly to gear a massive defence organisation costing £2,000 million to one thing only, what it should cost. The Secretary of State for Defence should be added to the Treasury as a junior Minister. There is now a Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and a Chief Secretary of the Treasury. The Minister of Defence should be added as a junior Minister called the Defence Secretary of the Treasury. That is what it has come to.
  I believe that that is why the excellent forces we have are feeling this lack of self-confidence. This is why we cannot get recruits. They do not believe that there is a well thought out rôle for them in the defence planning of the Government. That is the charge which the
  1442
  Government must answer, if not this year, then next.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): May I remind the House that there are many hon. Members waiting to speak in the debate. Perhaps, therefore, hon. Members would keep their speeches a little brief and help the Chair.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I want to touch only on the question of the Argylls, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has referred. He has very greatly over-simplified all the issues and it may be useful for me to comment on some of them starting from the last point he made.
  The hon. Gentleman ended his comments on the petition and its effects by suggesting that there must be something radically wrong if what over I million people have said cannot be acted upon in some way. For myself, I am in sympathy with the idea that the Argylls should not be disbanded. I believe that this is a bad choice and I would prefer them to be amalgamated. This is the effective choice and I should have thought that the onus of this argument should be brought to bear on the Highland Division itself.
  If other regiments in the Highland Division and the Argylls themselves all object to amalgamation, then there is, under this Government's policy, as there was under the policy followed by the previous Government, only the alternative of disbandment. Amalgamation is a very much more sensible alternative. I recall, for instance, the attitude that was taken when, under the previous Government, the Seaforths and the Camerons were amalgamated. There was then not bad blood, but a genuine expression of willingness on the part of both regiments to cooperate and form an even better regiment in the future. I do not know what change has taken place in the Highland regiments now that that outcome is not repeated today for it would seem to be the sensible course.
  If the hon. Gentleman is asking for wider consideration in respect of I million signatures he is really asking for some consideration of matters which were begun to be considered about 10 years

  1443
  ago; because no Government, neither this nor their predecessors, reduced—to use the technical War Office phrase—these regiments just for fun; and none was reduced without a great deal of worry in the minds of Ministers, and probably of members of the Army Board and the whole of the senior staff in the Army, that a great many regiments with strong local traditions and very great reputations and records in the past were to be either amalgamated or disbanded.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The great difference is that 12 years ago, when the question of an amalgamation of the Camerons and Seaforths came up, everybody was agreed that the Army had to be reduced. National Service was about to come to an end. Now the Government are making dangerous reductions in our forces as a whole.
  Mr. MacPherson: The reason the Army had to be reduced in those days was that under the Conservative Government recruiting was so bad that there was no possibility of sticking to the higher figures. The figures were reduced to meet what seemed possible as a top level of recruiting. But the actual business of disbanding and amalgamation and the problems involved are much the same.
  When the hon. Gentleman asks for a wider consideration because there was a protest against disbandment he is really asking for a reconsideration, on behalf of one regiment, of matters which, presumably, have been considered in great detail and with great earnestness for the last 10 years; because this kind of thing is not done easily, but only after much thought has been given to it.
  The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that the sponsors of the petition had suggested some alternatives. That is true enough, and my hon. Friend in an intervention partly dealt with that. But the Cameronians were reduced before the Argylls. Why should not the Cameronians be put into one of these rôles? The argument behind this is to say, "We pass over the Cameronians. We will not bother with them, but the Argylls should be placed in one of these situations."
  There has never been any explanation as to why the sponsors of the petition should take up this attitude, but it is
  1444
  crucial to the whole idea of the petition and what it aims at. No one raised a petition for the Cameronians. No one said, "If there is a possibility of another rôle let us put the Cameronians into it". The sponsors of the petition pass over them and say, "Let us put the Argylls into it".
  I understood the hon. Gentleman to repeat the suggestion often made elsewhere, that when we have a petition of this kind with I million signatures we must get an affirmative response to the demand. A petition is a request, in so far as it comes to Parliament—it is not a Parliamentary procedure which has any effect nowadays—for Parliament to do something. That request can be met with a "yes" or a "no". Either is a justifiable, sensible answer, depending on the reasons behind it.
  But the hon. Gentleman is associating himself with a certain opinion that when a request like this is made the answer must be "yes" and that it is intolerable if the answer is "no". This is not what a petition is; this is not what Parliament is. When it has a request, Parliament can answer "yes" or "no", and reasonableness or unreasonableness depends on the nature of one's arguments. One cannot say, "If the answer is 'yes', it will be reasonable" and "If the answer is 'no', it will be unreasonable".
  I turn to the charge that the petition had a strong Conservative Party political flavour. I observed, as a number of my colleagues did, that there was a good deal of Conservative support for it, which was expressed in very practical ways. I observed, also, that the sponsors took care to dissociate themselves from active connection with any political party. I do not suggest that that was insincere, but it has been unfortunate from the point of view of the petition that so much of the work on the petition has been done through Conservative organisations.
  When this happens, people can hardly avoid the charge that they have not been zealous enough, exact enough or thorough enough in clearing their feet from political entanglements. I go no further than that. The charge of political involvement cannot just be swept away. There are some grounds for it.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: In our last debate on this matter, it was stated that some of the signatories of the petition came from Omsk, in Siberia. Would my hon. Friend explain how they came to sign the petition?
  Mr. MacPherson: I have no idea. I was merely quoting one of the local newspapers in Stirling, which is the historic regimental headquarters of the Argylls, that three Russians from the town of Omsk had signed the petition. That is all I know. I do not know anything about those individuals or why they signed it.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could my hon. Friend say whether this was an attempt by Russian paratroopers to permeate the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders?
  Mr. MacPherson: That seems to me to form the nucleus of a very interesting speech which perhaps my hon. Friend will deliver shortly.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr put his argument in a very reasonable fashion, mistaken though I think it is, which is not the fashion always adopted by some of his co-sponsors. He talked about the striking contribution of Scotland to the Army and indicated that Scotland has provided outstanding regiments. That is true. The great Scottish regiments have extraordinarily long histories of achievement. But he is a little late in the day to talk about that now. The Army changes. It is not so long ago, in the long history of the Army, that regiments were objecting to being called by name, like Argylls, Seaforths and Cameronians. They wished still to be called by numbers. But the Army is always being reorganised. It would not be a living, vital Army if it was not.
  Scotland's distinctive military contribution to the defence of the country has been outstandingly successful. I was a boy at the time of the First World War. My outlook is still conditioned by the news that I read of the events which took place during that war. Like many youngsters of my age, I felt that the Scottish regiments, and particularly the Highland regiments, were always being put where the fighting was heaviest. That may be unfair to great English regiments, but that was the feeling that I had. It is still my feeling about the Highland regiments.
  1446
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr is a little over-simple when he talks about the effect of these matters on recruiting. The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders is a well-recruited regiment. I have no doubt about the reason for that. Recently, it distinguished itself in the field. If by chance it had been, not the Argylls, but the Seaforths, the H.L.I., the Black Watch, or the Gordons, in Aden, they would have covered themselves with glory, too, and they would have been the highest recruiting regiment. It is not reasonable or non-partisan—and that is not an accusation but a simple statement, because partisanship cannot be an accusation in this House—to talk about bad recruiting today when at the time of the Sandys White Paper bad recruiting was absolutely endemic.
  Recruiting today is low, and one or two reasons have been given for it. It has been said that men wished to join the regiments because of regimental tradition. An hon. Member opposite said that there used to be a general belief that when unemployment was high recruiting was high. This explanation used to be very convincing, but since the days of high unemployment it has not appeared to be sound. Before we accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view, or any other point of view, we need a sociological understanding of why people join the army. Is it regimental tradition? Is it unemployment? I am not asking for another review—we have enough sociological reviews—but, unless we have something like it, what we say is apt to be theoretical and unfounded and have no basis in actual knowledge.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I wish to be brief. I have a lot to say, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not mention Scotland. In return, I undertake not to give way to any Welsh Member representing a Scottish seat.
  My purpose in intervening is to challenge some of the assumptions which seem to underlie the Government's attitude on the state of the Army. Before I do that, may I say that I welcome one thing which the Minister said. He mentioned that he proposed to introduce a three-year engagment in certain situations. I welcome that. I recall with some wry satisfaction the exchange which I had with him at Question Time on 18th December

  1447
  last year, when he appeared to be against the idea. I am glad that he has come round to it, for I believe that it will do some good, although the fact that he has come round to it also suggests to me that the decision reveals the extent of the Government's worry about recruiting and the state of morale in the forces.
  The Secretary of State for Defence, speaking of the Services on 4th March, said:
  "Their morale is high—as the re-engagement figures show."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 246.]
  I do not wish to enter into an argument about the quality of the men in the Services, but I believe that tests can be applied which show that the morale of the men in the Army is not high. The three I shall use this afternoon are all statistical.
  The first has already been quoted to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), when he reminded the Minister of the statistics, which I obtained from him in a Parliamentary Answer, of the number of applicants for the purchase of a discharge. I echo the wish expressed by my hon. Friend that we might now have the 1968 figures as well, because of the disturbing increase between 1964 and 1967.
  The second figure which is not referred to in the White Paper, as the introduction of the three-year engagement term is not referred to in the White Paper, concerns the incidence of absence without leave. I have had a number of exchanges with the Government on this point and, if I may refresh the House's memory, the answers which I have been given show that the number of Army personnel convicted by court-martial for absence without leave increased from 786 in 1965 to 958 in 1968.
  The Minister on that occasion in answer to my supplementary question admitted that this was a serious increase, but suggested that one reason—and it was the only reason he gave—was that soldiers nowadays took far more interest in their own domestic matters. I regard that as a superficial reply. If he had said that a far higher proportion of Servicemen are on permanent home posting and it is, therefore, a great deal easier for them to go over the hill and merge with the civilian community, I would have accepted that as a reasonable
  1448
  analysis of a major cause of the increase, but he did not do so.
  Although there are so many factors which may be involved that it is unwise to read this increase as necessarily showing a significant decline in morale, it certainly does not show a rise in morale. This statistic could usefully be included in next year's White Paper, so that the House may know how the trends have gone.
  The third test I want to apply deals with the re-engagement figures. I notice with interest that the re-engagement totals of which the Government make so much have not shown a steady upward trend. I have had research done on the quarterly totals for the last three years which shows that from October, 1965, to September, 1966, there were 19,587 prolongations of service. From October, 1967, to September, 1968, there were 19,910, so there is only a marginal increase. Since the figures suggest that the fourth quarter of the year, which is the one missing to make up the 1968 total, is the lowest quarter for the number of re-engagements it produces, I am led to believe that the total 1968 figure will not be significantly above that of 1966.
  The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. MacPherson) has reminded the House that during the Minister's opening speech I drew attention to unemployment and its relationship to re-engagement. I agree that we have always historically imagined that in conditions of high unemployment there was likely to be an increase in service enlistment, and possibly one would expect this to be reflected in service re-engagement. The fact that this is not happening today appears to upset a number of preconceived ideas if we imagine that we are comparing like with like, and this I do not think we are doing.
  Historically, engagement in the Army has offered a real job prospect, and the fact that it now no longer does so is, to my mind, the real reason why the pattern has not been repeated in the conditions of very high unemployment which we have had for the last two years.
  I hope that the Minister will look at these figures; I will not quote them at length, but summarise them briefly. Between October, 1965 and September, 1966, when the average unemployment level was about 250,000, re-engagement

  1449
  averaged out at about 2 per cent. of the total unemployment figure. From October, 1966 to September, 1968, when the average total of unemployment was very much higher, when it made a sharp jump in between the two periods which I am analysing, the relationship between re-engagement and the total level of male unemployed evens out at just over 1 per cent. In other words, there is a definite distinction to be drawn. There has been no significant increase in re-engagement, although there has been a sharp upward change in the total level of unemployment.
  I recognise that the Army is smaller, but I do not think that the Army has been fighting off with clubs men seeking to re-engage. The Minister cannot draw much comfort from the idea that because the army is smaller these statistics are necessarily irrelevant. The statistics show that men who might re-engage have lost faith in the job prospects which the Army would offer them if they did. This is a significant indicator of the confidence factor of Servicemen in the profession which they chose six, nine, or 12 years ago.
  The Minister may also say that there were no wars last year, but he cannot choose the 1968 figures on which to base that whole argument, because the prospect that there might have been other confrontations was not so remote from the mind of the Serviceman at the end of 1966. I doubt whether there is much comfort for the Minister in the idea that people need to be re-educated about the rôle of an Army in fundamentally changed situations. It is a reflection of a lack of confidence induced by many factors, of which lack of confidence in the Army as a career is a major one.
  Another factor, touched on by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), is the ability of a Serviceman when he leaves the Services to get himself a house. The difficulty is so acute that it may have an effect in keeping the re-engagement rates artificially high. Again, I will quote statistics to prove this point. Before I do so may I say that I first raised this matter with the Government shortly after I came into the House. I had correspondence with them at the end of 1964 and the beginning of 1965.
  1450
  It was at my suggestion that the 1955 circular to local authorities was reissued in 1965, and I have been keeping an eye on this situation over a period of four years. What I find is most disturbing. This subject, again, is not mentioned in the Defence White Paper and I would like to see it mentioned next year.
  In 1966, the present Minister of Public Building and Works, who was then at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, wrote me a letter in which he said:
  "In assessing the relative needs of local authorities when agreeing housing programmes regard is had to any special circumstances in a particular district."
  My constituency, I claim, is one where special circumstances apply. It is in the South-East, where pressure on housing is intense. The number of council houses which councils can get consent to build is restricted. There are many military establishments in and around the area; the towns of Woking, Camberley and Ash have a military tradition going back a number of years.
  But the only way in which a Serviceman in my constituency can get a council house when he leaves the forces is by getting himself evicted. I think that the Minister should know this. I have checked it and I have here a letter from one of my councils which says this:
  "… 67 formal applications for accommodation have been made by servicemen… during the five years, March, 1964, to February, 1969. Twenty-four of these applications have been received in the last year. As the families concerned were satisfactorily accommodated at the time of the applications,…. none was admitted to the priority list. During the five-year period four Service applications have been rehoused. These were dealt with as eviction cases."
  That is not good enough, and it is the Government's fault. Local authorities are in tremendous difficulty when they come to allocate scarce housing resources. There is enormous pressure for accommodation of any kind in an area such as mine—to buy, to rent privately, or to rent from a council.
  The Minister knows that there has been an improvement on the eviction side. He accepted my suggestion that there should be a meeting between local authorities and, in this case, representatives of the Brigade of Guards to discuss problems arising in the vicinity of the Guards

  1451
  Depot. There are peculiar difficulties there in that sometimes Servicemen are discharged who have no claim on a housing authority in England having been enlisted from Ireland. In general, we have found that understanding of the problems has improved on the two sides. But Servicemen who do not live in my area and, therefore, cannot be evicted from local Army hirings, but who have longstanding connections with the area have no hope of coming back there to live as matters stand because the pressure is so great, and it is made more intense by the Ministry.
  I put a Question to the Minister recently about the total number of Army hirings over the past four years in my constituency, asking what change there had been. I was told that the number had increased by 50 per cent. Those are units of accommodation, houses, homes which have been taken off the civilian market, further restricting the available supply. Once again, the Ministry bears a responsibility for the situation in which my constituency finds itself.
  The time has come when the Minister has to consider one or two alternatives. Either he has to represent that there must be an increase in the council house building allocation to authorities which are in this kind of difficulty, and that this should be tied to ex-Service housing, or he has to work out a scheme whereby he will be responsible for and will sponsor a special allocation of mortgages which can be made available through local authorities for ex-Servicemen wishing to purchase homes in the open market. I am willing to meet the hon. Gentleman and talk to him about this at further length, but something has to be done.
  Mr. Boyden: I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the Minister.
  I move briefly to another topic which is not mentioned in the Defence White Paper. Again on 4th March, the right hon. Gentleman said of the Army:
  "Their equipment is the most modern in Europe and they know how to use it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 246–7.]
  That may be true in all cases except one, and that is shooting with a rifle. I must
  1452
  declare an interest at once as a member of the Council of the National Rifle Association, and I admit, too, that I have Bisley Camp in my constituency. However, I will still say what I would have said in any case.
  There are two reasons why the standard of Service marksmanship is inadequate. The first has been approached if not wholly covered in the Daily Express, where Mr. Chapman Pincher has drawn attention to the difficulty which has arisen over the demand for snipers in the Services and the way in which Vietnam has revised previous thoughts on the subject. The situation is a serious one. At present, the self-loading rifle is not a sniper's rifle, and it cannot be converted to one. As a result, the Services have had to return to the No. 4 rifle, and, until stocks of the heavy 7·62 mm target rifle barrel can be turned out by the Royal Ordnance factories, sniping will have to be done with ·303 rifles. But even that is only a temporary solution because, eventually, sniping will have to be done on converted No. 4 rifles using 7·62 mm calibre ammunition.
  The real key to the problem, which will not be solved by providing new rifle barrels, is that the Royal Ordnance Factory at Radway Green is not turning out sufficiently accurate ammunition, and the Treasury refuses to spend the necessary money to enable the factory to be modernised for the production of ammunition to achieve the standards of accuracy of continental ammunition. This situation must be rectified.
  Equally if not more serious is the extent to which rifle shooting is encouraged by the Ministry of Defence, though I have put that the wrong way round because I should have said the extent to which it is discouraged by the Ministry. In answer to a Question which I put to him, the Minister said that a great many rifle ranges have been given up by his Department. He shows little interest in keeping them in his hands. A case in point is the range at Sneedhams Green, in Gloucestershire. The Regional Sports Council and Gloucester shooting interests are anxious to keep the range, but the Ministry of Defence shows no signs of supporting them. There may be complicated reasons concerned with the construction of a motorway, but surely these can be overcome.

  1453
  The situation has been summed up to me in this way. I have been told that, if the range is closed, the Combined Cadet Force contingents at Cheltenham College, Cheltenham Grammar School and Dean Close School will all cease to be able to shoot on an open range. This is happening all over the country. Combined Cadet Forces find it harder and harder to get full-bore range facilities. The Minister appears to have no serious thoughts on the subject, to view it as a matter of complete indifference. I will not say that it indicates pacifist inclinations on his part, but it does indicate complete irresponsibility. The ability to shoot with a rifle and the opportunity to do so is a powerful inducement to boys to join cadet force units.
  This leads me straight to the state of the Combined Cadet Force and the Army Cadet Force. Again, this is not mentioned in the White Paper, but I notice that there has been a decline of over 10 per cent. in the strengths of those units in the past two years. In 1965–66, there were 79,000 on strength. In 1966–67, there were 76,500. According to the White Paper, the figure is now 70,500. I notice, too, that it was said last year—this year's Statement is as bald as it could be—that 24 per cent. of the boy entry and 10 per cent. of the adult entry to the Regular Army comes from these sources. The Minister appears to hope that the House will forget that.
  There are a number of other topics which I would like to have mentioned. One of them is the madness of the Ministry in refusing to equip Service free-fall parachute demonstration teams with British equipment and its persistence in sticking to American equipment.
  There is the Ministry's treatment of the T.A. in the matter of the officer's uniform allowance. Then there is the extraordinary fact, reported in today's Daily Telegraph, that officers are imagined to have banking accounts whereas other ranks use the Giro. When I was in the T.A., I thought that it was about the most classless society I had ever belonged to, and in many ways the finest. The idea that when a man is commissioned in the T.A. he takes his money out of the Post Office and puts in into a bank reflects an attitude which even the Victorians would have regarded as outmoded.
  1454
  Then I have some bones to pick with the Minister about the release of military land, but they will keep for next year, if he is still here, which I doubt.
  During the course of my speech I have quoted freely from statements made by the Secretary of State for Defence. I return to him. Again on 4th March, he said that he did not object to an attack on the policy of the Government. That is just as well. He went on to ask hon. Members on this side of the House not to indulge in
  "… a general denigration of the military capability of the Services themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 247.]
  I might say that I shall resent it very much if anything that I have said is interpreted in that way, because I want to see the military capability of the Services increased. There must be an end to Windmill-government by non-stop review with which we have become all too familiar. It is time that we had a Specialist Committee on Defence which could provide continuity of experience. That might see off the right hon. Gentleman pretty quickly. It would provide continuity of interest, it would puncture the complacency which we often get from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it would keep the nation informed about the real state of its Army.
  The annual experience of hon. Members coming here and seeing the serried ranks, the fully-recruited Front Bench, sitting there with the self-same expression on their faces which must have been worn by the "spiv" who sold the Emperor that wonderful suit of clothes, is a travesty of Parliamentary control. We have to find a better system of exposing the Minister's nakedness, and I believe that we will.
  It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to end his speeches with powerful perorations:
  "They are doing a job which is vital to the security of the British people."
  So they are.
  "They provide the necessary foundation for every other undertaking in our national life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 247.]
  So they do. But how can we expect them to continue to do it under the policies that we have had inflicted on us by that mob opposite?
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I shall not be present to hear his reply. I hope that he will not consider it a discourtesy, but I have a previous engagement which will prevent my attendance.
  I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in many matters. However, I agree with him on one point, which is a common constituency concern, namely, the problem of rehousing the families of departing Servicemen. Like the hon. Member for Woking, I have a military establishment on my doorstep—the R.E.M.E. training establishment at Arborfield just outside Reading—and I am confronted on many occasions with the problems of Service people who find themselves very low down on the list of priorities, or, indeed, with no apparent entitlement to rehousing. It is a social problem of which the Minister is perhaps now more aware as a result of representations that certain hon. Members have already made during the debate but which bear repetition because they are so important.
  The chorus of woe from the benches opposite, to which we have been listening throughout the last few hours, is certainly a measure of the partial triumph of those of my hon. Friends and myself—some of us pacifists and some, like myself, not pacifists—who have been putting pressure upon the Government over the last few years. The fact that there is a reduction in defence expenditure—albeit a very small one—stems in some measure from the 62 abstentions that we mustered two years ago ranging right across the party.
  That will be denied by the Minister, because Governments, like armies, do not retreat; they merely withdraw to previously prepared positions. Although the gloss may convince a few of my hon. Friends, I do not think that the majority on either side will really believe it. Those of us who are determined to reduce defence expenditure have tasted blood, and we are going out for more. It must not be thought that because we have achieved a partial triumph there will be any let-up in the campaign to reduce the Army to manageable proportions commensurate with the size of a very small off-shore island, which this country now is.
  1456
  Within the context of this defence policy, which I reject, there are a number of matters which should be raised and a number of items of expenditure which I see referred to in the body of the Defence Review which I wish to question. For example, I note that we are transferring about £19·8 million worth of equipment and facilities to the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore free of charge. I am in favour of overseas aid—I have spoken many times in support of it—but I am not sure that we should leave a large amount of equipment free of charge in a country from which we are withdrawing. Whether this is intended as a goodbye present or as a gesture to try to reconcile the Governments of Malayasia and Singapore to the fact that we are withdrawing—quite rightly, and about three years later than we should—I do not know, but it represents a cost that we should not be called upon to bear.
  Mr. Reynolds: I suppose the fact that three years ago we were actually engaged in defending Malaysia and Singapore from attack is another matter. The equipment to which my hon. Friend is referring comprises such assets as a fairly modern dockyard and the machine tools and equipment that go with it—cranes, berths, tugs, and a mass of equipment of that kind. Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that we should rip it out and take it away or that we should charge for it?
  Mr. Lee: I think that we should charge for it. We should attempt to strike a bargain in the matter.
  In so far as we have defence commitments outside this country, with one exception which has not so far been mentioned but which I propose to mention before sitting down, we should, as far as possible, charge a market price for our services. It is all very well, as the Prime Minister did, to adopt a high-minded attitude when I put the suggestion to him in a Question two years ago that British troops are not mercenaries. The fact is that we are poor economically—we are for ever being told so by both sides of the House—and, therefore, we should get value for money wherever we can. We have a Minister charged with the task of selling military equipment abroad. He is supposed to be getting

  1457
  a reasonable price for what he sells. Surely the same principle ought to be applied to the use of men.
  It should apply when we are employed in police work—for example, the operation in Mauritius. Happily, it did not require any kind of military action. Nevertheless, Mauritius is an independent country now and, in so far as it called upon us to provide these policing services, it would not have been unreasonable for us to be paid for the inconvenience and expense necessarily incurred in deploying troops there.
  We are told in the White Paper that the whole of our defence, with trifling exceptions like the Caribbean, is now orientated through N.A.T.O. In passing, N.A.T.O. has served very little useful function in the last 20 years. It did not help the Hungarians in 1956 or the Czechs last year. I do not suppose it will help the Yugoslavs if they are so unfortunate as to be the subject of Russian displeasure inflicted militarily upon them at any future time.
  There is one other aspect I should mention. According to the Motion, we have to provide
  "for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown…"
  One territory of Her Majesty's has been in a state of open rebellion for the last three years and nothing has been done to retrieve it from that position.
  When I interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) he was inclined to shrug this matter off. I remind him that the Prime Minister has told us, with his usual consistency, that if law and order broke down in Rhodesia, but only in that circumstance, we might send troops to restore law and order. We hear of the incursions of South African forces, which was at first denied but is now tacitly admitted by everybody. By any concept of international law, that is an act of war in itself. When we consider that and remember the other aspects of disorder which have gradually grown in that part of the world, and in Rhodesia in particular, it surely is not impossible to conceive a situation when we shall be called upon to honour the Prime Minister's
  1458
  promise. Three years ago some of us held that a brigade of paratroopers sent in on 11th November, 1965, would have settled that problem once and for all. Had that been done, we would not now be appearing to allow the situation to slide from our control. But a lot has happened since then.
  I shall not be present when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate, but I shall read HANSARD very carefully tomorrow to discover what he says, I want to know what measures are being taken to make that promise of the Prime Minister a reality. I should not like it to be thought that we were going to renage on this matter, because it is no good us burking the issue. Things in Southern Africa are going to get worse before they get much better, and probably very much worse. For once we have an opportunity to be on the right side of a conflict. During the last 23 years we have found ourselves on the wrong side of most conflicts. Here we have a chance to be on the right side.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: My hon Friend is proposing that at some stage troops should be sent to Rhodesia. Which troops will he send? Earlier in his speech he demobilised them all.
  Mr. Lee: I did not demobilise them. If my hon. Friend had listened, he would have heard me say that our forces should be reduced. I want them reduced to a size commensurate with the size of this country, which I referred to as an offshore island. I wish to see British troops playing their part as they do in Cyprus, as a component part of the United Nations force there. I should like the Prime Minister's promise to be honoured. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish the Prime Minister to renage on his promise. The time for honouring it may not be long in coming, and I would gladly see our forces engaged in that operation, though I realise that it is a hazardous one, and my right hon. Friend has said very little about the ability of British forces to operate at long distances.
  There have been criticisms about the Government's proposal to withdraw from east of Suez, and what we do, or what it is intended we should do, as a member of N.A.T.O. Very little has been said about our ability to operate at long range,

  1459
  although something is said in the White Paper about taking part in training programmes in 30 different countries. I do not know whether these countries include Zambia and Tanzania. I hope they do, because these territories abut on Rhodesia.
  My right hon. Friend should be in no doubt that many of us on this side of the House are looking for an answer, and that we shall not be satisfied until that answer is quite unambiguous.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: The Government's confession of complete failure in Army recruiting demands the closest scrutiny to discover what is going wrong. Who should be blamed? One person we should not blame is the man who fails to come forward to join the Army. It is not his fault. The fault must lie at the top. There is a failure somewhere to provide the conditions under which we can recruit men.
  Just as the nation has lost its sense of purpose, so the Army has lost its sense of purpose. Just as, having given up our worldwide commitments, into which we entered honourably, merely because we have discovered that they are inconvenient to keep, we have lost our national sense of purpose, so the Army asks "What is our rôle in the world?", and cannot find it. It is a pretty miserable sort of rôle to be asked to defend an offshore island. We must stop the Army thinking that that is what it is here to do. Is the Army's rôle to provide defence in a world war which is bound to become nuclear? This is an intolerable rôle. I believe, therefore, that there is a great need to reassure the Forces that they are fulfilling an honourable task, that we need their services, and that we shall continue to need them.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) is of no help at all. The hon. Gentleman boasts that the Left-wing wags the tail of the Government. He says that the Government will always obey their Left-wing, and will continue to reduce the Forces. Curiously enough, people pay attention to what is said in this House, and HANSARD is read with keen interest in the forces. The hon. Gentleman's speech, and many others that we have heard, will be read in the forces.
  1460
  Service people feel that while this Government remain in office there is a great danger of even further defence cuts.
  We have had many White Papers saying that we now have a stable defence policy, and that the forces can look forward to a period of stability. The same sort of thing occurs in the Green Paper this year but we know that once again there will be nagging from the Left-wing and from the Treasury, and that the Secretary of State for Defence will find it convenient to make further reductions in our forces. This goes for the officers and men. Officers are uncertain about their future, and if they are not convinced about the usefulness of their jobs, they cannot set a good example to their men.
  Two years ago it was announced that Sandhurst would cease to have any academic periods at all. During the debate on the Army Estimates of that year I protested that that was a thoroughly stupid way to behave, that it was intolerable for a young officer to be asked to give up all academic subjects and concentrate solely on military training while he was at Sandhurst. I seem to have done my job too well, because this year there is a complete change. There is now to be a complete academic year, with no military training at all during that time, in preparation for entry into a university which will be prepared to accept that year as the first academic year of the university. We are not told which university, merely a university. I beg the Government not to go too far in this direction. There has been a complete change round. Let us have a change back to sanity, so that there is a nice balance between academic training and military training at Sandhurst.
  The Minister said that the C.B.I. had given an undertaking that it would accept short-service officers for careers in industry, and he suggested that this was a great thing for the Army. I suggest that it is a great thing for the C.B.I. People who go into the Army, receive a useful training, and see the world, will be of great value to industry.
  Similarly, for other ranks. It is suggested that if people have the opportunity to learn a trade this will induce them to come into the Army. By all means teach men a trade so that they can move into a good job when they leave

  1461
  the Army, but I am sure that no one will join the Army with the intention of spending from three to six years there to learn a trade to equip him for a job in civilian life. This is not the solution to the recruiting problem.
  The three year engagement is a matter of dispute. If we cannot get recruits by any other means, we may get them by offering a three-year engagement, but it is not a useful suggestion, and I trust that the Army will be able to abandon it at a very early stage. It is purely a stop-gap measure.
  I must correct the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) who suggested that recruiting for the Army has always been bad, that it was bad under the Tories and is bad now. He forgot that, in 1958, it was decided to abandon National Service and go over to a Regular Army. That meant a huge recruiting campaign so that the new-sized Army of 186,000 could be recruited before the last National Serviceman left. This was a race against time.
  Lord Wigg told the House in 1957 when this was discussed that the Army would not be able to recruit more than 130,000 men. He was proved wrong. Gradually, as recruitment appeared to be going well, he invented "Wigg's law". We all remember him waggling his piece of elastic and saying that more men recruited in one year meant fewer recruited the next year and that it was done through special inducements. This is not so.
  Although it did not reach the target of 186,000 by the time that we left office, the Army was moving towards it, so much so that, in 1962, the Secretary of State decided to go easier on recruiting and gave the fatal instruction, which the War Office has regretted ever since, that it should be slowed down. This was a tragedy, but it is not likely, at least under the present régime, that it will ever have to be repeated. If the machine is put into reverse, it is very difficult to get it going again. The brake was too effective after the accelerator. This proved that recruiting under the Tories was not a failure.
  Although I do not accept that pay is the sole condition which governs recruiting,
  1462
  we must remember that the best recruiting officer is a contented soldier and his present treatment over pay does not make him contented. The Grigg formula may have had disadvantages because it operated in arreas. By all means let us find a new solution, but to throw out Grigg without an alternative, as we have done, "waiting for Jones", is intolerable.
  There is now a supicion that we are to have a beautiful Jones-designed omnibus salary. I warn anyone who is thinking of this to remember what happened in 1946, when the Government announced generous increases in Service pay and at the same time made allowances taxable. The net result was that everyone received a smaller pay cheque. This was the Irishman's rise resulting from the promise of the Government of the day. I suspect that this may happen again.
  The position of medical officers is a standing scandal. It is intolerable that, for nearly two years, the British Medical Association has refused to recommend its members to join the forces. That they should have to dissociate themselves from the forces is an absolute scandal.
  I agree that the Army is well equipped, remembering that it takes up to 10 years after its initial design for a weapon to reach the forces; what worries me is that there is nothing in the pipeline. I gave my views last year on the medium gun which is the only major item of equipment mentioned in the Green Paper, and I will only say now that I hope that the Secretary of State has noted what is happening in North Vietnam, where the North Vietnamese dare not use their towed medium guns because if they open up, they are spotted and shelled at once. A self-propelled medium gun is needed so as to move quickly after firing to avoid retribution. This lesson seems to have been lost on the Ministry of Defence.
  The Minister mentioned cost accounting. I wonder what the figures are now for write-offs by commands. When I was concerned with this about 20 years ago, a general officer commanding, with the aid of a command secretary, was allowed to write off up to a figure of £50 and for any larger sum had to make a special submission to the Treasury. That

  1463
  sum might be £100 now. The submission alone costs more than £100 in the time and effort of those involved. I commend the experience of Marks and Spencer's who find that it is not worth accounting for minor items because it is such a waste of money.
  The present state of the Army, I fear, reflects the Secretary of State's determination to decide on the probable tasks which it will have and tailor it to fit them. The tasks that he foresees are grim and unpleasant and do not include the exciting worldwide efforts which will probably be the next demands on the Army. We always have to deal with the unexpected. The Army has met these sort of demands brilliantly in the past, but judging from the way that they are being guided now, the forces will be prevented from carrying them out in the future.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Newens: I beg to move,
  That the said number be reduced by 1,000 men.
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments. I understand that the Amendment I have just moved is the traditional way of making an objection to the Estimates, but I want to make it clear that I intend no reflection on the men serving in the Armed Forces or the Army in particular.
  I have often taken up, on behalf of Servicemen, cases similar to those mentioned by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), like housing cases. I recognise that the men are doing an important job and I would be the last to argue that they should not be recompensed fairly for that job.
  Unlike some of my hon. Friends who may support the Amendment, I wish to make it clear that I am not a pacifist. I believe that we need a strong conventional Army, the men of which should be properly trained, equipped and prepared. I believe in the right of the people to have a defence system to guard the things they hold dear.
  While I am not commending the Amendment from a pacifist point of view, I contest the argument that the defence of the country requires certain continuing heavy commitments into which we
  1464
  have entered on behalf of the Army. I refer, in particular, to the stationing of large numbers of British troops in Germany—in B.A.O.R. and in the independent brigade in Berlin—because this policy is based on the British acceptance of N.A.T.O. as the foundation of our defence policy.
  During the past year Her Majesty's Government have proclaimed their decision to increase our contribution to the defence of Europe by stepping up material support for N.A.T.O. This is put forward as one of the benefits of our withdrawal east of Suez. I contest the logic of this policy and also the argument that we must maintain large forces in Germany.
  Consider, first, the theory that events in Czechoslovakia have proved the need for a stronger defence system in Europe to protect us from Soviet aggression. An article in The Times today, by Leonard Beaton, deals with this matter and says:
  "The official reasoning that Czechoslovakia and Berlin have produced a new situation cannot be taken seriously. The only significant school of opinion to be reversed by the Czechoslovak events was that which held that the Cold War was a Western invention and the Hungarian uprising was a Western plot".
  While I would not wish to be regarded as arguing from the same standpoint a. Mr. Beaton, it is worth noting that he goes on to advance the idea that the reason why we are, so to speak, banging the drum over N.A.T.O. is because we are covering up for cuts elsewhere or because of a new German-based foreign policy. I argue from a different standpoint, although I agree wit. Mr. Beaton that the argument that events in Czechoslovakia prove the need for a stronger defence system in Europe does not stand up to the facts.
  I deplore the Russian intervention in Czechoslovakia, as I have made clear on previous occasions. However, I believe that that intervention was the result of the division of Europe and the attempted division of the world into rival spheres of influence and interest as well as the result of a policy of alliances and support for alliance systems. The stronger an alliance may be on one side, the stronger is the tendency on the other side to create equally strong forces. The stronger an alliance becomes, the greater is the desire of its leaders to perpetuate the subordination of the smaller countries within

  1465
  that alliance. This is precisely what happened over Czechoslovakia.
  The strength of N.A.T.O.'s ground forces, together with the bellicose statements made recently, I regret to say, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, only strengthen the hard-liners in the Kremlin and weaken the arguments of those who are for pulling back. Just as people in Britain and in the West generally have in some cases mistakenly tended to react to Russian intervention in Czechoslovakia by demanding stronger forces in N.A.T.O., so, if we succeed in strengthening N.A.T.O., the next step for those in charge of the Warsaw Pact countries will be to argue that that justifies even greater strength on the part of their forces.
  I believe that N.A.T.O. is part of an American alliance which exists throughout the world. I do not accept this alliance. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and many of my hon. Friends accept the idea of spheres of influence, but I believe that there is a tremendous need today to run down alliances of this sort, preferably by mutual——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of Vote A of the Estimates. He is going into general matters of defence policy, which is out of order in this debate.
  Mr. Newens: I regret that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I wished to make it clear that I believe that some unilateral action, such as withdrawing our forces from Germany, would be a much better means of bringing about a lessening of tension in the world and would help to assure the security of Britain than our continued commitment to the arms race.
  I no more accept the Warsaw Pact and the policies which it has pursued than I accept N.A.T.O. It would be possible to press ahead with the winding up of these pacts if we took the first unilateral action and did what I am proposing, which is to withdraw our forces from Europe. Somebody must take the initiative and I believe that action of the type I have proposed would be of great help.
  Much is made in the Defence Estimates of the need to ensure stability in the developing countries. Frankly, stability in
  1466
  many cases means the preservation of reactionary Governments in those countries. I do not believe that it is any part of British defence to do that. We should question increased expenditure on the Army to enable it to take part in plans to preserve the stability of other parts of the world in this way.
  I also contest the policy of stationing large forces in Germany on economic grounds. I understand that the cost in 1969–70 of our ground forces there will be £203 million. I am aware of the offset agreements and that in 1968–69 about 90 per cent. of the overseas currency element will, it is said, be covered. However, this conceals the reality of the situation because the cost of B.A.O.R. is a permanent drain on our resources.
  It is said in the Estimates that we intend to make the most effective military contribution possible to the alliance compatible with our economic strength. I believe that we are making this contribution at the cost of our economic strength, that we are underwriting the German economy and, in particular, underwriting the strength of the mark. Twenty-four years after the last war, we must ask for how long this state of affairs can go on.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, answering Questions on 18th December of last year about expenditure on our forces in Germany, said that the net cost in foreign currency was expected to amount to only £10 million for the year. Having tried to unravel the mysteries of this problem, I suggest that there are considerable difficulties in understanding the manner in which this figure is reached. I understand, for example, that loans were made in the past and the interest on them has not been accounted for in this sum, nor the loan repayments.
  Consideration ought to be brought to bear on the way in which the West Germans agreed to buy some of our products to offset the cost of maintaining the British Army of the Rhine. Many of these products, I believe, would have been purchased in any case. It seems quite wrong that at this stage we should be subsidising West German prosperity and the strength of the mark when we have been passing through, and still are passing through, a very difficult economic period.

  1467
  The deployment of our ground forces in Germany, apart from the effect on net foreign exchange costs, represent a considerable drain on our resources. If Britain is forced, as we have been forced in the last few years, to accept cuts in public expenditure, higher interest rates, higher than acceptable unemployment figures and low rates of economic growth, it is time we said we cannot afford to carry on with this heavy expenditure in West Germany. In these circumstances, I advocate that steps should be taken forthwith to move towards the withdrawal of the British Army of the Rhine. That is absolutely essential.
  That is one of the purposes for which I have moved the Amendment. I do not believe that we can carry on in this way. I do not believe that we can afford the cost and the burden on our resources which is entailed. We have to recognise that at some stage we shall reach a point at which we must call a halt to this state of affairs. We cannot accept that for evermore we shall have large forces of soldiers stationed in Europe as we have had since 1945.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that his opinion is shared by the greatest authority on B.A.O.R., Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, who advocates that only a token force should be kept in Germany?
  Mr. Newens: I am delighted to know that that is the case. I am sure many other eminent authorities agree with that view. It is time people who have gone on blandly advocating that we should continue the present policy considered what its fundamental wisdom is.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said that inquiries had been made of the Army about the use of forces to quell student militants at Essex University. I do not know what the truth of that statement is, but I very much hope that my hon. Friend when replying to the debate, will say something about it. It is an extremely disturbing suggestion. I argue very strongly that the idea that the Army should be on call for that sort of contingency should be looked into very carefully. I know that in the last resort the Army has to maintain law and order, but the nation that inquiries should be made about using these forces to deal with students at Essex University or elsewhere
  1468
  is very disturbing. We are much in need of some reassurance on this matter.
  For all these reasons I have moved the Amendment. It is high time we recognised that we can no longer support the large expenditure called for on ground forces. We have to make reductions in this field. I believe that we could do so and still secure the defence of the country. We should renounce any intention of seeking to maintain reactionary régimes in being elsewhere in the world. For all these reasons the policy on which the Estimates are based should be drastically overhauled.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I find myself in somewhat of a quandary following the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), as I think that most of his speech, delivered I am sure with tremendous sincerity, was hardly relevant to a debate on the Army Estimates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It was on a much wider scale.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the hon. Member says that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) made a totally irrelevant speech, yet it was allowed by the Chair, that is a reflection on the Chair.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member was egged on by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who has intervened in my speech.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Epping could have fitted into the debate last week on the Defence Green Paper. I disagree with the conclusion to which the hon. Member came that we should not have any forces in B.A.O.R. He obviously did not hear his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), or he could not have heard much of the debate which has been concerned with reasons why we have a force in Europe to act as a deterrent to prevent this country being invaded and to stop a war taking place in the European theatre.
  Mr. Newens: I disagree.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I accept that the hon. Member disagrees. Most of what the hon. Member said was in the context of the main defence debate and not of

  1469
  the debate on the Army Estimates, in which we are considering the purpose of the Army, recruiting and so on.
  There have been three main themes running through this debate. One has been lack of recruiting. The second concerned the reserves. It was highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The third was the equipment with which the Army is meant to fight in whatever rôle it is given.
  I am sorry that the Under-Secretary, who opened the debate, is not present now. I do not mean any discourtesy if I attack him, but when he presented the Estimates he did so in a complacent way. I have never heard anything quite so complacent. He was a little anxious when he told us about a shortage of 9,000 recruits. Apart from that everything was fine, indeed, he had saved £3 million. That seemed absolutely splendid, but he qualified it two minutes later by saying that £2½ million of the saving was because he had failed to recruit 9,000 men to the Services. So, if the savings were a point of success—which, in my view, they were not—the saving was only £500,000 and there was no question of £3 million. It was a little disingenuous of the Under-Secretary to try to claim credit for saving £3 million. I do not think that this is any credit.
  Last week, I said that I thought that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for our defence have brought the Army to a very low state in both morale and strength. I agree that recruiting levels will not be increased by paying officers and men more. Financial inducements are not enough, although they are an important element in recruiting. A far more important element is for officers and other ranks to be able to know what career structure there is for them. Nobody wants to be chucked out with his career finished at 40, 41, or 42. This is the prospect which faces some people, particularly officers, at present.
  As to other ranks, I do not believe that the comfortable soldier will attract recruits. The qualities of excitement, daring and a sense of exploration are what make for good recruiting, but they are sadly lacking at the moment. I do not suggest that this would be a reason
  1470
  to go back east of Suez, because obviously this would be lunatic.
  Nor do I believe that the amount of overseas service which the present-day soldier does and which the soldier of tomorrow will do is anything like sufficient. I do not believe that he trains overseas to a sufficient extent. There is not anything like enough acclimatisation for operating in hot climates, particularly in jungle-type warfare, or in arctic climates.
  The House knows how many chops and changes there have been in recruiting policy and, indeed, in policy on the Army generally. The size of the Army has been shrinking all the time. This has been an unsettling factor. I come now to a matter in which I am much more particularly interested. I myself became a light infantryman after I left the Gurkhas. I believe that one of the great mistakes has been the moving of regiments away from their territorial affiliations. It is much easier to recruit a Yorkshireman into a Yorkshire regiment, whether it be the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry or the Yorks and Lanes Regiment, than it is into a regiment with no local territorial associations. A Yorkshireman wants to go into a regiment connected with his county. It is better for a recruit from Cornwall to go into the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry than into the 1st Battalion, the Light Infantry Division, which is what is happening at the moment.
  I believe that this movement away from territorial affiliations will be greatly to the detriment of recruiting. I ask the Government to think about this question again. It is probably right to organise battalions or regiments on a divisional basis in Britain, but why not keep the territorial affiliations and combine the two? Indeed, this used to be the case, but they were called brigades a few years ago. There was the Light Infantry Brigade and the Rifle Brigade.
  Another factor which makes it difficult to recruit other ranks is that many people who might join the Army have no doubt that when they get in they will not be given a job which is worth while. They are told by their friends, some of whom may be Servicemen, that they are liable to serve either here in this country or in Germany. They are told, "Germany is a rotten station. B.A.O.R.? Oh dear,

  1471
  no. It is not much fun serving there. If you should join such-and-such a battalion or regiment, you are liable to be in Germany for three to five years, with short periods of leave, and it counts as a home station". All these things, although small in themselves, go to make up important militating factors against recruiting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) mentioned Sandhurst, which is of particular interest to me. When I was dining at Sandhurst recently I met some West Point cadets who are there on an exchange basis. They told me that at the end of a four-year course at West Point recruits come out with a degree or the equivalent of a degree. I ask the Government to give consideration to having a Sandhurst course so designed that at the end of it—not after the recruit has gone on to Shrivenham and done an extra course, but at the end of the Sandhurst course—the qualification is commensurate with an external degree from, say, the University of London? This might be an added inducement to recruiting.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, in a very powerful speech, pleaded with the Government to change their views about our reserves at home. I agree with everything my right hon. Friend said about the necessity to have cadres in Britain for an expanding reserve volunteer Army. My right hon. Friend omitted one vital element. It must be a reserve cadre which can be expanded. The cadre should consist of trained and dedicated men from the regular and volunteer forces. If these cadres are to expand in times of dire national emergency or in time of war, it is no good the House thinking that men who have not done a day's training for six, seven or eight years can be called back from the reserve and trained to peak battle condition in a short time. It cannot be done. It takes at least six to nine months for a man who has not done any service for about six years to be taught the new techniques and the new weapons he will have to handle and to be got fit enough to be put into a battle zone.
  I know this, because I was a regular soldier in the period leading up to the Korean War. It took months then to get men who had been out of regular
  1472
  service for nothing like six years back into the state where they were sufficiently fit to risk the hazards of battle without risking their lives unnecessarily by being unfit and to learn the techniques of the new weapons.
  Not only in the context of what my right hon. Friend said, but also in the context of the Army Reserve Bill, which will be considered later, if the Army reserves are to be kept in being for a further period to make up for the shortfall in volunteers the Government must realise that these men must be trained at regular intervals if they are to be of any use. When they are called back in times of grave national emergency there will not be six or nine months for them to be retrained. That is the only addition I would make to what my right hon. Friend said about the reserves.
  We must have a reserve, volunteer home force. One of the great indictments of the Government is that they have reduced not only the regular Army, but the reserves at the same time. Avoiding doing that is the one golden rule that must never be broken, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have broken it. That is why we on this side of the House say they are jeopardising the country's defences. I hope that they will look again favourably at the question of reintroducing an expanding reserve force and the cadres in particular from which a reserve volunteer Army can be built up.
  The other main stream of the debate is the question of equipment. We have a Strategic Reserve stationed in this country. We have various forces which still have worldwide commitments. It is conceivable that we should have to send out contingents from our Strategic Reserve to help our friends in need in the Middle and Far East. Is their equipment adequate? I do not doubt that it is absolutely first-class for what is needed in Europe. The Army has never been better equipped for the European theatre. But what armour have we that can operate satisfactorily in the jungle and is up-to-date? Are we using old equipment, such as old Centurions? What type of wireless equipment have we? I shall not go into the whole catalogue, but we must remember that we have continuing commitments east of Suez. I only hope that the equipment we are giving our soldiers will be adequate for the job.

  1473
  I now turn to Europe. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made an impressive but rather gloomy speech in which he said that the purpose of N.A.T.O. forces in Europe was to be destroyed, which inevitably meant that there would be a long and grinding war; there would be no stopping it. The very fact that the Russians knew that if they attacked and destroyed the N.A.T.O. forces in Europe there would inevitably be a long and nuclear war was the reason for B.A.O.R. in Germany and for N.A.T.O.'s existence.
  I think that that is an excessively over-gloomy view. I believe that B.A.O.R. and N.A.T.O. can have sufficient fire power to be able to halt any advance by the Russians on the Western European front. I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that the proper defensive posture is not on the West-East German frontier, but behind the Rhine. But even behind the Rhine I wonder whether there would be sufficient fire power not only to stop the armour which might come through, but the men following behind it. I hope that there is, but I do not intend to cross-examine the Minister about this, because it is not the kind of thing one does in a debate like this.
  My last point concerns our troops overseas. I was in the Gurkhas during the war, and I have watched with great apprehension the Government reducing the numbers of Gurkha troops in Her Majesty's Forces ever since they came into office. This is understandable when the commitments are on a descending scale, but it is astonishing. Over the years, whenever there has been difficulty in any part of the world, the Gurkha troops have been called upon and have come willingly to help us and fight our battles with us. Now we are to reduce their numbers by 2,000 to 6,000, and they will be mostly stationed in Hong Kong. I think that this year they are to be reduced by another 1,200 men.
  The difficulty with Gurkha troops is that they are a long way from their home and, therefore, they should have their families with them. There have to be special arrangements for those whose families are with them, and those Gurkhas who are not married and have not brought their families with them have a very long
  1474
  way to go home on leave. Their leaves are much longer than the ordinary British soldier gets; they are often away for six to nine months.
  If there is to be an effective fighting force of 6,000 men, at least another 2,000 are needed to cover those on leave for a reasonable length of time. I do not believe that the Government appreciate that. They have certainly not done it.
  All sorts of ideas are being mooted about the Gurkhas. One is that there should be a Gurkha battalion in each British division. Another is that there should be a Gurkha company in each British brigade or battalion. None of these things will work. In the old days, there was a British company in every Gurkha battalion and the system did not work as well as it should have done.
  The Gurkhas are fine fighting men and it would be a great shame if the Government reduced the unit below the stage where it could be effective not only in war, but in peace. I do not believe that Hong Kong is the right staging for the Gurkhas and I hope that an arrangement will be made whereby they can serve partly in Hong Kong and partly elsewhere—perhaps at a base in Australia or new Zealand or elsewhere in that region if we do finally remove ourselves from Malaysia. The existing provisions are certainly not sufficient, and I do not believe that a level of 6,000 men will be an effective force. I hope that the Government will re-examine this matter with great care.
  The Under-Secretary of State spoke complacently. He seems to be well pleased with what he has done. I do not believe that he has done the right things. The only satisfactory thing about the Army today is that it is well equipped for a European battle, and that is thanks to what the Conservatives did seven to 10 years ago.
  The recruiting figures are disastrous and the hon. Gentleman has no real plans to improve them. The career structure leaves a great deal to be done. The Government have stripped the country of military reserves and they will rue this in years to come. I hope that, before it is too late, they will look at their policies again, because they are greatly to the detriment of our country and its safety.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. William Baxter: I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that it is a disgrace to the House and the nation that so few Members see fit to attend this most important debate. It is reducing the whole standard of our Parliamentary system to find only that a handful of hon. Members attend to take part in discussion of a very important aspect of our national life.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does not my hon. Friend think it also disgraceful that, apparently at the request of the Opposition, these debates on the Service Estimates are all to end at 10 o'clock and not, as in previous years, at 12 o'clock? Is not that reducing their importance even further?
  Mr. Baxter: I could not agree more. Indeed, I made that point during the debate on the Navy Estimates last Monday. It is a disgrace that debates on Defence Estimates should be curtailed even to 10 o'clock as against the previous convention of the House that they continue till 12 o'clock. Indeed, at one time, they were unlimited. This is a curtailment of the liberty of M.P.s. It must be looked at by the Government. It is disgraceful that it is a Labour Government who are curtailing the liberties of Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members are now being given less time than ever in our history—at any rate, recent history—for the Service debates? We have been robbed of six hours.
  Mr. Baxter: That confirms what I have been saying. However, I want now to turn to the question of recruitment. Many points of view have been expounded about why there has been lack of recruitment to the Armed Forces. One must make allowances for difficulties in many parts of the country. This has a backlash effect upon the attitude and frame of mind of the inhabitants.
  My own constituency is a good illustration of this point. Two defence establishments are to be closed in the near future. One is on the east side of my constiuency at Throsk; and the other is on the west side of my constituency near Kirkintilloch, where the Incherff
  1476
  gun range is to be closed. I am not objecting to those places being closed. I hope to see the day when all military establishments are closed down and our resources used for the production of things of peace.
  That apart, the effect on the recruitment to the Army is evident because the Minister of Defence is making no provision that I can see to look after the interests of those employees of the Ministry of Defence who have served so well in the past.
  The Minister, in an interjection regarding the equipment to be handed over to the Government of Singapore, seemed to indicate this was the right thing to do. I am not saying that it is or is not, but why not treat our own people as generously? Why should one throw them on the scrap heap, without making any effort to try to help the local Member to get new industry into the area? It is merely indicated to those people that their services will no longer be required and out they go. Does this not have an indirect effect upon the recruitment campaigns? Does all this circulated documentation, sent to the schools and universities, have any effect upon them after the practical experience and knowledge of what has taken place?
  One thing had a profound effect upon my attitude in life. My father was in the Argylls and was 100 per cent. disabled. My mother, brother and I were in receipt of a pension from a supposedly generous Government for the services he had rendered to the country. What did we find? We were at starvation level. The pension was paid on a Wednesday and on a Monday night I have seen the last 6d. piece being spent out of my mother's purse. Do you not think this has an effect upon me, my brother and those with whom I come into contact? Do you not think this frame of mind is still prevalent in the places of power in the Armed Forces of the day?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman must use the traditional forms of address, when either addressing the Chair or the Minister.
  Mr. Baxter: I meant that the Minister or the powers-that-be have not changed their attitude to those matters very

  1477
  markedly. I can understand the sincerity of a person who says that a properly-equipped army could defend us, but surely it is reasonable to see that they are given not only the equipment but the wherewithal to live in a reasonable degree of comfort as do ordinary industrialised workers.
  The great fallacy in the thinking of the people who are in control of the Army, Navy and Air Force is that they think in the past. That indicates the sheer inability of the defence set-up efficiently to look after the smaller details.
  I will illustrate in this way. On 28th August, 1967, I wrote to Scottish Command because a policeman in a little place called Milton of Campsie in my constituency, wanted to buy, from the Army authorities, a piece of waste ground upon which to build a house. It is land which the Army will never require. I received no reply. On 9th November, 1967, I wrote to the Minister of Defence drawing his attention to the desires of this person, and again I received no reply. On 27th February, 1968,1 again wrote to the Minister, and in March I received a reply, but to this day no action has been taken on this matter. I believe that if the Minister of Defence can be inefficient in small things, then he can be very inefficient with the larger things. I have always believed in the philosophy of looking after the small things properly, because then it will very often be found that the large things will look after themselves.
  I would be remiss not to recognise the great responsibilities that any Minister of Defence or any Government has in deciding what attitude to adopt towards the defence of a country and towards the maintenance of world peace. This relates to recruitment, because we must be able to convince people that what we are doing is right. How can we do that when, for example later this evening we will be discussing the Army Reserve Bill, which is tantamount to introducing compulsory service? Were the people involved given any opportunity to express a point of view before the Bill was presented? If not, then they have been hoodwinked, conscripted into a reserve army. This is tantamount to sharp practice, to a swindle.
  1478
  It is another reason for this "wash-back" against the Minister's recruiting campaigns. The Minister ought to examine his image carefully and ask himself whether he has failed to have his policy accepted by the country. His measure of success must be the success of his recruitment campaigns. If recruitment does not improve, then it is proof positive that the people have rejected this policy. You should, therefore, consider whether or not you are suitable to hold office.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The Chair is not involved in the defence of the country.
  Mr. Baxter: I am sorry. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister must remember that the extent to which his policy is successful is reflected in the recruiting figures. If he can sell his policy to the country, recruiting will rise, and he will have been successful. This Minister has not been successful.
  He talks about a holding operation in Germany should a war break out. He says that for a short time it would be necessary to use nuclear warheads of a limited capacity. What does that mean? It has never been defined. If we use such warheads to halt an advancing army, what will it use in return? Surely in return it will use a larger nuclear warhead he will though the Minister may imagine he will have a breathing space, so that any increase in the momentum will be stopped, I believe he is talking through a hole in his hat. It does not seem to me to indicate that his thinking is on the right lines when one looks at what happened in Czechoslovakia and at what happened with the smaller nation of Israel. As the six-day war showed, speed and surprise is much more important than the breathing space which the Minister seems to think he is going to get should another war, unfortunately break out.
  The whole concept of the Minister's thinking on these matters, somewhat like the Government's thinking I regret to say, is as outdated and outmoded as was the thinking before the last war. We saw what happened then and surely the thinking of the Minister at the present time is based, as far as we can see, on much the same concept. In the Defence Estimates there are references which the

  1479
  Minister himself has mentioned to certain monetary sums to provide missiles etcetera—£23,700,000.
  But the Ministry has not said how much of that money or how many of those missiles are to be made available to safeguard the interests of the people of Scotland. We have there a Polaris base in the most vulnerable place in Europe and yet we have no knowledge, and nor have the people of Scotland been told, about what defences are at the disposal of the Government to safeguard the populace should a war break out. We have a right to demand from the Minister some indication of what he has provided in this respect.
  The Minister also speaks about nuclear tanks and weapons to be provided, and he has talked this afternoon about new bridges that will be capable of being lifted by helicopter and droped in place, over which tanks can go quickly. What use will those bridges or tanks be, or even the forces in Germany, if nuclear war starts there? No use at all. This is not designed to get recruits from this country to go to Germany to be cinders in a very short time.
  The Minister has spoken also about Hong Kong. I was there not long ago and an lion. Member who has spoken previously mentioned the 6,000 troops who are there. I wonder why they are there. The Minister should give an explanation. They serve no useful purpose. We may hold on to the Gurkha Regiment from a sentimental point of view but it is no use whatsoever in Hong Kong. The only chance of keeping the peace in Hong Kong is through the police authorities. There is no doubt about that; and whenever this or any other Government use the military force at their disposal there, there is no question but that they will be destroyed.
  The only purpose of maintaining Hong Kong at present is for the wireless spying installations there. I have seen them myself. That is the only purpose for keeping Hong Kong.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Hong Kong, is not it true that the Chinese on the mainland could easily get control of Hong Kong by turning off the water supply?
  Mr. Baxter: It is the easiest thing in the world to control Hong Kong by turning off the water supply. But there is no justifiable reason for 6,000 troops being in Hong Kong.
  The Minister and the Government must tell us their thinking about these problems, and particularly about Central Europe. Sufficient emphasis has not been placed on the Rapacki Plan for a demilitarised area in Central Europe. Both sides of the House put too much emphasis on the N.A.T.O. Alliance. President de Gaulle has shown conclusively that he has no faith in that alliance; he has withdrawn from it completely. If we withdrew from it, we would be in a position to emphasise the necessity to disband the Warsaw Pact. That would be a great step in the direction advocated by the Labour Party of Britain over the years. We must continue in that direction.
  I regret having to say that the Government have seemingly lost their belief in a demilitarised area in Central Europe. Propaganda on this subject helped to get us returned at the last election. We put too much emphasis on the N.A.T.O. Alliance and the Common Market political concept. It is time that we looked at the matter more broadly and forgot that we are here, not as militarists, but in order to try to maintain the peace of Europe and of the world.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Sir Harwood Harrison.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. I do not make any personal complaint because in previous years I have had more than my share in defence debates and, although I have sat through two days of defence debates, I spoke on the Navy Estimates. However, my hon. Friends the Members for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I have been sitting in the Chamber since half-past three. The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) came into the Chamber at 24 minutes past eight. Is there any obligation——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not reflect on the Chair's choice of speaker.
  Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order. I would not make this complaint

  1481
  were it not for one fact, and that is the unholy cabal between the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and my hon. Friends——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not on a point of order.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a further point of order. Is it right that the traditional privileges of the House of Commons to discuss these extremely important matters should be curtailed, through the usual channels, for two hours——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again that is not a point of order, and it is not a matter for the Chair.
  8.58 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: The hon. Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) are right to this degree. When I first became a Member, there was tremendous interest in the Service Estimates. The debates used to go on all night. I was always extremely fortunate to be called very quickly by a predecessor of yours. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Lord MacAndrew, because I think that he knew that I had just given up command of a Territorial battalion and knew what I was talking about. We waited until about six-thirty in the morning before the Minister replied.
  I apologise to this degree to the House. [Interruption.] I know that it was not meant personally. I have sat through many debates. I did not take part in them because I was a Whip for seven years.
  I return to the question of the Territorial Army and raise my voice about the concern expressed on the lack of recruits. If one is not successful in selling something, it means that there is something wrong with the product. Therefore, there may be something wrong in the career structure offered to potential recruits to the Army. One of the things which has been wrong—and we have pointed this out to the Government—has been the cutting down of the Territorial Army.
  By reducing the Territorial Army the Regular Army has been deprived of those Servicemen who enlist in the Territorial Army because they are not sure that they will like Army life. When they find that they like Service life, they leave the
  1482
  Territorial Army and join the Regular Army. By this reduction we have deprived ourselves of a good source of recruitment to the regular Army.
  I have always thought that a different form of service should be offered to those on the active list. It ought to be possible to enter the Queen's service for a long period. A man may be hesitant about joining because he does not know what will happen to him when his period of service comes to an end. When the period of service ends the man, according to his capabilities, should be offered similar employment, perhaps in the Civil Service. No one is better trained to look after people than a soldier with the rank of sergeant or above, and suitable employment could be found for him in the Ministry of Social Security or in the Post Office. If a man knew that he would be in the Queen's service until he was 60 years of age he would be helped in making up his mind to join the regular forces.
  As has been pointed out, if Regular forces cannot be obtained voluntarily, then inevitably a Government, in facing up to its responsibilities for protecting the country, are led willy-nilly back to conscription.
  I still keep in touch with the Army and I visited one of our fine units which was training for two and a half years in Benghazi. It was a cavalry regiment with tanks and lights cars and this was a good training ground. It was most unfortunate that, for political reasons, it had to leave. That unit was on its own and part of a colonel's command, and it was extremely efficient. Such a unit serving abroad and on its own provides the finest training and encourages the men within the unit to rely on each other.
  During the Easter Recess I shall be going to the headquarters of our Army of the Rhine for two or three days. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), I was a Territorial soldier, but anyone who has had anything to do with the Army, whether as a Regular or a Territorial, an officer, a warrant officer or an other rank, is worried. Manpower cannot be completely replaced by science and the pushbutton. Ultimately, particularly in peace time, for policing operations it is essential to have men on the ground. This was

  1483
  brought home some years ago when we were required to go into African countries which had just gained their independence to do policing operations. There are many rôles where it is necessary to have men on the ground.
  I hope that the Government will look at their methods of selling a career in the Army, to see whether they have the right career structure to make it attractive. I should like to see the cadres in the T.A. extended to at least 80 so as to get people who might become regular soldiers, and I hope that my party when they occupy the benches opposite will take this step.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogale (Mr. Ramsden), when I suggested that he had connived with the Secretary of State for Defence on the matter of the curtailing of the time, had a somewhat injured look——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a further point of order. May we know through you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, who did come to this arrangement that the time would be curtailed? If it was not the right hon. Gentleman, who was it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was no doubt done through the usual channels and has nothing to do with the Chair.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. James Ramsden: I am sorry that the day has worked out in such a way that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has not managed to catch your eye so far. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  If it were the wish of the House that our debates on the Service Estimates should be conducted differently, even if it were the wish that we should return to all-night sittings, as was the practice at one time, we on this side are at the service of the House. However, as I understand, the arrangements for business are in the hands of the Government. This year, these debates finish at 10 o'clock. Last year, we had a Motion until 10 o'clock and two hours thereafter for a debate on Vote A.
  1484
  Although this has not been a heavily attended debate, it has been a most interesting one. It has been distinguished by several speeches of extremely high quality. I, too, was pleased to find a new member of the speakers' club in our debates on the Army Estimates. I refer to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), and I shall return to his speech presently.
  These debates may be read by or reported to more people than the number who actually hear them and, therefore, it is worth making the point at the outset that, although in these debates we tend to concentrate on the most controversial issues of policy and on issues which are in dispute between the parties for obvious reasons, those who read our debates or hear them reported ought to be in no doubt of the general good will on both sides of the House towards the men and women in the forces, the civilians who look after them, and all who are associated with them. There is general support for them and what they are doing, and it animates all sections of the House. That feeling has been brought out in all the speeches today, whatever their political viewpoint.
  Before coming to some of the more controversial points which have been raised, perhaps I may say how much we enjoyed the Under-Secretary of State's presentation of his Estimates. If I do not comment on all the points that he made, that is not to say that many of them were not of great interest. We were glad to hear that, in some respects anyway, things are going well for the Army and the men and women who serve in it. We were especially glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's account of the way in which equipment is coming forward and the high standard which it has reached.
  We were pleased, too, to hear what he had to say about the housing situation, in which context the hon. Gentleman was able to give a more satisfactory report than any that I remember hearing for some years. I make both those comments with sincerity, notwithstanding the fact that I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends may be entitled to some of the credit for the results achieved in both cases.
  The hon. Member for Rutherglen and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking

  1485
  (Mr. Onslow) raised one point in connection with housing which is important, and it may be that the Under-Secretary will wish to refer to it. Both talked about the difficulties encountered by ex-Service-men in finding houses, when they retire, in the localities of their choice. The Under-Secretary will recognise that, where this difficulty exists, it can be a barrier to successful recruiting. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Defence Departments to contribute as much as they can to the solution of the problem.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary is pursuing the question actively with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and that he and his Department will continue to do everything possible to seek co-operation from the local authorities in the interests of ex-Servicemen's housing. It has always been important, and I am sure that it still is.
  The Under-Secretary of State told us that the Estimates this year were £3 million lower than last year. He admitted that £2½ million of that saving is due to a shortfall in recruiting. In other words, if we had managed to get all the recruits that we needed, the saving would have been less by £2½ million. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman admit that. I made the same point in a debate last week, but it was rebutted by the Minister of Defence for Administration who said that the recruits that his Department hoped to get during the coming year were not allowed for in the Estimates and never had been.
  No one has ever suggested that. The only point that I have tried to make is that, had the recruiting policies of all three Services not failed so signally, had they been able to get in something approaching the number of men that they wanted, they would have had to budget to pay, feed and accommodate them, and the savings would have been less to that extent. I still think that that is a fair point.
  Mr. Boyden: Surely, in that debate, £10 million was given as the figure which should have been included, because we had not got the recruitment. That is why I said £2½ million.
  Mr. Ramsden: I am not prepared to do arithmetic about the full extent of
  1486
  the figure. It could be wiped out whatever saving has hitherto been claimed.
  The hon. Gentleman gave an account of how much training the Army had been able to do in countries overseas. We were glad to hear this. I am sure that, from the point of view of recruitment and any job that the general strategic capability which the Government are planning to maintain, is called upon to do, these overseas exercises are most important.
  They are also extremely important for the volunteer, the TAVR. I thought the figures given of the the number of TAVR exercises which had taken place indicated that they are not getting as large a share of this kind of overseas the assurance that, on grounds of training as they might. If that is wrong, I hope that the Under-Secretary will correct me. But I hope it is not the case and that the hon. Gentleman can give us economy, the training opportunities of TAVR II are in no way being restricted. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is important, if it is to be an adequate reinforcement for B.O.A.R., that it should have the fullest possible opportunity to associate and train with B.A.O.R. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us that assurance.
  I shall say something later on the Army Reserve Bill, to which the Under-Secretary referred. It will be more convenient than dealing with it now.
  I was glad that the hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to the National Army Museum and the fact that building has started. Having, to some extent, been associated with the early stages of the project, I should like to add my tribute to the drive and energy of Sir Gerald Templer and the amount of time that he has devoted to getting this project off the ground. I cannot find the extent of the Government's capital contribution to the building fund in the Estimates. It may be my fault. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will be able to put us right.
  A great deal has been said about recruiting. Speaker after speaker from this side of the House has underlined the seriousness of the situation. It is my belief that my hon. Friends have not exaggerated

  1487
  the extent of the seriousness of the position. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said that it is not simply that the Government will not get an adequate rate of inflow of recruits from civil life, but that there is also great cause for concern about the figures for the rate of wastage, particularly through discharge by purchase. My hon. Friend gave some figures. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the wastage figures are, and will give us a rather fuller explanation of that side of the coin, because it is obviously as important as the other one and we ought to have the full picture.
  The hon. Member for Rutherglen spoke about the uncertainties which hang over the future rôle and size of the Services, which he rightly said, was a factor in discouraging recruiting. I agree that it is a factor, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that it is a factor which had any effect when my right hon. Friends were in charge of recruiting. I say that because the very considerable reductions in the size of the forces which preceded the decision to go on to an all-regular Army were carried out before we embarked on the exercise of recruiting and of training such an Army, and when we embarked on that exercise we sold it on the basis that it would have a worldwide worth-while rôle providing good prospects, stability, and a sense of satisfaction in the job, and we were able to hold to that.
  One of the troubles at the moment is that these factors in the recruiting situation have changed. They are not the only factors, but they are important. It is a fact which has to be faced, and will have to be got over by the recruiting organisation, that the Army's rôle, though certainly every bit as worth-while as it ever was, will be confined to a more limited theatre than it has been in the past. I am sure that this can be got over, but it is a fact which has to be met.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and others referred to pay. The Minister of Defence for Administration admitted last week that pay is a considerable factor in recruiting, but he then introduced what, in present circumstances, I thought was rather a red herring. He said that it would have been unsatisfactory to have made up the pay last April to what it
  1488
  ought to have been on the Grigg principles by the simple method of a percentage increase deriving from a base year 12 years ago. This may be true, but in the circumstances I think that it is a red herring, because my experience has shown that what makes for successful recruiting is a series of efforts all built on the foundation of comparable remuneration for the Serviceman with his counterpart in civil life.
  That has been the basic principle from which all efforts have had to stem. It is the principle of the Grigg formula which has worked over the past few years, and it has shown results. Even when our party had a pay pause, and because of that policy implemented the pay review in two instalments, there was not a severe check to recruiting, and confidence was maintained, because the whole extent of the award was announced at the same time. Everybody knew where they were, and they knew that they would get the second instalment later. This is not what has happened in the way the Government handled Service pay in relation to their prices and incomes policy. It is known by people in the Services that last year's award fell 3 per cent. short and that rates outside have risen since, but how that situation will be met is still not known and will not be known for two or three months.
  When the right hon. Gentleman said, at the time of the announcement of the last award, that the Prices and Incomes Board would be asked to report within 12 months, it never occurred to me for a moment, and I do not think that it occurred to any of my hon. Friends, that it would be asked to report at the end of 12 months. We all thought that it would get on with the job, and, in view of the importance of this, let us know something as soon as possible. The effect of what has happened is that recruiting and efforts to bolster recruiting have been hamstrung for a whole year, or rather more, because of this uncertainty about pay.
  I must say seriously to hon. Members opposite that they have bungled this situation. Their handling of the prices and incomes issue in relation to recruiting has shown incompetence, and it may take a considerable time for the Army to recover from the effects of this, although I certainly hope that it will, because we

  1489
  cannot go on as we are. That is the first point: confidence about pay and the Government's intentions over pay must be restored.
  I am apprehensive about the idea of introducing a new basis for pay at this time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry will keep a very close watch on any bright ideas of the Prices and Incomes Board, because it has had some peculiar ideas about the bases of assessing pay recently in other connections. The concept of the military salary may be all very well, but I can think of nothing which is likely to give rise to more argument than the idea of a salary abated by appropriate deductions in the way of allowances. Although this idea may have merit, if it is to be introduced in connection with this next award, it represents a singularly unfortunate piece of timing.
  Mr. Reynolds: I must make one thing clear. The Prices and Incomes Board is blamed for many things, but I said the other day that, two years ago in the Ministry of Defence, we—the Ministry—began looking at this problem and we were investigating the military salary concept.
  Mr. Ramsden: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's people were doing this investigation, but they were superseded by the Prices and Incomes Board and its activities, and I still do not think that this is necessarily the best possible moment to implement it. The main thing is to get confidence in comparability of pay restored and I hope that this will be done at an early date.
  We heard a little more today about the proposed offer of a three-year engagement. I was interested to hear what the Under-Secretary said, because this is an idea which has been floated before over recruiting. Six or seven years ago, when we were being advised by Sir Eric Hooper, its advisability was rejected by him and, I think, by such military advice as we had at the time. It was considered that the three-year short-service engagement was not the best way to recruit long-service Regular forces.
  I was, therefore, reassured to hear that the number of men to be recruited on this engagement is to be restricted and that these restrictions are to be of an
  1490
  appropriate size as between different corps. This may go some way to meet the objections. The hon. Gentleman can probably confirm that the numbers which it is hoped to recruit under this engagement will not be so large as to undermine the principle that we are still to have a basically long-service Army. Of course, the pay differential, which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham mentioned, is also very important.
  Several hon. Members spoke about the reserves and underlined the fact that the problem caused by deficiencies in Army recruiting is not confined to regular recruiting but extends to the reserves. Anything that we can do to help the Territorials to improve their numbers we will do. The right hon. Gentleman and I were recently associated with the City of London Territorials in an effort to correct the widespread belief in the public mind that there is no more future in the Territorial Army or the voluntary reserve. We should do all we can to correct this false impression and so improve recruiting.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Ramsden: I will not give way. I took too long over my speech the other day. I want to give the Minister ample time in which to reply.
  I wish to approach the subject of the reserves in a non-partisan spirit. This is all the easier because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out, the vicissitudes to which our reserve forces have been subjected during the past four years have led the Government considerably to modify their policies, so that the shape and organisation of the reserves approximates very much more to what we want to see and certainly to what the Territorial Army Council wants to see.
  The right hon. Gentleman has followed the wishes of the Territorial Army as far as he could in getting rid of categories, to which a certain exception has been taken. We can now talk about the "T.A." and know what we mean. In deciding that there should no longer be first-class and second-class Territorials—the two categories originally introduced—all units now have equal status. He has also followed the advice of my hon. Friends in deciding that he needs as wide a geographical spread of drill halls

  1491
  and units as possible if recruiting is to get properly under way and if the training liability is to be more realistic than it was under the original plan.
  Most important, the Government have at last admitted that the reserves are necessary to give us a capability for the expansion of our Armed Forces should that need arise. As a result of the latest announcement, there will now be cadres, and this means that units will serve as a basis for expansion. That is important because the units will exist, there will be officers and N.C.O.s and they will be able to act as a basis for the enlarged forces which my hon. Friends wish to see recruited and trained.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made two further important points: first, that because of what he called the logic of the factor of expansion, it will be necessary, when it comes to expanding the reserves, to incorporate, as was done under the old TA., a higher proportion of teeth arm units than might at first sight seem essential, and secondly, that attention must be given to the problem of equipment because if it is possible to recruit more men, they will have to be equipped, and that will cost money.
  I thought my right hon. Friend right in saying that opportunities for the reservists, to train side by side with the regular Army now that more of the regular Army is at home and to take advantage of the equipment of the regular Army for training should be more easy to provide than they were for the old Territorial Army. As the forces overseas come home, and the plans of the Government for a run-down proceed, I hope that they will husband, safeguard and preserve the surplus equipment which is thrown up as far as they can, not only from the point of view of the Territorial Army and bearing in mind the value that such equipment can have, but also to supplement our war and other contingency reserves upon which economies have had to be made in recent years.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spoke about the purpose of B.A.O.R. I was interested in his speech. Had he been present now, I would be tempted to reply to it at greater length.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Go on.
  Mr. Ramsden: That would make it rather dull for everyone else.
  I accept to some extent the hon. and learned Member's careful analysis of the rôle of the Rhine Army, but I think there is a much simpler answer to why the Rhine Army is where it is. It is that as things are that is the only place for it to be. Under the Government's plans, the Rhine Army is to be the only Army we are left with. Even the plans of the present Government, thank goodness, do not extend to running down the Army to a size below that of the present, and this Army has to be somewhere. There is no room for it in this country, certainly not to train here. So it remains in Europe, and, so far as one can foresee the future, there it will have to remain.
  I have probably covered most of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate. I end by saying that whatever controversial points arise between the two sides of the House in these Service debates we all wish those in the Services to recognise that the thought which is uppermost in the minds of those on both sides of the House is their welfare and successful discharge of the duties they assume in our service and that of the country.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. Boyden rose—
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. Since the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) has denied complicity in curtailing the debate, may we have my hon. Friend's version of events?
  Mr. Boyden: I speak again in this debate by permission of the House. Most of the speeches have been most thoughtful and helpful. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for the pleasant way in which they received my speech, I am grateful for the general tone of the House in discussing these Army Estimates.
  I was about to interrupt the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and to say something like that when he began his peroration, but, leaving his peroration aside, I am most grateful to him for his constructive comments. I shall be glad to see him about the housing problem. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend

  1493
  the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) that there is no proposal to close Incherff. I am sorry that he should have had difficulties over correspondence with the Ministry of Defence and I shall see if we can iron them out.
  I was pleased to hear the remarks of the right hon. Member for Harrogate about TAVR. They were very helpful. Many of the comments made tonight will greatly encourage the Army. We all agree that it is for the good of the country, and we greatly respect the way in which officers and men in the Army are doing their duty.
  There seems to be general agreement that the equipment that the Army has is good. I do not for one minute dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's view that some of the credit for this is due to the Conservative Government, as indeed is the improvement in barracks and in the general housing environment. I give the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) credit for that when he was at the M.P.B.W. However, the emergency housing programme was initiated entirely by the Labour Government. This is one of the reasons why the Army's housing situation is much better than it has been. The recent figures on what the Army delightfully calls the state of family union are better this year than they were last year. Only 2 per cent. of officers and 3·5 per cent. of soldiers have been in the year separated from their families at their duty stations.
  The hon. Member for Woking spoke about the rather nasty procedure that sometimes operates for obtaining possession of Service houses. When this is set against the background of the numbers involved, it is very tiny indeed, although I do not for one moment make any criticism of what the hon. Gentleman said about this. During the past year there were 11,200 removals of Service families and the number of applications made for warrants to obtain possession was only 68. I insist on seeing all warrants for application; I consider them personally.
  I always take, as indeed does the Department, the greatest trouble to ensure that people are dealt with as humanely as possible. Of this 68 only 39 were taken into court, and only four warrants
  1494
  were executed. As the Army is a complete cross-section of life, and as there are a number of cases which are very distressing, this is not so bad. This whole problem is administered with the greatest of humanity.
  What I have just said does not affect the case which the right hon. Member for Harrogate and the hon. Member for Woking made about the need for council houses and for soldiers to be able to return to their home towns. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has stressed that local authorities should give soldiers as much priority as anybody else. Many local authorities do, but hon. Members can be of great assistance to my Department if they will refer to me the case of any local authority which is not being helpful.
  Mr. Onslow: I should like to express my appreciation of the very sympathetic way in which the Under-Secretary handles these matters. Within the past few days I have had occasion to write to him to thank him for his understanding attitude in a very difficult case concerning arrears of rent. This does not alter the fact that there are problems which need to be discussed and on which I should be glad to meet him.
  Mr. Boyden: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The efficiency of the Army is good. The officers and men perform their duty to the country most loyally. Their military morale is very high. We may have discussions about other aspects of morale, but the leadership, whether by commissioned officers or by warrant officers, is very high indeed, as is the efficiency of all concerned in doing their duty when called upon in particularly difficult circumstances, as they sometimes are.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham asked what has happened to Vigilant. It is still very much around and is a very useful anti-tank weapon. To take up the hon. Gentleman's assertion that we have not got enough anti-tank capability, the Chieftain gun, which my hon. Friend mentioned in the defence debate, is the best gun that there is for dealing with armour. The Germans are taking it in their Leopard tank. This is perhaps the most effective weapon of its kind in Europe, including the Russians'. We have three main anti-tank weapons—the

  1495
  Wombat 120 mm. gun, the Vigilant, and the Carl Gustav. The Swingfire long-range anti-tank guided weapon will be coming quite soon, and we are also——
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the cost of this?
  Mr. Boyden: I cannot say without notice. It will cost a lot.
  We are also working on a new heavy anti-tank guided weapon, and new mines which will have, as the Army Department says, great lethality.
  Just as in equipment generally, the present range of weapons is very good, and the range coming in is even better.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) who commented on the cutting of research and development. But the research and development on the next generation of weapons is going ahead very well and their quality will be good.
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Beckenham, asked about officer careers. We have gone to a great deal of trouble to maintain the career prospects of officers, and I would say that they are as good as they have been in the past. The average ages of promotion are: 50 to 60 per cent. of majors promoted to lieutenant-colonel at 42; 42 per cent. of lieutenant-colonels to colonel at 45; 55 to 60 per cent. of colonels to brigadier at 47; and 20 per cent. of brigadiers to major-general between 49 and 50. But we hope to improve the proportion of majors promoted to lieutenant-colonel, and there is accelerated promotion for a number of what are commonly called "flyers".
  I was also asked about the voluntary retirement rates. These are not satisfactory. I have been charged with being complacent. but perhaps that is because of my mild manner. The figures are as follows: 1965, 521; 1966, 474; 1967, 566; 1968, 612. But the first part of 1968 was worse than the second.
  Improvements in the staff college arrangements are being made. The staff college system generally is being reviewed in the Department, and what is in the best interests of an officer's career will come out of this investigation.
  Mr. Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend clear up the point of precisely what proposition
  1496
  has been put to the Defence Department by the University of Essex about student riots and possible military control? What answer has been sent? This is an urgent and important matter.
  Mr. Boyden: I have no knowledge of that.
  Mr. Newens: I raised this question in my speech and asked if it was possible for my hon. Friend to reply. Is he saying that he cannot give a reply if present?
  Mr. Boyden: I have no knowledge of the matter, other than what my hon. Friend said, and I have not been in a position to check up on it. I will write to him.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is not good enough. Can my hon. Friend give us a definite assurance that the Army will not be used in the event of student troubles?
  Mr. Boyden: I think that it is most unlikely, but the House must given me time to check the authenticity of this, to find out what is going on and give a reply at leisure.
  Perhaps I might finish what I was saying about officer careers.
  Mr. Goodhart: Is the Minister aware that my informant on this matter was one of the 375 brigadiers and generals on the strength of the Army at present?
  Mr. Boyden: One of the prospects——
  Mr. Rippon: I do not want to press the hon. Gentleman too hard but surely, with all the support he has in the rear, he should be able to give an answer to the House on what one of his own lion. Friends said is an urgent matter.
  Mr. Boyden: I should be allowed time to look into this. It is a serious matter. I must have time to investigate it. I cannot be expected to give an answer off the cuff.
  The officer career structure is as satisfactory as it was in the past, and a further reason for this, of course, is the success of the short-service commission. As I said earlier, this is going well in conjunction with the C.B.I. scheme and will improve the prospects of the long-term Regular officers. The short-service commission is a satisfactory engagement and recruiting is going well.

  1497
  I was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) about the careers of officers and men as they come out of the Army. The appointment o. Mr. Roberts which was recently announced has been a step in the right direction. He is getting down to the work very hard and all the time arrangements and improvements are being made to the opportunities for resettling both other ranks and officers.
  I will write to my hon. Friend in more detail but the arrangements by which tradesmen in the Army have their courses and their careers recognised by the trade unions are well authenticated and very thorough. Soldiers are encouraged—indeed, everyone in the Army is encouraged—to take examinations. The Army makes it easy as possible for City and Guilds and the Higher National Certificate examinations to be taken. Great attention is given in general to the welfare of men and women leaving the Army and going into industry. Indeed, it would be correct to say that the Army thoroughly recognises the need for two careers—a satisfactory career in the Army and a good one in industry afterwards.
  Universities and other bodies are very helpful to the Army on this matter and resettlement courses have recently been increased in number. They now count towards Government training courses and, generally speaking, a lot of activity and much thought are going into this matter. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on that.
  The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) at least cleared up three things about the Conservative Party. It proposes to have a citizen army—and we know the cost of that.
  Mr. Powell: What is the cost?
  Mr. Boyden: I cannot state it precisely now, but we shall be able to find out. It very much depends, of course, on some of the other items that the right hon. Gentleman put in his programme. There is the industrial base, for example. Perhaps he knows that, in the Estimates, there is £4½ million in Ordnance factories for reserve capacity. Whether he accepts that or goes beyond it I do not
  1498
  know, but from the tone of his speech I think that he has much more grandiose ideas.
  The hon. Member for Ayr paid tribute to the equipment of the Army and made a special plea for not cutting research and development. He also referred to "Op-Mac" in Scotland. I was particularly glad to hear him welcome the employment of infantry on projects of this sort. Indeed, there was general support for the maximum use of the Army in this way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson)——
  Mr. Rippon: Before the hon. Gentleman goes on to another topic, I remind him that he promised me that he would deal at some length with the question of the number of troops who would be left in this country for home defence in the event of war or emergency.
  Mr. Boyden: I will come to that in a moment. I want first to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak. This was his reference to the Loch Coruisk project. I understand that the owner of most of the land involved and of Loch Coruisk was pleased with what the Army did and it seems that most of the objections to the Army activity came from a very small number of people.
  I come now to the point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham concerning the reserves which would be available for home defence. The Household Division is available, along with the men in the depots, in the training organisations and in the workshops, and there are also the cadres which have been referred to. These form a base for ex-Regulars whose reserve service has finished but who can still volunteer in an emergency. A great many people would be available for that sort of emergency. There are regulars from the R.A.F., from the Navy, and there are a great many officers who are not required in the ordinary mobilisation plans but who will also be available.
  Hon. Members: How many?
  Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that all those people will be doing their ordinary jobs in an emergency and are no use whatever as reserves?
  Mr. Boyden: The whole adds up to considerable thousands. The basic concept put forward is that the defence of Britain does not lie in N.A.T.O. It does, and the general organisation of N.A.T.O. is the basic defence of this country. These form a bonus reserve in England in the kinds of circumstances—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Rippon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyden: I will not give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way the right hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Boyden: I have given way many times and I have a list of people to whom I wish to reply.
  The hon. Gentleman was most helpful on the question of the Argylls' petition. The Army Board gave a great deal of thought to the reductions. It considered these in a very calm atmosphere. I think it is to be credited with putting the concern for the whole of the Army over sectional interests. One of the difficulties that arises in the sort of campaign that has been launched on behalf of the Argylls is this: It makes for bad blood in other parts of the Army.
  The protagonists of the Argylls have been attacking the parachute regiment; they have made claims that are, in many cases, unjustified. I have been put in this dilemma: I said originally that to draw up a league of virtues of particular regiments, and to go about it in that way, would cause a great deal of bad blood and would do the Army no good at all. I admit that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr has put his words moderately here, but the way people outside have fomented this trouble makes it very difficult indeed to be fair with the Army as a whole. Assertions have been made about the Argyll and Sutherlands regarding recruitment. They are recruited now into divisions, but the Argyll and Sutherlands, looked at from a number of ways, are not the best recruited regiment in Scotland.
  For example, during the first three months of training during 1968, they had the highest but one wastage of recruits and the highest but one wastage of trained soldiers. They also have the largest number
  1500
  of soldiers under warning, on special report. These are the sorts of things which detract from the recruiting claim.
  Mr. Younger rose—
  Mr. Boyden: I am disinclined to give those figures, but I felt I must give them as there have been repeated assertions of things which are not strictly true.
  The hon. Gentleman has made a great point about soldiers joining a good regiment and not the Army as a whole. We have some rather better, more accurate figures now. They confirm the feeling that we have had. Only 25 per cent. overall—so the figure could be higher in parts of Scotland—come with any firm intention to the recruiting office as to which regiment they shall join. After having had a discussion with the recruiting officer, another 15 per cent. leave the recruiting office knowing what they want to do in the Army.
  The proportions are roughly that 40 per cent. have some firm idea of what they wish to do by the time they leave the recruiting office, although some are not quite so certain, while 60 per cent. join the Army and are prepared to go anywhere they are sent. Other figures recently issued which confirm this general feeling come from the pilot scheme for centralised recruitment. They show that of 618 recruits, 38 per cent., were committed, while 384, 62 per cent. were uncommitted.
  Mr. Rippon rose—
  Mr. Boyden: I will not give way.
  Mr. Rippon: On a point of order. The Minister promised us, in his opening speech, that he would deal with the question of home defence, give us the numbers and tell us how it is organised. Why is the hon. Gentleman refusing to do so?
  Mr. Boyden: I now have an answer to the point raised about Essex University. During 1968 the authorities of Essex University asked the Army at Colchester whether Army premises were available for use as examination halls. It was told "no". No other request for military assistance has been made.
  I was asked about prolongation rates. They were much worse under the Tories than under this Government. In 1964 the

  1501
  six year prolongation was 35 per cent., in 1965 it was 36 per cent., in 1962, 42 per cent. in 1967, 50 per cent. and in the first half of 1968, 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked about absence without leave and desertion. I agree that this is a serious matter, and since I answered a Question in the House, I have asked for the matter to be looked at. Perhaps this is something we might discuss later.
  The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire surprised me by what he said about redundancy. As a general rule, the Ministry deals very sympathetically and carefully with redundancy problems. I have said that I will be pleased to see him about this. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir H. Harrison) said that training overseas, in North Africa, should be encouraged. I thought that he had the idea that training in Libya had been stopped. Both the Territorials and the regular Army train in Libya, and there is every intention that that should continue. There is no idea in my mind that economies will affect that training.
  1502
  I still have some questions to answer, which I might have been able to deal with if I had not been interrupted so much. I will write to the hon. Gentlemen concerned on these matters.
  Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question, That the said number be reduced by 1,000 men, put accordingly and negatived.
  Original Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 210,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

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

  ARMY RESERVE BELL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.1 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Reference was made to the possibility of this legislation in the White Paper of July, 1968, in which we expressed the hope that it might not be necessary to continue; in existence the Army General Reserve At that time, we were carrying out a review of our reserve and general commitments and reluctantly we came to the conclusion that it was necessary to continue the Army General Reserve in being for a further five years.
  Quite a large part of today's debate has been concerned with the reserves. In the main, people have lamented the lack of reserves in the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve. My assumption is that, despite the fact that we are reluctantly bringing this Bill before the House to impose this requirement on certain ex-National Service men for a further five years, there will be little opposition from the official Opposition.
  This legislation will be necessary for the next five years to give us the numbers we require, but, as has been announced, with the expansion in the numbers in the TAVR and the creation of various extra individual posts, mainly on the Medical and Pay Corps side in the TAVR, and the expansion of the Regular Army Reserve, we hope that in five years' time we shall be able to dispense with what is, in effect, the last remnant of conscription which operated effectively from 1938 until it was abolished a few years ago.
  The call-out liability on which we rely for the Army General Reserve is different from that for the TAVR and Class A
  1504
  of the Regular Reserve. Class A and the TAVR are liable for call-out when warlike operations are in preparation or progress, whereas the Army General Reserve is liable for call-out only at times of imminent national danger or great emergency. I give the assurance that there will be absolutely no intention of using members of the Army General Reserve other than for a general war in Europe. If that eventuality should happen—and I believe that with the general N.A.T.O. nuclear and conventional deterrents it is most unlikely to happen—generally speaking, we would expect first to call out Section A and the TAVR and perhaps slightly later—and one cannot be certain how the time scale will go—a number of individuals from the Army General Reserve.
  The reserve legislation covers all three Services. We are proposing to continue it for the next five years only for members of the Army General Reserve. The requirement is no longer there for the other two Services. There are 168,000 in the Army General reserve and it is perhaps a little unusual that, since we admit we require only 15,000, we should ask the House to continue the liability for all. The difficulty is that there is no way of putting into legislation a definition of the many different ranks and trades to reduce the number to those we require. Nor can we today give an exact description of the trades, ranks and classes of people we might require from the Army General Reserve, because within certain limits requirements change from time to time.
  That is one reason why we cannot solve this problem by fixing a later cut off date. All members of the Army General Reserve have a legal liability to inform us of any change of address but only those required to report in an emergency are given travel instructions and warrants and told where to report.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West): How is the figure of 15,000 which the right hon. Gentleman says he wants made up? What is the basis of his calculation?
  Mr. Reynolds: The 15,000 are not in formed units. They are 15,000 people required to fill out the order of battle in regular Army units and TAVR units. A large proportion of them—I am

  1505
  not prepared to give exact numbers for each corps and each part of the Army—are in the medical section. That is why we are increasing the number of Medical Corps posts in the TAVR.
  Hon. Members will realise that in peacetime the Medical Corps is quite small. Its prime job is to look after young fit men, few of whom are in hospital at any one time, and when they are in a military hospital overseas most of them seem to be in there for football and sports injuries. As it is a small corps in peacetime the Medical Corps does not have many regular reservists, because the size of its reserve, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) said, is obviously linked to the size of its regular strength.
  A considerable number of the others are Pay Corps. There again, a similar problem arises. On mobilisation, one does not know how long Servicemen will be in the field. One cannot say, "Do not worry about their pay, it will all be over soon." One has to have the Pay Corps there to do all the pay work.
  Others are in all types of units, but the Medical Corps has the largest numbers. They are all individuals who are required to fill out the units up to a wartime standard. Most of the extra posts we are providing for in the TAVR are not in formed units, but pools of individuals to fill out vacancies in existing units.
  I hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. We have been discussing the Army for the whole of today, and my hon. Friend, in moving the Vote A Estimates, has already talked about the Bill. I have no more to say on it, but I shall be pleased to reply to points which hon. Members may raise, if I catch your eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. James Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many out of the 168,000 had their service extended in 1962 and have already had a rather longer commitment?
  Mr. Reynolds: I cannot say offhand, but I will try to get the figure either now or at a later stage.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. James Ramsden: This side of the House does not dispute the need for the expansion of the Army General Reserve which the Bill provides, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clear up one or two points.
  A similar Bill was last brought forward in 1963 and, in moving the Second Reading, I said that it might be necessary in another five years to ask for an extension of this reserve. I said:
  "… much will depend on the military needs of the time and the House will appreciate that these are not easy to forecast five or 10 years ahead.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 132.]
  Military needs are different from what they were in 1963, because of the Government decision to abandon the home defence element in our reserves. That leads me to ask, first, why it is necessary to retain so many men under this liability and, secondly, of the men retained, why is there a rôle for as many as 15,000.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not easy to find a cut-off point by which some of the 168,000 men could have been relieved of their liability. I am prepared to accept that, although it surprises me. In the 1963 Act we introduced a cut-off point and relieved large numbers of men of their liability.
  I seems surprising that as many as 15,000 men should be needed for the following reason. As far as I can charge my memory, the main rôle of the Army general reservists in 1963 was to bring up to strength those units of the territorial army which had a rôle for civil defence, that is to say, a rôle which no longer exists.
  Without giving figures, which perhaps one should not give and which, anyway, one may not remember accurately, it can be said that in 1963 a large slice of the Territorial Army had a rôle similar to that now given to TAVR II, and went to reinforce Rhine Army. Then there was also the Army Emergency Reserve. Broadly speaking, that did what the present voluntary reserves do.
  When that rôle had been discharged, left behind was the remainder of the Territorial Army with such men as it had been able to recruit in the normal course of its activities, less such men

  1507
  as had had to go to B.A.O.R. Those units required for home defence had to be brought up to strength, and quite a number of men were required to do that. This was why, in 1963, the Army General Reserve had to be retained.
  Obviously, one was concerned to know about all this in detail, and I remember asking whether many of the somewhat aged reservists between 28 and 31 who had been out of the Army for some time would be required for B.A.O.R. as opposed to home defence. I remember being horrified to hear that some would. However, the total number concerned was nothing like 15,000. I assume, therefore, that this 15,000 requirement stems mainly from the failure to recruit to establishment in TAVR II and that, to the extent that this situation can be rectified, we shall not have to rely on these A-my General Reserve men.
  I think that I have made the point. I am not surprised that we need the Act, but I am surprised that we need as many as 15,000. I can only explain it in terms of a failure in TAVR II recruiting.
  When this five-year liability runs out, will the numbers in the Regular Reserve and the long-term Reserve into which all Regular reservists go when they have finished all other forms of reserve liability have built up sufficiently to make it unnecessary to provide anything in the form of an Army General Reserve under this Act? In other words, can we be assured that the Act will not have to be extended again?
  Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say whether his Department has the addresses of all these men? What will be the method of call-up? To what extent is the Department organised for the business of designating these men and calling them up should the need arise? Can it find them? Does it know who they are, where they are, and in what categories they should go?
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Bill has enormous consequences for 15,000 ex-National Servicemen, and I want to protest about its being brought before the House at 10 o'clock at night. This is the Second Reading of an exceedingly important Bill to quite a considerable
  1508
  section of our people. Many of those who are liable to be called up will regard it, as I do, as a mean, miserable little swindle of a Bill, in view of the fact that both parties stated at the last General Election that there would be no more conscription in peacetime. That was the definite statement of our party and of the party opposite at the last election. I do not think that many young people thought that there would be a little instalment of conscription moved by a Labour Government.
  It will be said that there are only 15,000. It depends whether one is in the 15,000. There will be quite a large number of people under the age of 45. Take, for example, a doctor aged 44. He may think that he has finished with the Army for ever. So do other sections of the community who are brought in—teachers, engineers and others who had settled down in life at the age of 44, bringing up a young family, and now find that the clutching hand of the Army has got hold of them again.
  What is the reason? It is because the expensive £3 million recruiting campaign has been a flop. So they are trying to gather into the net young and middle-aged men by a Bill which is to be sneaked in and smuggled through the House so that people do not quite understand what is going on. I believe that these 15,000 people will look to us to protect their interests. Instead of this being an innocuous little Bill, I regard it as scandalous, because it affects a small group of people who are not likely to be able to safeguard themselves.
  The Minister told us that the majority of these people would be in the Medical Corps. Many of the young doctors affected by this Bill are in areas where the public need them. My constituency is short of doctors. Now a young doctor of 43 or 44 is suddenly faced with the fact that conscription has come again.
  I hope that the Bill will be resolutely opposed by those who gave pledges that they were against conscription so that the Government will not be allowed to come along and say, "Only 15,000"—only the people who are not fortunate enough to be in some kind of trade union. The 15,000 are not in one profession. They may be scattered.
  Mr. William Baxter: Is my hon. Friend aware that although this is a figure of 15,000, it applies to 168,000 people, and there is no guarantee that those 168,000 will not be recruited into the forces?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Of course. This is a mystery, and it needs to be elucidated by this House if it is worthy of the name "House of Commons".
  The fact that a few thousand defenceless people are caught up at this stage may not mean an injustice to the 170,000 or so. But an injustice to 15,000 is an injustice to a very considerable section of the community. If it were 1,500, the injustice would be the same. Why is the Bill necessary? Because the recruiting campaign has been a flop. Over £3 million has been spent on beautiful brochures and periodicals to convince young people that there is a nice life in the Army. Because the recruiting campaign has been a flop, and the young generation is too intelligent to be dragged into the Army, the Government are turning to these unfortunate people who are still in the National Service reserve. They will say, "We did our National Service in our time. What about the young people who have not had any National Service?" I hope that they will all tell their Members of Parliament. Gradually, we will be drawn into the whole mesh of conscription, because as this goes on, it can be extended.
  If a young doctor comes along and says that he has more important work to do in his village or town, that he is doing far better work looking after the sick people in a slum area in Glasgow or a sparsely populated agricultural parish in Ayrshire, what will the Government say? When we lift the curtain, this is what we see. I say that these people are far more important in civil life than they would be in the Army of the Rhine.
  What about the police? Many of these reservists are in the police force. Does the Minister say that they are more necessary in the Army of the Rhine than in the streets of Glasgow, or in the crime-ridden areas of the country? The policeman on the beat, who may be doing a very good job, and who is needed far more in our towns and cities than in the Army of the Rhine, will be conscripted
  1510
  and sent to where the Minister says he will not be much wanted anyway.
  Underneath the Minister's plausibility there is a grave national scandal. I hope that the Bill will be carefully examined in Committee. In fact, I hope that it will be rejected on Second Reading.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. George Younger: I question this Measure from a rather different angle. I cannot see how it fits into the Government's defence strategy. As I understand, these reservists will not be called up unless there is a general war.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Oh.
  Mr. Younger: That is what we were told by the Minister.
  We have also been told by the Minister that in his view there is no possibility of a general war lasting for more than a few hours, I think he said. Suppose that one of these 15,000 men, let alone 168,000 men, is called up. It has to be for a general war which we are told will last for only a short time. Who are these people? We are told that they are doctors. I can see that medical people, because of their profession, can do medical work anywhere, but what about people in the Army Pay Corps? They have not served in the forces for six years, and by the time they are called up they may have been out of the Army for seven, eight, or 10 years.
  Anyone who served in the Pay Corps six years ago, and who went back to the Army, would find that everything had changed. All the systems and the forms would be different. Are these reservists, who will receive no training between leaving the Army and being called back in the event of a national emergency lasting for a very short period, to go back without being able to do their work, and without a period of training and familiarisation with the work that they will have to do? This is a rather dubious proposition.
  What about the rest of the 168,000 reservists? We are told that probably none of the teeth arm people among them will be called up. I do not know whether this is true. It is possible that some of them will be called up, and if they are, what use will they be in the modern Army? They have not served in the Army for six years. If they were National

  1511
  Servicemen six years ago, the chances are that they did not use the modern self-loading rifle, but the old-fashioned one. They will be called back for a war lasting three or four days, and they will be presented with a rifle with which they have never trained, and do not know how to fire.
  I am in favour of having some reserves. I spoke earlier about the fact that there were no reserves, but if we are to have them, let: us have reserves which will be of some use. I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what these reservists will be equipped with, and what they will be trained to do during the short war which the Minister of Defence expects. If we can be reassured about that, I shall be happy about supporting the Bill, but if we are not, it seems to me that these 168,000 men will be given bits of paper for four or five years for something which they will never be called upon to do, and if they are they will not be of much use.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. William Baxter: Is not this Bill another reason why the people distrust any Government who bring in an Act of Parliament such as this specifically to put people into the Armed Forces, even though they have already served for a period in the Services? These people are being selected as a special group who have to be put on the reserve list to be recalled at any moment. If the principle is good, why should only one group of the community be conscripted?
  The principle is bad. Therefore the Government have no right to say this to those who have served the Army for some time on the strict understanding that, once their service was completed, they had discharged their liability to the nation. This is an underhanded method of putting them in chains again. It will have a considerable effect upon the image of the Army.
  There is no guarantee that these people will not be conscripted next month or next year, even without a national emergency, despite what the Minister said. Nothing in the Bill says that it will be only in a national emergency. We have been told tonight already of a backlash of people who are not prepared to enter the forces. This may be the thin edge
  1512
  of the wedge to recruit by conscription——
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Member may not be quite clear about this, but these people have a specific commitment which is limited to the fact that they cannot be called out unless there is a general emergency.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
  Mr. Baxter: A commitment is there at the moment, without the Bill to impose conscription upon them. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true and they are under an obligation to come to the colours in a national emergency, why is the Bill needed? It gives the Minister power to conscript them at any time, not just in a national emergency——
  Mr. Younger rose—
  Mrs. Ewing rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, her best plan is to let the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) know by asking to be allowed to do so.
  Mrs. Ewing: I tried to do so. Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has not got it right. At present, they can only be called out, even in a national emergency, if this is extended, but they cannot, either now or in future, except in a state of national emergency.
  Mr. Baxter: If that is so, then it was the hon. Gentleman who misled me, because I thought that the Bill gave the Minister power to conscript anyone who had previously served in the Armed Forces and was now in the reserves——
  Mrs. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman happy or not with any known definition of a national emergency?
  Mr. Baxter: That is my difficulty. It only needs the Minister to say that there is a national emergency. There is a national emergency in their minds when people are not prepared to enter the Armed Forces in the ordinary way. Therefore, the Minister will have the power to conscript those who were previously in the Armed Forces.

  1513
  The Minister said that, in a national emergency, he will take 15,000 men who are probably doctors and pay clerks, but there is nothing here to say that he will not conscript the other 168,000. This is the thin end of the wedge towards conscription and the House should reject it.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: I never thought that I would agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on a military matter, but this time he has something. The sole reason for the Bill is the Government's failure to find any other means of meeting this gap. They have abolished the "Ever-readies", who would have provided 15,000 men, they have reduced the Territorial Army, and they have failed in their recruiting for the Regular forces. So the hon. Member has a point.
  But I want to draw attention to the particular plight of those National Servicemen who had their full-time service extended in consequence of the emergency in Germany in 1962. The House will remember the reasons for that, but there was a calculated reason—that it was not possible to get the Army up to its full target by 1962 and it was known that there would be a trough at that date at the end of full-time National Service. Unfortunately, it coincided with a period of intense tension in Germany and, most relucantly, the House had to insist that the last National Servicemen serving should be caught and have to do an extra six months with the colours. I am surprised that the Minister does not have the figures.
  Mr. Reynolds: Apparently none is included, because the provision covers only those who left full-time service after 1962.
  Mr. Allason: I am delighted to hear that, although I cannot reconcile the right hon. Gentleman's assurance with the comment in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum about those.
  "…who completed their whole-time or part-time service (or equivalent service) after 31st December, 1962…"
  Surely that covers men who were doing their additional National Service, the last of whom left in about January, 1963. They then went on to do part-time service,
  1514
  and that was reduced by six months in consequence of their having done extra time with the Regulars. However, I am delighted for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance and it means that there will be at least one less Amendment to be dealt with in Committee.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Reynolds: With the leave of the House, I will answer the points raised during the debate.
  Like the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) I am under the impression that a certain number of the men to whom he referred would be included in this provision. However, I have checked the matter—I shall check it again between now and the next stage of the Bill, to be certain—and I am informed that the Bill applies only to those who completed their full-time service after December, 1962 and that it may not draw in any of the men to whom the hon. Gentleman referred and who did an extra six months' service.
  Mr. Allason: What about those who did part-time service?
  Mr. Reynolds: I will check on this also, before the Committee stage, to make absolutely sure of the facts.
  I hope that hon. Members will give the Bill a Second Reading, despite the views of my two hon. Friends below the Gangway. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) made great play with the fact that I had said that a large number—indeed, the biggest single number—of people affected were those in the Royal Army Medical Corps. He had the impression that they were all doctors. The vast majority of them are medical and nursing orderlies and all types of other medical technicians.
  This is one reason why it is difficult to try to select a later cut-off point, since only a few of certain grades exist and if we used a different cut-off point we would find that we were cutting into the trades and ranks we want.
  Mr Emrys Hughes: Are not all these medical personnel needed in our hospitals? Is it really necessary to take them from our hospitals and put them in B.A.O.R.?
  Mr. Reynolds: That is so.
  I was asked how the whole arrangement would work. As the Explanatory

  1515
  and Financial Memorandum explains, we need
  "… about eight million civilians in record offices …"
  and this need will continue. It also gives the cost involved.
  To answer the questions that I have been asked about the individuals who are involved, whether medical or other personnel, we try to retain on the list for recall to the colours people who are doing jobs in civilian life similar to those they did when they were doing their national service. Probably a medical assistant during National Service is today serving in the National Health Service. He is now capable of doing a similar job with the R.A.M.C. It is better to have that type of person recalled than somebody who was acting as a medical assistant during his national service but has since been a bricklayer.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is that really so?
  Mr. Reynolds: I am sure that if my hon. Friend needed medical treatment in the circumstances in which these people must work, he would rather be attended to by somebody who had come straight from a hospital than somebody who had been laying bricks for the last few years.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: That makes my position stronger. There are people in civilian hospitals who need the help of trained medical personnel more than those in the Army of the Rhine. Could my right hon. Friend answer the point I made about the police? Are not police needed more in this country than in the Army of the Rhine?
  Mr. Reynolds: I thought that the constituency of my hon. Friend was as free of crime as he believes it is of potential Army recruits.
  I am talking of a situation of imminent danger and grave emergency in Europe which threatens this country. Imagine what would happen if we allowed this reserve to drop and there was a requirement to bring B.A.O.R. and other services up to strength. It would be the duty of the Government to bring in an Order giving them immediate power to call up the numbers required. We believe that it is far better to have people we know we would be likely to require in the Army General Reserve, thus enabling us to
  1516
  keep their records up to date for a further period of five years and to enable us to inform those likely to be required and give them travel instructions, rather than relying at the last minute on emergency legislation.
  In the unlikely event of the situation arising that we shall need these men, we think it better to keep the records up to date and make sure that the reservists are aware of their responsibilities.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Why does my right hon. Friend not approach them on a voluntary basis and see if they are prepared to do this without having to recruit in this way?
  Mr. Reynolds: With the extra posts we are providing, which were announced three months ago, in the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, we are writing to these people to ask them if they would like to join TAVR if their particular rank and trade is required. In July, 1968 we informed the House in the Defence White Paper that we hoped it would not be necessary to continue this legislation. Unfortunately, we have discovered that it is necessary. The present legislation, giving this responsibility to 168,000 men and many thousands of others, expires in June next. We are asking it to be continued for 168,000, for five years.
  The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said that he could not believe that this number was required. Of the 15,000 required, the majority are required for B.A.O.R. Pretty well all are required to fill vacancies in Regular and TAVR units. If we were fully recruited for TAVR and the Regular Army, we would not require anything like so many, but there would not be enough regular reservists because the Regular Reserve is still building up. The Long-term Reserve started only in 1964 and now has 3,000 in it. It is composed of those who have finished their Regular service and Regular Reserve liability. The 3,000 include many who have purchased their discharge from Regular service; they still have this reserve liability. It will build up to 24,000 men by 1978. The reserve for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible is gradually building up, but it will take time to build up to substantial numbers.
  I regret the necessity of bringing the Bill before the House, but we can see no

  1517
  other way of getting our units up to strength in the event of war, or preparation for war, in Europe. We shall see that the Bill is administered as fairly as possible. If hon. Members will put more detailed questions, I will try to answer them.
  Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point I made, what can be done in a short period?
  Mr. Reynolds: I thought that I had answered that. I admit that it is not possible in every case, but by keeping a record of individuals we try to make sure that an individual can, so to speak, keep his hand in in the particular job he has in civilian life as well as having done it in his military service. It does not apply to every case. I admit that straight away.

  Division No. 117.]

  AYES

  [10.42 p.m.

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Forrester, John

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Beaney, Alan

  Freeson, Reginald

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bence, Cyril

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Ogden, Eric

  Bishop, E. S.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hannan, William

  Orbach, Maurice

  Booth, Albert

  Hooley, Frank

  Oswald, Thomas

  Boyden, James

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

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

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hoy, James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

  Hunter, Adam

  Pentland, Norman

  Cant, R. B.

  Hynd, John

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Probert, Arthur

  Coe, Denis

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  Coleman, Donald

  Judd, Frank

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lawson, George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  McBride, Neil

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Dempsey, James

  McCann, John

  Tinn, James

  Dewar, Donald

  MacColl, James

  Urwin, T. W.

  Dobson, Ray

  Doig, Peter

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Varley, Eric C.

  Driberg, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mackie, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

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

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Eadie, Alex

  Matron, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Manuel, Archie

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ellis, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

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

  Millan, Bruce

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Ford, Ben

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Mr. Concannon.

  NOES

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Emrys Hughes and

  Mr. William Baxter.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).
  In so far as it is possible, we try to do that. The others have done full-time service—National Service of varying amounts. They will have jobs to fill in, some of them at home, some overseas. We want to replace them as quickly as we possibly can. I expect the actual requirement of 15,000 to gradually drop over the five-year period as we replace them with either Regular reservists building up now or with TAVR individuals.
  I should be only too pleased to answer further questions in detail during later stages of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will now be given a Second Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 1.

  TRANSPORT (DRUGS AND DRIVING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am glad to b; able to thank you. Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity I have been given to raise what I think is rather an important subject. At the same time, I should point out that I do not wish to sound scare-mongering in any way. I am merely trying to bring to the attention of this House, and particularly of my hon. Friend, something which has already been brought to the attention of Governments and Houses of Parliament in other countries.
  I am not asking for the introduction of a new breathalyser to combat drug-taking; I am not even asking for the introduction of legislation. I am asking my hon. Friend to look into the various points that I shall raise, and I hope, also, that he will have the opportunity at an early stage to bring them to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
  Today, we are living in an increasingly drug-taking society where the number of prescriptions for drugs are increasing every year. From the latest figures which I have before me, in England and Wales, in 1967, family doctors wrote out more than 271 million National Health Service prescriptions for drugs, including over 20 million for sleeping tablets, 16 million for barbiturates, 14 million for tranquillisers, almost 5 million for antidepressants, nearly 5 million for stimulants and appetite suppressants, and over 5 million for antihistamines.
  These are round figures, but they give some indication of the increasing number of drags which can have psychological or psycho-active effects which are being prescribed in the National Health Service.
  I want to draw attention to a problem which which scant attention has been drawn so far in this country. We have had a great deal of concentration over the past two years, particularly since the introduction by the previous Minister of Transport of the 1967 Road Safety
  1520
  Act, of the influence of alcohol on drivers' capability. I want to extend that to talk about the influence of drugs on drivers' capabilities, and I take as my starting point an excellent article in the latest edition of the Automobile Association publication called Drive.
  In this article, done in an exemplary manner by Miss Paulette Pratt, we have a good and comprehensive selection of statistics which I should like to bring to the attention of the House tonight. My interest in this has also been stimulated by one or two leader columns recently, particularly in The Guardian, and by some rather unsatisfactory replies I have received from the Minister to Questions which I have put down.
  According to the survey carried out by Drive—and I congratulate the Automobile Association on the pioneering work that it has done in this field—945 drivers of private cars and commercial vehicles were asked if they had taken pills or medicine of any kind during the 24 hours before the interview. One hundred and forty said that they had. If this 14 per cent. is extended over the motoring population as a whole, we come to the figure of 2 million motorists who, at any time—bearing in mind the size of our motoring population—are driving under the influence of medicines or drugs.
  These figures—particularly the 14 per cent.—are backed up by a recent survey by the Californian State Highway Patrol, in the United States, which produced the very similar figure of 13·2 per cent. We can also have some figures given in a paper read before an international symposium on drug addiction at Brussels by Dr. J. D. J. Havard, of the British Medical Association, in which he points out that various surveys have been made and that in these we find that 10 to 16 per cent. of those examined or questioned had been taking some kind of drugs. But other surveys indicate that only 3 or 4 per cent. were involved. One random survey in the United State of 100 alcoholic patients showed that 38 per cent. had been taking tranquillisers or barbiturates, although only 9 per cent. admitted the fact. So here we have some facts to back up the conclusions drawn in the survey by Drive.
  I stress that tonight I am not only or even particularly talking about the drugs about which we have heard a great deal

  1521
  over the past two years. I am not concerned only with the obvious, drugs that are supposed to be controlled, like heroin, cocaine and even cannabis. I am talking about ordinary everyday medicines and drugs like anti-depressants, antihistamines, amphetamines and the kind of thing that in many cases it is possible for the general practitioner to prescribe, and in even more cases can be bought over the chemist's counter.
  To back up my concern, I would like to quote some figures from a World Health Organisation report, "Psychoactive Drugs and Road Safety", a paper produced before the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. It has some rather revealing figures on the influence of various types of psycho-active drugs on people's psychological and other capabilities.
  On page 9, a section headed "Barbiturates" states that a research team called Smith and Beecher, in their double-blind study on the effects of barbiturates on skilled performances, found that 100 mg. of seco-barbital per 70 kg. of body weight can produce a profound distortion of judgment under certain circumstances. They concluded that this is particularly important in regard to road safety.
  In the section dealing with tranquillisers it is stated that the depressant effects of this group of drugs are reported to be qualitatively different from those of other central nervous system depressants, such as barbiturates. Kornetsky and others compared the effects of chlorpromazine in quantities varying from 100 to 200 mg. and 200 mg of secobarbital and placebo given orally to normal subjects at bed time. Both drugs produced a significant increase in sleeping time and significantly impaired performance of various psychological tests the following morning.
  Even more alarming is the conclusion of the report on what happens if a person taking a sedative happens to combine this with alcohol. For instance, Goldberg, in his study on the effects and after-effects of alcohol, tranquillisers and fatigue on nystagmus, found that moderate doses of alcohol in conjunction with tranquillisers may induce a marked intoxication, while the same dose of alcohol alone might bring about no apparent intoxication.
  1522
  In the section of the report on stimulants we find that, in Australia, Swanton has reported that some inter-State transport drivers have found amphetamine useful, not realising the dangers, and this has been a factor in some traffic accidents. Some drivers confessed that they had been taking up to 500 milligrammes of dexedrin over 48 hours. What I am trying to show is that we have done sufficient research to prove that these drugs have some kind of psycho-active or psychological effects. The difficulty is that it has not been proved, because the research has not been done, that these psychoactive or psychological effects directly affect driving.
  To quote again from Havard's paper:
  "The conclusion to be drawn from the reported surveys is that there is no statistical evidence, as yet, of increased risk of accident involvement among drivers taking drugs. However, many psychological and physiological tests of the effects of drugs on skills resembling driving and on driving performance, including simulators, point to a serious deterioration in those aspects of driving performance which are believed to be important in influencing risk of accident".
  Though we have not yet done the extensive research which I believe is vital and necessary to prove that there is a direct correlation between those taking drugs and their driving performance, we have shown that there is sufficient evidence to be concerned about the numbers of people who take drugs and drive at the same time.
  The Havard paper also says:
  "For these and other reasons it has been said, with some justification, that research on the effects of drugs on driver behaviour is in its infancy and that we are in a position similar to that which existed in the case of alcohol 50 years ago."
  It is even more illuminating when we look at what other countries have done on the basis of the experience and research they have gathered. In Norway, for example, legislation forbids driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or of intoxicating or tranquillising substances.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot advocate legislation on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Huckfield: We find other examples in America, in Texas and Tennessee, for example, where penal codes actually mention tranquillisers and depressants. We have not got to that precise stage of

  1523
  definition, but I want to bring these general examples to my hon. Friend's attention. Again, in other countries, particularly some North American States, one frequently finds newspaper advertisements and television commercials—particularly in Pennsylvania—drawing attention night after night to the rather dangerous consequences that can occur with a combination of drugs and driving.
  A great deal of preliminary research is already being done outside this country, particularly in North America and also by the O.E.C.D. The World Health Organisation report gives the example of Germany, where a study was made of 2,060 traffic participants under the influence of alcohol. When questioned on whether they had taken drugs within the previous 24 hours, 11 per cent. answered affirmatively, so a precise relationship has been established there.
  In France, the Academy of Medicine was requested by the Ministry of Health to study the matter. In New York, the Committee on Public Health of the New York Academy of Medicine recommended that persons should not drive under the influence of drugs such as barbiturates, tranquillisers, and amphetamines in conditions which might induce mental drowsiness or inattention.
  In this country, the Board of Trade also gives a similar warning to airline pilots. One drug company gives a leaflet to doctors prescribing its product instructing them that they should warn patients that some of these products may have effects on driving. Again, we have one or two examples where the manufacturers of antihistamines warn that they should not be used if the patients intend to operate a machine or drive a vehicle.
  General awareness has been shown by the Medical Research Council and the B.M.A. Unfortunately, however, the Dunlop Committee said that consideration of the subject was really outside its terms of reference. Professor Payne, of the Royal College of Surgeons, has said that it could escalate into a serious public health problem. He is doing research into gas liquid chromotography as a means of measuring effects. Professor Beckett, of the Chelsea College of Science and Technology, who did pioneering work at the Mexico Olympics, has started
  1524
  on the problem of measurement, which is the big problem here because, although it is comparatively easy to measure alcohol as part of the blood stream, it is more difficult with drugs.
  We have some preliminary research going on, but it is on a somewhat haphazard basis. I understand that the Road Research Laboratory has started some research into the matter, but it seems to me that the status of that research, particularly as I have been informed by my right hon. Friend in reply to Questions, is not on the basis I would like to see. There is also the whole question of what happens to insurance policies in relation to this matter.
  Finally, I have five basic points. I do not think that there is need to go around scaremongering, or to glorify statistics, because they do not amount to all that much. What is wanted, first, is some tighter medical control over the prescription of psycho-active drugs. That has to be done by the medical profession, because at the moment there is a great deal of difference on what doctors advise their patients. Some will go so far as to ring the Medical Defence Union before prescribing and ask what would be the come-backs from patients if patients were aggrieved. Doctors should far more frequently, as part of prescription practice, advise patients that everyday drugs can be dangerous and lead to accidents or impair a driver's capabilities. More manufacturers should follow the advice of Abbotts, which has already informed doctors and is extending its labelling of product scheme.
  We must do far more research into the medical aspect and into the effect of legislation in other countries. Above all, we should draw the attention of the public on a far wider scale than hitherto, to what can be a growing problem. I submit to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who has just joined him, that what we have to do is to elevate research into this matter to the status which is accorded to it in other countries.
  There is no need for alarm or scare, but we should be concerned. My hon. Friend may think that this does not, as yet, appear to be a significant problem, but I differ. It is becoming a significant problem.
  11.7 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I am sure that the House appreciates the concern for road safety which has led my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) to raise this subject tonight. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced the number of deaths and injuries in road accidents during 1968. There were 6,800 deaths, 89,000 serious injuries and 254,000 slight injuries. Although these figures are the lowest since 1962, they are still appalling. And it is just because we know that we can bring them down—as we have done during each of the last two years—that we must keep on studying the causes of road accidents, and look out for new ways to reduce them still further.
  One reason why I particularly welcome this debate is that the influence of drugs on driving and their effect on road safety has until quite recently received comparatively little attention. The effect of alcohol on a driver has, of course, been studied exhaustively, and our experience following the Road Safety Act has confirmed that alcohol can be a significant cause of accidents. Other drugs are being prescribed and many others, quite legal, are bought privately—quite apart from those taken illegally—on a rapidly increasing scale as new drugs are discovered and as advances in medical knowledge allow us to make more and more use of this method of treatment. We need, therefore, to know whether this also presents a major road safety problem.
  Many different factors can lead to a road accident and, indeed, in most accidents different factors interact. It would be foolish to imagine that every factor which may conceivably contribute towards an accident is equally important, or that all can be remedied. This is a subject in which there is an overwhelming need for a planned approach, so that resources are not dissipated in attempting to deal with those things which receive a lot of publicity but are not responsible for a significant number of accidents, or which are not within our power to correct.
  The first question we must ask ourselves, therefore, is how large a problem is this, and how amenable to treatment is it likely to be. When we have answered these questions we can decide what proportion
  1526
  of our resources should be devoted to tackling it.
  The first question to be answered is how many accidents appear to be due to drugs? This is not an easy subject on which to conduct research. Research into the effect of alcohol on driving is comparatively straightforward because one is concerned with only one substance, because people tend to react similarly when they have consumed a given quantity of it, and because it is comparatively easy to measure its presence in the body. With other drugs we are dealing with a wide range of different substances which have different effects on different people, some of which are much harder to detect and quantify.
  Yet another difficulty is that drugs which affect the central nervous system, which are the ones we are primarily concerned about, are frequently prescribed for people suffering from depression or similar mental conditions which might in themselves affect accident risk, without taking drugs into account. Yet a further difficulty is that experience from overseas is only of limited value.
  Reference was made to a study in California of the number of drivers killed in single-vehicle accidents, who were found to have been taking some form of drug. This information, though interesting, does not give any indication about how many accidents in this country can be attributed to drugs, since the pattern of drug-taking in the United States may be very different from what it is here. This we could only know after supporting studies of the kind which were carried out by the Road Research Laboratory in connection with differing blood-alcohol levels.
  My hon. Friend made a lengthy mention of the study carried out recently on behalf of the Automobile Association. On the basis of this, it was suggested that there might be as many as 2 million drivers on the roads who might be under the influence of drugs. That study was based on the result of a series of interviews in which drivers were asked whether they had been taking any pills or medicines during the previous 24 hours.
  It did not, however, attempt to discover how many of the drivers who answered "Yes" had been taking the kind of drug which might have affected their driving,

  1527
  and how many had been taking some which could be regarded as harmless in this context. Furthermore, the nature of the survey did not allow any indication of how many accidents might be caused by drugs, or the extent to which a driver's accident risk can increase with drugs.
  The figures quoted in the A.A. study are in distinct contrast to the results of a limited pilot study done on this subject by the Road Research Laboratory. The laboratoiy maintains a team of medically qualified research workers who visit hospitals to study the injuries received by victims of road accidents, and the extent to which medical factors contribute towards accidents. One of the aspects of accidents which this team has been studying is drugs. Its work is still at an early stage, so I obviously cannot anticipate the full results. I can say, however, that the preliminary indications are that the number of accidents which can be attributed to drugs is negligible. This work is being pursued, but it seems most unlikely that some of the more extreme estimates will be substantiated.
  But because we have no evidence that this is a major road safety problem, this does not mean that we are sitting back and ignoring it. We recognise that certain drugs can produce drowsiness or otherwise affect driving, particularly if taken with or shortly before alcohol. The 1962 Road Traffic Act makes it an offence to drive while the ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired by alcohol or drugs. "Drugs" is a broad enough definition without going into details of types.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is my hon. Friend aware that the police would prefer to prosecute, in the case of drugs, under the 1967 Act, because the 1962 Act is not sufficiently precise?
  Mr. Brown: I am coming to that.
  Not the least of the objections to introducing more precise legislation about drugs and driving is that many drugs are known by different names, and new types of drugs are continually becoming available. A patient who is given a prescription by his doctor may very well have little or no idea what drug is being prescribed, let alone whether it is likely to affect his driving. In our view, the most promising way of approaching the problem is for the manufacturers who
  1528
  produce the drugs and the doctors who prescribe them to see to it that patients are given due warning of possible side effects.
  For our part, we in the Ministry of Transport are doing what we can to help in this. We are in touch with the Department of Health and Social Security both on the question of the marking of drugs and on the need for doctors to give patients due warning if driving is likely to be affected. I have promised my hon. Friend that I will bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the suggestion that he has made on this point.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of the marking of drugs. I understand that there are already rules which require that containers containing certain types of drug should be marked with the warning "Caution. This may cause drowsiness. If affected do not drive or operate machinery". This covers antihistamines, which are one of the most important groups in this connection. I know this, because I am a regular drug addict, on antihistamines, for the treatment of a nasal condition.
  I understand that it may be possible to extend this sort of arrangement for marking to other drugs: This will be a natural subject for consideration by the expert committees which are to be set up under the Medicines Act. But we understand that this will not be without its problems, not the least of which is that the effect of a drug can vary from patient to patient, depending on the patient's general condition, and whether any other drugs are being prescribed at the same time. Again, I assure my hon. Friend that I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to his concern in this matter.
  With drugs obtainable only on prescription, I am sure that the real need is for the doctor to give the patient a warning at the point at which he makes out the prescription. My hon. Friend and I are at one on this. The Medical Commission for Accident Prevention has recently distributed a very comprehensive code of advice to doctors contained in a booklet, "Medical Aspects of Fitness to drive Vehicles". This, very helpfully, contains a section on drugs and describes which drugs are the most likely to affect driving.

  1529
  In addition, the Dunlop Committee, which advises the Health Ministers on questions relating to drugs and their use, has recently sent a circular to all doctors reminding them to warn patients who are taking drugs which should not be combined with alcohol. We are considering with the Department of Health and Social Security what further advice ought to be issued to doctors to remind them of the problem. For our own part, we are proposing to supplement this with some publicity directed at the patients themselves, urging them to remind their doctors if they drive. This will go part of the way to meet my hon. Friend's point on the education of the public, but I will consider this when I have received the results of the Road Research Laboratory study.
  I would not wish to give the impression that this is a subject on which we know all the answers. It is generally accepted throughout the world that this is a subject on which very little research has been done. In the United Kingdom, the R.R.L. is continuing the work that I
  1530
  have described. On an international level, the subject is to be studied further by a group set up under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The United Kingdom is participating in this, through the British Medical Association, which is also providing the secretariat of the group.
  As I said at the beginning, it is absolutely essential to get this sort of problem into perspective. In a subject like road safety it is vitally necessary to devote our resources where they are likely to repay the greatest return in terms of accidents saved: It would be the height of folly to allow our resources, particularly research resources, to be dissipated uneconomically——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Cervical Cytology Service (Glasgow)
  Cervical Cytology Service (Glasgow)
  Derelict Areas (Clearance Schemes)
  Derelict Areas (Clearance Schemes)
  Crofting Tenure
  Crofting Tenure
  Industrial Development (Nigg Bay)
  Industrial Development (Nigg Bay)
  Blown Timber (Clearance)
  Blown Timber (Clearance)
  General Teaching Council (Review)
  General Teaching Council (Review)
  Murders
  Murders
  Council Houses (Return on Capital Expenditure)
  Council Houses (Return on Capital Expenditure)
  Employment
  Employment
  Sewage (Edinburgh)
  Sewage (Edinburgh)
  Primary Schools (Nursery Provision)
  Primary Schools (Nursery Provision)
  Theft (Non-ferrous Metals)
  Theft (Non-ferrous Metals)
  Transport Services (Highlands and Islands)
  Transport Services (Highlands and Islands)
  Crowther Commission (Scottish Home Rule Proposals)
  Crowther Commission (Scottish Home Rule Proposals)
  Scottish Plan
  Scottish Plan
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Boundary Commission
  Boundary Commission
  New General Hospital, Dumfries
  New General Hospital, Dumfries
  Fire Prevention and Safety
  Fire Prevention and Safety
  Development Area Status (Edinburgh and Leith)
  Development Area Status (Edinburgh and Leith)
  Peel Hospital (Replacement)
  Peel Hospital (Replacement)
  Outer Ring Road, Edinburgh
  Outer Ring Road, Edinburgh
  Special Housing Association, Dundee (Gas and Electric Cookers)
  Special Housing Association, Dundee (Gas and Electric Cookers)
  Comprehensive Development Areas, Glasgow
  Comprehensive Development Areas, Glasgow
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Forestry Commission (Amenity Planting)
  Forestry Commission (Amenity Planting)
  Forestry Commission (Landscape Architect)
  Forestry Commission (Landscape Architect)
  Economic Planning (West Central Scotland)
  Economic Planning (West Central Scotland)
  Social Work Directors
  Social Work Directors
  Forestry Commission (Headquarters)
  Forestry Commission (Headquarters)
  Constitutional Commission
  Constitutional Commission
  Housing
  Housing
  Houses (Improvement Schemes)
  Houses (Improvement Schemes)
  Street Realignment, Rutherglen
  Street Realignment, Rutherglen
  Ambulance Staff (Residential College)
  Ambulance Staff (Residential College)
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Abortion Operations
  Abortion Operations
  Housing Corporation (Schemes)
  Housing Corporation (Schemes)
  Local Government (Report)
  Local Government (Report)
  Egg Producers (Transport Subsidies)
  Egg Producers (Transport Subsidies)
  Multi-Storey Flats
  Multi-Storey Flats
  Tay Road Bridge
  Tay Road Bridge
  Fishing (Hunter Report)
  Fishing (Hunter Report)
  Factory Fire, Glasgow
  Factory Fire, Glasgow
  Scottish Health Services
  Scottish Health Services
  Teachers (Registration)
  Teachers (Registration)
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Farms, Banffshire (Subsidies)
  Farms, Banffshire (Subsidies)
  Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 (Amalgamations)
  Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 (Amalgamations)
  Blown Timber (Clearance)
  Blown Timber (Clearance)
  Gale Damaged Houses (Repair)
  Gale Damaged Houses (Repair)
  Council Houses (Allocation)
  Council Houses (Allocation)
  Police (Scotland) Act, 1967 (Section 39)
  Police (Scotland) Act, 1967 (Section 39)
  Devolution
  Devolution
  University (Inverness)
  University (Inverness)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Man-made Fibres (Report)
  Man-made Fibres (Report)
  Capital Grants (Wales)
  Capital Grants (Wales)
  Anti-Dumping (Representations)
  Anti-Dumping (Representations)
  Bloodstock
  Bloodstock
  Food Imports (Irish Republic)
  Food Imports (Irish Republic)
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Advance Factories (Northern Region)
  Advance Factories (Northern Region)
  Malaysia and Singapore
  Malaysia and Singapore
  Firms (Grants and Loans)
  Firms (Grants and Loans)
  Paris International Floralies
  Paris International Floralies
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Export Goods (Home-made Components)
  Export Goods (Home-made Components)
  Consumer Credit (Report)
  Consumer Credit (Report)
  Wombwell Main Colliery (Closure)
  Wombwell Main Colliery (Closure)
AVIATION
  B.E.A. Aircraft (E.F.T.A. Association)
  B.E.A. Aircraft (E.F.T.A. Association)
  Swedish Wives (Half-price Fares)
  Swedish Wives (Half-price Fares)
  B.O.A.C. (Boeing 707/336s)
  B.O.A.C. (Boeing 707/336s)
  Prestwick Airport
  Prestwick Airport
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foodstuffs (New Substances)
  Foodstuffs (New Substances)
  Salmon
  Salmon
  World Trade
  World Trade
  Agricultural Produce (Guarantees)
  Agricultural Produce (Guarantees)
  Northern Ireland Agricultural Industry
  Northern Ireland Agricultural Industry
TECHNOLOGY
  Concorde Aircraft
  Concorde Aircraft
  Diesel Marine Engines
  Diesel Marine Engines
  Ship Repairing and Building (Safety, Welfare and Health)
  Ship Repairing and Building (Safety, Welfare and Health)
  Trade and Industry (Take-overs and Amalgamations)
  Trade and Industry (Take-overs and Amalgamations)
  Weights and Measures (Metrication)
  Weights and Measures (Metrication)
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Gasholder, Kelvindale
  Gasholder, Kelvindale
  Northern Region (Apprentice Training Grants)
  Northern Region (Apprentice Training Grants)
  Employee Activity Rates
  Employee Activity Rates
  Employment
  Employment
  Vacancies (Interviews)
  Vacancies (Interviews)
  Unemployment Percentages
  Unemployment Percentages
  Training Centres
  Training Centres
  Young Persons (Northern Region)
  Young Persons (Northern Region)
  Disabled Persons (Northern Region)
  Disabled Persons (Northern Region)
  Road Transport Training Centre, Scotland
  Road Transport Training Centre, Scotland
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Aircraft Accident (Rhayader)
  Aircraft Accident (Rhayader)
  Dockyard Workers (Chatham)
  Dockyard Workers (Chatham)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Premises (Licensed Bars)
  School Premises (Licensed Bars)
  Children (Nutrition)
  Children (Nutrition)
  Mushroom Fly
  Mushroom Fly
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Advertising (Scottish Newspapers and Periodicals)
  Government Advertising (Scottish Newspapers and Periodicals)
  District Valuers (Scotland)
  District Valuers (Scotland)
  Petrol Tax (Overseas Visitors)
  Petrol Tax (Overseas Visitors)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Trades Descriptions Act (Prosecutions)
  Trades Descriptions Act (Prosecutions)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  British Steel Corporation Tube Works (Dispute)
  British Steel Corporation Tube Works (Dispute)
  Iron and Steel Act, 1967 (Section 37)
  Iron and Steel Act, 1967 (Section 37)
  Frozen Gas Imports
  Frozen Gas Imports
  Natural Gas Supplies (Carlisle and Cumberland)
  Natural Gas Supplies (Carlisle and Cumberland)
  British Steel Corporation (Organisation)
  British Steel Corporation (Organisation)
COAL
  Coking Coal
  Coking Coal
HOSPITALS
  Broadmoor Special Hospital (Staff)
  Broadmoor Special Hospital (Staff)
TRANSPORT
  Ellingham Lock
  Ellingham Lock
  Transport Act, 1968 (Section 138)
  Transport Act, 1968 (Section 138)
ROADS
  Underground Roads (London)
  Underground Roads (London)
WALES
  Trerhyngyll (Planning Decisions)
  Trerhyngyll (Planning Decisions)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE
The Right Honourable Henry Stephen Wilson, Q.C., Lord Advocate for Scotland, Baron Wilson of Langside, of Broughton in the County of the City of Edinburgh, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shackleton and the Lord Hughes.

POSTAL DELIVERIES: THE TWO-TIER SYSTEM
2.40 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: 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, in view of their statement (Lords Hansard, 11th of February, col. 406) that when mail is delivered by the General Post Office to Havant station, destined for London, the 4d. mail is deliberately sent in the opposite direction to the 5d. mail, they will give instructions that:—

(a) both types of mail, addressed to the same place, will be sent in the same direction and, when possible, at the same time, and

(b) no second-class mail will be subject to deliberate delay and frustration.]

LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am sorry for any misunderstanding about this. There is no question of 4d. mail destined for London following a different route from that of 5d. mail. The vast majority of 4d. letters posted in Havant are sent direct to most of the principal post office distribution centres in the country. Those for London follow the
460
same route as 5d. letters. But when the number of 4d. letters from Havant for some parts of the country is too small to be despatched direct they are sent to Portsmouth for inclusion in despatches from that office. Second-class letters are not delayed unnecessarily: instructions already provide for these to be dealt with when the first-class letters have taken priority.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Do I understand from the reply that when 4d. and 5d. letters are sent to Havant station the 4d. letters do not go in the reverse direction to the 5d. letters, but that they both go up to London together?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I said that they both go the same way to London; they do not go via Portsmouth. The only letters that go via Portsmouth are those to Scotland—the reason is quite simple. There are so few 4d. letters from Havant to Scotland, that when they are sent to the Portsmouth post office they are included in the Portsmouth letters for Scotland and go that way.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this happens to be my own railway station? My letters have in fact been sent to Portsmouth when they have been addressed to London.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am very surprised that the noble Earl has not told me about it before.

GUYANA: BRITISH TROOPS AND MEDICAL AID
LORD SORENSEN: 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 British troops are still stationed in Guyana, and what assistance in medical services they are rendering to Guyana.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the Answer to the noble Lord's Question is that British troops are no longer stationed in Guyana.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I take it, therefore, that the situation in Guyana is now quiet, if not amicable? Would the noble Lord answer the second part of my Question, which he omitted to do, regarding medical services?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that in the light of my Answer the second part of the noble Lord's Question does not apply, unless I have misread the Question. As there are no British troops in Guyana, they can scarcely be rendering any medical services. To answer the first and perhaps more serious part of his supplementary question, the situation in Guyana at the moment from the internal security point of view, is quiet.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both parts of my Question were serious and not humorous? Would he inform me whether the British Government, through any of their Departments, assist financially doctors from this country who are willing to spend some time in assisting medically the people in Guyana?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry, but I had no intention of suggesting that either part of my noble friend's question was facetious or humorous. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that my answer came into that category. The reply to the question about medical assistance other than military medical assistance, to which the initial Question referred, is that the Ministry of Overseas Development have an aid programme to Guyana, which includes assistance in the development of medical facilities in the area.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether there have recently been any threats from Venezuela claiming about a third of Guyana?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, Venezuela has an existing claim to certain parts of Guyana territory, but the question of threats has not arisen.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any truth in a report in the American Press, which I read to-day, that the Amerindian population of Guyana living on the Venezuelan border has now come out in favour of
462
Mr. Burnham's Government, whereas previously they have been suspected siding with Venezuela?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I have not seen the report, and this matter goes rather wide of the original Question, if we get any information of that kind I will bring it to the attention of your Lordships' House.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2.46 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: 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 recent increase in staff of the Highlands and Islands Development Board indicates an increase in their geographical area of operations in the near future.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): No, my Lords. The extra staff are required to cope with the increasing work in the Board's existing area. Before giving further thought to extending the Board's area, my right honourable friend is awaiting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that many areas similar in type and on the periphery of the crofting counties are having great difficulty in attracting new development because of the attractions available from the Highlands and Islands Development Board? Does he not agree that there is a real danger that these areas may become what are known colloquially as "grey" areas?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if we had not been so aware, we should not have made provision in the Act for the possibility of contiguous areas being taken into the jurisdiction of the Board. One must accept that at some point there must be an end to it, otherwise eventually we would reach the English border.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, could the noble Lord say when the Royal Commission on Local Government is likely to report?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, my latest information is that the Report is expected to be available in the early summer.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: But, my Lords, surely there are great differences between the Lowland belt of Scotland which is between the area of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the English Border and what might loosely be described as the Highland areas of Banffshire, Perthshire and the Islands of Bute and Arran. It is these areas which at the moment are suffering as a result of the Board's activities.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, there are many differences in Scotland. The similarity is that everybody wishes to have the best possible treatment. Therefore one can expect that they all want to get the benefits of the Board. I recollect that in the last major Scottish debate the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, rebuked me for regarding the North-Eastern area as being part of the Highlands.

GOVERNMENT SECURITIES
LORD RATHCAVAN: 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 propose to take any action with a view to improving the marketability of British Government securities, the prices of which are now lower than they have ever been in spite of the very high return obtainable from them.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no proposals to make at present.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two supplementary questions? First, would he not agree that it is a bad thing for the country that the gilt-edged market should remain in the doldrums as it is at present, thus damaging our image abroad and leading to much greater cost in relation to any new loans
464
which have to be issued? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware that in some countries, for example in Australia and in South Africa, institutions such as insurance companies are obliged by law to hold a proportion of their assets in Government securities? Might not a scheme of that sort help here? Might it not also be a good plan to exempt all Government securities from capital gains tax? Might not another measure be to sponsor on behalf of the Government an advertising campaign, to draw attention—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I feel that I ought to intervene. The purpose of Question Time is, of course, to elucidate information, but I have a suspicion that the noble Lord is making suggestions to my noble friend. I think he ought to keep his questions to the point and, if possible, in the form of genuine questions.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I thought I was asking a question. My last question was to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether it might not be a good thing for the Government to sponsor an advertising campaign to popularise Government securities among the general public, including the smaller saver.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, that it is a bad thing that this country should be in the economic situation which we inherited from the previous Government.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BESWICK: And, of course, the position of gilt-edged reflects that economic position. Our task is to get the balance of payments right, when there will be repercussions in the gilt-edged market. The noble Lord also asked whether it would be possible to have some alleviation of taxation, and he put forward the very constructive idea of an advertising campaign. I will bring both of those suggestions to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, on the question of an advertising campaign, may

465
I ask what the small saver has done to deserve this threat?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is getting at.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, why encourage people to buy stocks which will continue to go down under this Government?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think it would probably not be a bad idea if there were some campaign to offset the vigorous campaign that one sees in the Press seven days a week, and especially on Sundays, denigrating gilt-edged.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord is being very unfair. This is not denigrating gilt-edged. The state of gilt-edged is a reflection of the confidence that people feel in the Government.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thought I opened up with a statement, which did not attract a lot of support from the Benches opposite, that the state of the gilt-edged market reflects our economic position generally, which we have not as yet put right.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider taking steps to inaugurate a small, cumulative sinking fund for the purchase and drawing of these undated stocks, and so help bolster the price of them over a period of time?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is one of a number of similar proposals which have been made and which I will see are considered by my right honourable friend.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that the suggestions coming from the opposite Benches are in strict contradiction of the policies enunciated in another place by the spokesman on finance, and will inevitably lead to heavy inflation in monetary circulation, which is the bugbear of the Conservative Party in the Lower House?

THE FORD DISPUTE
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Ford dispute.

TECHNOLOGICAL CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE
2.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH rose to call attention to progress in European technological co-operation and to the areas in which further joint projects Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing this Motion to go forward this afternoon. I had been hoping we might have had a debate on Marine Science and Technology and the Sea Bed, but as I think the Government's Report has not yet come out we certainly would not have had time to study it by this afternoon. I regret that there has been a long delay in its publication. The Prime Minister promised in another place that it would be ready by last summer's Recess, but now it comes as a kind of Easter egg a year later. I hope that it is a good egg—it is long overdue—and not infertile. A lot of us who visited the Oceanology Exhibition at Brighton at the end of last month would have been glad to have had then a more precise idea of what had been going on in the various marine establishments and in industry. However, now that the Report is about to be published, I hope that we shall be able to have a debate on it after Easter, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has agreed to take over this Motion.
Since I put down the Motion for discussion to-day, noble Lords will no doubt have seen that an important book has been published, entitled European Advanced Technology—A Programme for Integration by Mr. Christopher Layton. It certainly makes very interesting reading in conjunction with M. ServanSchreiber's The American Challenge. Although it is filled with a wealth of most useful information and is necessary reading for anyone studying the subject, I should however say that, while I agree with a great deal of the book, it has perhaps a certain doctrinaire aspect about

467
it which does not enable me to go the whole way with the author. But I do not want to over-emphasise this point, for I think it is in many ways an admirable and most useful work and I am glad that it has come out so conveniently—and, to me, unexpectedly—in time for our debate.
During the past months, partly in preparation for this afternoon, I have paid visits to Brussels and Germany, to France and Scandinavia. My inquiries have been directed mainly to the subject which we are to discuss to-day. What I have to say first concerns the standing of this country on the Continent, as a result of our Government's attitude to certain European technological projects. I am sorry to have to say what I have to say now, but I am getting it over early. I refer particularly to the Government's doubts about the Concorde, to their withdrawal from the ELDO "B" project and to their decision not to contribute to the CERN giant accelerator. How glad we must all he that the Concorde has now flown successfully, and I know we should all like to congratulate the firms concerned, whose long labours have made this possible, and to wish them good fortune. But if certain members of our own Government had had their way, it might never have flown.
I can only say that as a result of their attitude to these three projects the Government's name on the Continent is not exactly sweet-smelling. Officials with whom I have talked and discussed these matters in France, and in Germany, too, have said that the word of an Englishman can no longer be trusted. The Government's earlier doubts about the Concorde put the project in jeopardy in 1964–65 and made the French very unhappy. But our attitude over ELDO and, perhaps to a lesser extent, over the 300 GeV accelerator have made not only the French in Europe suspicious of our word, but also some of our other partners, too. They cannot understand how, at a time when the British Government were advocating closer co-operation, we should decide partly to withdraw from existing co-operative projects. It is very much a case of the Government not practising what they preach, and I am not surprised that many Europeans are sceptical about our Prime Minister's fine words concern
468
ing a European technological community. They thought that our reasons for withdrawing must be political. Whatever my personal views were—and I told them that of course I could not support our Government in their attitude—I assured my European friends that I understood that the Government's policy in these cases was based purely on economic and financial grounds. But this did not seem to convince them; and what the French, some Germans and some others, too, have said to me privately behind the British Government's back is not reassuring.
When, therefore, I discussed with officials in these countries the possibility of going in for other joint projects, perhaps less costly than the Concorde or ELDO or the giant accelerator, I was asked whether I considered, as a member of the Opposition in Britain, that they would be justified in joining with a British Government whose record in international relations had been so unreliable. We know what the attitude of our EFTA partners was over the import surcharge, and some of our other partners in the two European projects I have mentioned wonder whether, on the basis of the present Government's broken agreements, they would be wise to go in for further joint projects with us in the future. They might agree that ELDO was not the perfect organisation, but if it did not exist they feel that we should none the less have to create something of the kind. Only multi-national co-operation of some sort would justify the very high research and development costs of such projects.
In other spheres—in particular, oceanography, but in many others, too, like electric cars, air and water pollution, and noise abatement: all subjects of very great concern, especially in the more developed countries in the world to-day—I asked whether we might join them. But in view of our Government's past record some European friends hesitated to give an unqualified, "Yes". Indeed, I came away from some of my talks with the impression that even with these more modest, less costly research projects Britain would not make important progress in integrating her efforts with the Continent while the present British Government were in power.
However, having said this, more in sorrow than in anger, and having got it

469
off my chest, I should say that most of the Europeans I met would then add that, despite their present doubts, Britain was in principle a country with which they would wish to co-operate, because they thought we had much to contribute. And in all fairness I admit that certain joint projects with the French look as though they may be successful. I think in particular of the Jaguar strike trainer and the Martel missile, with its television eye. We hope that the Concorde will prove a success, too, as well as the range of helicopters which we are also developing with the French and where they have much to contribute themselves.
What the possibilities are for a multi-role combat aircraft I am not certain. I read in yesterday's Daily Express something to the effect that, with President de Gaulle's backing. M. Dassault, whose company developed the Mirage G fighter, had made a package offer to the Germans on an advanced version of his plane if they dropped the M.R.C.A.; and there is a further reference to this in an article by Mr. Chapman Pincher in the Express to-day. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would comment on these reports. I shall also he interested in anything he can tell us about the state of play in regard to the European air-bus and, of course, the Anglo-German swing-wing plane.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I did not get quite clear what he was asking, and I should like to get it clear so that I can answer it. I missed my Daily Express this morning—a most unusual thing—and I wonder whether the noble Earl could tell me what this story is and to what particular project it refers.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, as I saw it in the Daily Express—I have it here, but I know what they said both yesterday and to-clay—they said yesterday that, with President de Gaulle's backing, M. Dassault, whose company developed the Mirage G fighter, had made a package offer to the Germans of an advanced version of his plane if they dropped out of the multi-role combat aircraft. Then, again, in a very prominent feature article today, also in the Express, it was said that the R.A.F. would probably now he ordering, or might well be ordering, the Mirage G. and that we should not be going ahead with the
470
M.R.C.A. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us something about this.
I am glad, too, that after an initially lukewarm reception the Government seem now to have become enthusiastic supporters of the proposed European Molecular Biology Organisation, EMBO, which I hope will follow the form of CERN. It seems generally accepted that molecular biology as it relates to the secret of life and the way in which inherited characteristics are transmitted—a subject still of considerable interest to a number of your Lordships—promises to be the growth basic science which will take the place held by high energy physics after the Second World War; and I agree with a recent editorial in the New Scientist that this European "centre of excellence" promises incalculable returns—certainly greater than those expected from the CERN accelerator.
But co-operative efforts on the Continent are now proceeding apace in other fields, too—and, I might say, without us. Less glamorous and expensive, perhaps, but none the less important, the Maréchal Committee of the Six, now presided over by M. Aigrain, is at the moment creating seven sub-groups: one in computers; the second in telecommunications; a third in transport; a fourth in pollution, of air and water and by noise; a fifth in oceanography; a sixth in metallurgy and a seventh in meteorology. I understand that this Committee have now agreed that one national centre in each of these fields should be the pilot institute which would co-ordinate and guide the work of all others working in the same fields in the other five countries. There is no question. therefore, of forming new establishments, only of co-ordinating the work of existing ones; and from what I heard recently in Paris, progress is encouraging.
Despite the attitude of some of our Continental friends that Britain may not be a very reliable partner in joint projects of this kind, it is, I hope, still the intention of the Six to let us and the Swedes and a few other countries outside the Six co-operate and play our part in this work. I certainly hope so, for it is in my view a matter of urgency if we are to keep pace with the peed of American developments. Far greater, continuous and consecutive attention to

471
what is being done on the Continent is, I believe, an urgent need. Some organisation—and I hope that we may belong to it—must, I think, work out European priorities and make some assessment of the pay-off in each case.
My noble friend Lord Newton, in the debate in your Lordships' House on the Motion moved by Lord Byers, stressed the dangers of air pollution. I should like to support very strongly what he said. I believe we are reaching a serious and alarming point in the pollution of the earth's atmosphere, and that research in this matter should have a high cooperative priority. Many other countries think so, too. And in regard to water pollution, I was greatly disturbed by the recent Observer report on the incidence of DDT on the fauna in the Baltic. There are a number of other fields in which I consider that increased co-operative research and also development would seem desirable. I have already mentioned electric cars. The French are certainly working on this, as are also the Swedes, who have done useful work on batteries. Then, too, I still wonder whether vertical take-off and landing aircraft should not be developed on a bilateral or multi-national basis, for the research and development costs on this are still very high. I recognise that we in this country have a tremendous achievement to our credit in the VTOL Harrier aircraft, which I hope other NATO countries will be ordering.
In computer applications and programming machines we know, of course, that we in this country have created an important monopoly in International Computers Limited, and I gather that the Germans, too—Siemens and Telefunken—are thinking of merging into a national monopoly there. How far it may be possible for us to get together on computers is a matter of considerable interest. Even if we are ahead of the Germans in some aspects of computer electronics, I still think we should go in with European partners who have a reputation for reliability and decision-making, as well as for reasons of increasing our markets. We should thus both benefit.
I also believe that there are possibilities for joint research in desalting water, in boilers, blowers and membranes. We know that we lead in flash distillation
472
plant, but the Americans are catching up, and I think there is a good case for our having European partners in this field. Flash distillation is not the only method of desalting water, as we know. There are various other methods, using membranes, and also the freezing method. The Atomic Energy Authority is conducting research in these methods, but I still think it would be in our long-term advantage to have European partners, when it comes to the export of plant to Europe and the developing countries overseas. There may also be a good case for applying the same principles in low-temperature research, in semi-conductors, in hydraulics and in solid state physics, as well as in technological agriculture and ecology. Many of these projects might be on an inter-company basis, with or without Government support.
But there are also areas where Government assistance would indubitably be necessary; for example, in economic nuclear-powered container ships, in oceanology, in cosmology and in solar heat applications. In regard to nuclear container ships, I was fortunate last October to be invited by Dr. Stoltenberg, the German Minister for Science, to go on the maiden cruise from Kiel of the "Otto Hahn", which is the German nuclear-powered ore carrier. Although this ship represents, I think, a considerable progress over the United States ship "Savannah", and although our wealthy German friends may feel that they can build this kind of ship, and perhaps a second one, on their own (with, of course, some assistance so far from Euratom), I found that some German industrialists felt that this was an area in which the ship-builders and shipping companies in more than one European country should get together in the future; for there seems little doubt that in ten years or so nuclear container ships carrying meat, say, from Australia and New Zealand to Europe, will certainly prove successful. But research and development costs will continue to be high and I think that we should share them.
Above all, my Lords, I believe that in any joint organisation or consortium it is essential to have a single person in overall charge and that this is particularly true in international collaborative projects. Had my noble friend Lord Caldecote not been obliged to be in America this afternoon, he would, I know, have stressed

473
this point. Too often it is assumed that a committee, properly balanced between the different countries involved, is an adequate substitute for a proper management set-up. But such committees may have disastrous results. It is often said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. It may be a useful beast of burden but it will not win a Derby. I know that my noble friend believes that research activities are an excellent field for technological co-operation; but the principle of single overall control must be applied and Governments must have confidence in management in order to make long-term commitments.
My Lords, co-operative development may be more difficult. ELDO has no doubt suffered because it had no clear commercial objective. We might have hoped that communications satellites would provide this objective, but it has not worked out quite like that. While on the subject of space, may I ask the noble Lord the position in regard to the merging of ESRO and ELDO into one single European Space Authority? We have been advocating this for years now from these Benches in both Houses. I see from an Answer given by the Minister of State in another place on March 5 that the Government have had a series of conversations with the President of ELDO about this matter. I hope that the noble Lord can amplify what Mr. Mallalieu told my honourable friends last week. I wonder whether we should not propose the formation of some kind of European oceanological organisation. This would not, of course, be in the least exclusive, in the sense that it would not preclude full co-operation with other countries in the world. Indeed, if we could bring our own bits and pieces in Europe together I think it would facilitate co-operation with other countries, with or without oceanic seaboards.
The principal troubles in co-operative development are the delays and inefficiencies caused by excessive nationalism. This type of co-operation can be effective only if the Governments concerned believe that co-operation will give the best results for their country. But if, as happens too often now, co-operation is supported in principle simply as a device to strengthen their own country's position in a field, that co-operation is unlikely to be effective in strengthening the European technological base. The fact is
474
that in the absence of determination to overcome the inevitable difficulties of co-operation, commercial success will be virtually impossible to achieve and we shall have to continue with the better, though not ideal, alternative of each country doing the best it can in a fully competitive atmosphere. Here, may I say, for the hearing of possible European partners in the variety of fields that I have been mentioning, that whether in inter-company or intergovernmental efforts there has to be a common will to achieve a useful result. There is no point in lecturing the British on the grounds that they do not "think European" while, at the same time, manœuvring on a nationalistic basis to obtain an advantage over us.
The fact is, my Lords, that if European technological co-operation is to advance very far we must all be honest with ourselves about what our best contributions are likely to be and where the other partner or partners are likely to be better. I say this in no idealistic mood but simply because only in this way are we likely to be able to achieve the lead times and sales techniques equalling those of the United States. It is this that will ensure Western Europe, as a group of neighbours in a small world, a prosperous position in the world markets of the 'seventies and the decades of our children.
Above all, I hope that in certain specific areas inter-company co-operation can be developed perhaps on the model of Internuclear, in which firms in this country, T.N.P.G., and firms in Germany, Belgium and Italy have now joined to build—probably on the Belgian-German frontier—a high-temperature gas reactor based on the E.N.E.A. Dragon at Win-frith. Efficient as I believe our own advanced gas-cooled reactors and the steam-generating heavy water reactor are, the fact remains that we have not been conspicuously succesful in selling these types abroad; and this sometimes makes me wonder whether in the case of the fast breeder reactor, too, we should not also have European partners. We know that, although our potential partners are not as far ahead as we are in this field, the Germans and the French one also spending very considerable sums on fast breeder development and there must surely be advantages in our combining our efforts, perhaps by agreeing to let our

475
own fast breeder prototype at Dounreay become a European reactor. I feel that our prospects of selling new types of reactor in other European countries would be very much more promising if we did so. We have heard a lot of talk of Europeanising Capenhurst. I should be interested to hear the Government's views on Europeanising Dounreay, too.
In connection with nuclear consortia, I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell the position regarding the AngloGerman-Dutch gas centrifuge project. The Times reports that agreement was reached yesterday to build three centrifuge plants in Britain and the Netherlands; although the previous day it was reported elsewhere that these negotiations were running into troubles. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us what is the latest situation, particularly in relation to the ratification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
My Lords, while in no way disparaging co-operation with North America, and indeed the U.S.S.R., on some of these subjects—on the contrary, in some cases, such as pollution, I think this is highly desirable—I feel that there is a strong case for closer ties with Continental European countries in certain research and development projects. That is why I set down this Motion this afternoon, and I hope that the Government will agree that, even if we cannot achieve the kind of overall political solution which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has advocated, and may well advocate again to-day, some further down-to-earth co-operative possibilities are worth pursuing actively. Individual countries of Western Europe are so accustomed to thinking in terms of their own possible achievements in isolation that they seem to fail to realise the probable requirements of Western Europe as a whole within the next decade. The Americans do not make this mistake.
In other words, if Europe, with Britain, is to remain among the foremost areas in the world it must appreciate the potential size of its market. Firms like Shell, I.C.I. and Unilever are already thinking in this way; but there are very few of them. A factor which should be emphasised here is the probable growth of European populations. We get so accustomed to marvelling at the expansion of the giant populations of China,
476
India, Brazil, and so on, that we forget the size of the natural increase in Western Europe and what this means unless standards of living are to be allowed to deteriorate, something which is politically inconceivable. Three great blocs have emerged in the world: in North America, the Soviet Union and China. In view of the way in which these great Powers are separately integrating their research and development effort, surely all those neighbouring countries in Europe, geographically so close to one another, should coordinate their activities, too. I am not advocating the setting up of a Fourth Force in the world, but the creating of circumstances in which it will be easier for Western Europe as a whole, and certain friendly countries overseas, in the Commonwealth and Japan, to co-operate in these fields with other zones. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, first of all I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, most sincerely on his initiative in raising this great subject to-day and thus permitting the intervention of the many acknowledged experts on the subject that we observe in our list of speakers. Having said that, my Lords, I should hastily add that I think I am literally the only one with no expert or detailed knowledge of any of the great problems involved in what is known as advanced technology, or even any detailed or expert knowledge of the multifarious organisations concerned. I must even confess to having certain doubts about the general direction in which we are now all being led by the scientists.
My Lords, shall we really be better off or happier when we are hurled about the world at supersonic speeds; when everybody can see and hear what is happening at any moment of time in any corner of the globe; when all our factories are automated; when, thanks to computers, we no longer have to read or write; when there is no more countryside; when our roads will be impassable; when we can all live to be about 200 by buying other people's organs; when babies are produced in test tubes; when romantic love between the sexes is regarded as a sort of infantile disorder and when we can spend days or months in hopeless and encapsulated boredom on our way to

477
the uninhabitable planets or even to the dreadful, desolate moon? I must say, my Lords, that I doubt it.
But still, if that is to be our fate we cannot do much to prevent it. It is something which is, apparently, inherent in our modern type of society. We might, I suppose, in so far as we British are concerned, desperately try to avoid it by breaking up all the machines and becoming a nation of Luddites. But that might be even worse. The thought of the British in the year 2100 or so becoming something like the Navajo Indians, practising their curious old customs in native reserves and gazed at from their helicopters by rich tourists from overseas, is hardly encouraging. Yet, my Lords, exaggeration apart, this is something that could begin to happen by the end of this century if we do not look out.
There is, after all, no lack of evidence to this effect in the papers which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has so kindly circulated and which, with all my ignorance, I have clone my best to absorb. According to the authoritative Report of what is called the Business and Industry Advisory Committee of O.E.C.D., unless a successful effort is made shortly to co-ordinate and streamline European production in the sphere of advanced technology generally the Western European countries will, over the next ten years, lose orders of something like £10,000 million, and quite possibly more. It is thus indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion so dramaticaly brought out, as we all know, in M. jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber's recent book, that by about 1976—and that is not very far away—they will be completely at the mercy of the United States of America. Unless indeed the various national industries in Europe combine, the Western European countries simply will not have the means—this is what M. Servan-Schreiber brings out—with which to finance the essential research and development, if they are to compete with the industries of the super Powers (and Russia may be in that category by that time) which will by then be able to produce the latest models that the Europeans will be forced to buy. Even if these are produced in Europe under licence the situation, as I understand it, will be little better since the real know-how and the capable management will, naturally, remain on the other side of
478
the ocean. Under any showing therefore Europe would be hound to be in the second rank, if that, and the disparity would be bound to get worse as time goes on.
Even now the Japanese, so I read, are on their way to entering what is called the "post-industrial" phase. The danger, therefore, is that the Europeans, provided that they really cannot unite, will not only not reach this phase, but may even one day replace the so-called underdeveloped countries as the hewers of wood and drawers of water. But it is not only to avoid this fate or even, as it were, to "keep up with the Joneses" that I should like to join what I hope will be the great chorus to-day urging the Governments concerned, or as many of them as will, to come forward with real plans for ending what is an absurd and indeed, as I think, a suicidal state of affairs. For it must surely now be evident that the creation of some kind of political entity in Western Europe is the surest, and perhaps the only way, to achieve a real détente and end the dangerous confrontation of two super Powers on the Elbe.
In the Soviet-American dialogue which may well now be impending, the possible creation of such a body as this would seem to be the only feasible means, of achieving not so much the reunification of Germany (what exactly is "Germany" after all?) as tolerable relations between the Western Germans, successfully embodied in some greater whole, and their Eastern brothers who would still be, as it were, in special relationship with the Soviet Union. By such means as these the two super Powers might come to some kind of enduring relationship which they might in any case be induced to achieve owing to their common distrust of China. If, on the other hand, Western Europe remains weak and divided, it is not clear how the Americans could ever contemplate taking the risk of any withdrawal of their armed forces. I am sorry for the apparent digression, my Lords, but I thought it very material to the case a am putting forward.
We might even reflect also on another point, that there are perhaps certain enduring civilised traditions in our old Continent which, if we came together, could with advantage be maintained for the purpose of, as it were, mitigating the

479
full rigours of the technological revolution to which I referred at the beginning of my speech.
So, my Lords, what is needed to achieve greater unity in the, after all, highly important, perhaps even vitally important, technological sphere? The answer in general terms is obvious. We have only to read our papers. Thus Mr. Robert Maxwell in his, as I think, wholly admirable report to the Council of Europe last September, after recalling the chief weaknesses of the present system, which we all know about—too many organisations achieving too little; no possibility of adjusting the total output according to objectives or priorities; no machinery to bring the private sector into play—put forward the possible solution of what he calls a "high level European Council" dealing with all existing organisations and then came up to his final conclusion, which I venture to quote. What he says is this:
"In the last analysis, only a surrender of some sovereignty can possibly get over this inherently great difficulty of Europe, which leads to endless delays and passing up of real technological opportunities. The better the organisational structure, the more smoothly the Council functions and the readier States will be to give up their sovereignty to it and without some such surrender it is impossible to carry out any work. Without some such surrender of sovereignty—which I express as not requiring unanimity in the Council—progress is impossible."
Well, my Lords, if you work that out, you will see that if unanimity is not required, what Mr. Maxwell is suggesting in fact is weighted voting. It is that, therefore, that he regards as absolutely essential if any progress is to be made.
It seems to me that nobody who has read this report with attention, nor anybody who has read the recent work of Mr. Christopher Layton—who we all hope will soon be a Liberal Member of Parliament—can come to any other conclusion than that Europe cannot make efficient use of its resources unless it develops Community-style institutions. Nobody, in other words, can possibly doubt that what is absolutely necessary, and necessary now, is some form of weighted majority voting in at any rate some technological spheres and in certain existing organisations. It is also evident that even in advance of such a decision on weighted majority voting in certain spheres, real
480
progress could be made by the general adoption of the device (for it is a device) of an Independent Commission, not necessarily with any powers of its own but composed of persons owing no allegiance to any one Government. That is the point.
In his second presentation at Strasbourg last January, Mr. Maxwell said:
"The only way to make real progress in European space matters will probably be, to begin with, by the setting up by the Ministers of a European Space Commission consisting of experts, nominated by the Ministers themselves, preferably by some form of qualified vote, who would not receive any instructions, but, on the contrary, would be under an obligation to consider all problems referred to them by the Ministers from the point of view of Europe as a whole. Eventually the Ministers themselves will have to adopt a qualified majority voting system in any case, but the first step in this direction would be the promotion of a European Commission on the lines I have suggested."
Some may criticise Mr. Maxwell, but nobody has ever accused him of being a starry-eyed visionary, and, indeed, he expressly disclaimed any such qualification in his speech. But if he supports this idea of a Commission, I cannot see why Governments should apparently think that it is an impracticable proposal. Yet your Lordships will see, if you consult the Record of our debate on March 4 on the situation arising from the "Soames Affair", that when I asked the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whether he thought that he could make substantial progress towards integration in fields outside the Community Treaties of Rome and Paris without the introduction of techniques such as weighted majority voting, he replied:
"Yes, I believe that progress can be made and I believe that it is already being made. It is made in the steps which we have taken in the W.E.U."
It seems to me, and I hope that it will seem to your Lordships, that in adopting this attitude the Government are not only flying in the face of all really expert opinion; worse still, they seem—and I say only "seem"—to be deliberately throwing away the real chance which they still have of breaking with our sad, nationalist or Gaullist past and taking the lead with proposals which, if put forward by them, might at long last result in the formation of a genuine European Community. Such proposals might of course be put forward in the

481
W.E.U., though, as we all know, no decision can be taken by that body without unanimous consent. Or they might conceivably be floated in diplomatic circles. But the obvious place, surely, to try them out would now seem to be in the so-called Monnet Committee, the "Action Committee for a United States of Europe".
In the communiqué which was published this morning, the second section reads as follows:
"Following the same method, the Committee intends to draw up proposals concerning political integration, including defence, which is indispensable for the completion of European unity. It will submit these proposals to the Governments."
Our representatives on that Committee include Mr. Walter Padley, Mr. George Brown and Mr. Michael Stewart, the Foreign Secretary himself. So now I imagine that the Government, if they will, have an opportunity of putting forward really constructive and far-reaching proposals in this forum and then seeing that they are adopted by everybody, except, presumably, the Gaullists. The great thing is that the Government should not take the line which I am afraid they have taken until now, that "We will agree with anything that all the others agree to but will actively come out with some ideas of their own.
Once again, therefore, I urge them to reconsider their present rather negative policy. Once again I suggest that they, and also the official opposition in which, alas!, the Gaullist infection appears to be rapidly spreading, should associate themselves with what I firmly believe are the forces of the future. This great issue, as we all know, cuts clean across normal Party allegiances. So let all those who believe in a European Community rather than in a Europe of States now stand up and be counted. If they do, we might have some chance of progressing with European technology generally. But for so long as they do not, however good the intentions of Governments may be, little or no progress will be made.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY DISPUTE
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in another place on the present situation in the Ford dispute. Noble Lords have probably also had an opportunity to study my right honourable friend's Statement in another place on Monday. To-day's Statement is as follows:
"Since I reported to the House on Monday, talks with representatives of the unions and of the Ford management have continued at my .Department.
"In these discussions the unions represented unanimously to the Company that the continuing possibility of legal action against the T. & G. W. U. and the A.E.F. was an obstacle to a return to normal industrial negotiation. In view of this, the company yesterday gave an assurance that they would not pursue further legal action and so instructed their legal advisers.
"In the subsequent talks the unions put forward yesterday—I understand by a majority decision—the following demands as prior conditions for a resumption of work;

(1) Implementation of the pay increases and related provisions of the package deal but with the dropping of the so-called penalty clauses;

(2) Withdrawal of a provision in the package deal that the unions should give 21 days' notice of constitutional strike action;

(3) An indication that the Company would improve the pity increases provided in the package deal following a return to work.

"The unions also indicated that in the subsequent negotiations they would wish to query certain points in the provisions of the package deal setting out guide lines for the introduction of productivity improvements.
"For its part, the company has taken the line that it is prepared to re-negotiate the package deal but only within

483
the agreed negotiating machinery following resumption of work. It has pointed out that, since the package deal negotiated last month has been implemented from March 1 at the request of the majority of the trade union side of the National Joint Negotiating Committee, some 7,000 Ford employees who are still at work are already enjoying its benefits. The company therefore proposed that resumption of work should take place on the basis of the new deal on the clear understanding that the company would immediately negotiate with the unions the substitution of alternative provisions for any clauses not found acceptable. Alternatively, the company was prepared to revert to the previous agreement reached in 1967 as a basis for resumption of work and enter into immediate negotiations for the production of an entirely new package deal. This morning the trade unions rejected these proposals from the company, again I understand by a majority, and the talks have therefore broken down.
"The House will I am sure share my profound regret at this outcome and my deep concern at the continuing serious loss of production and exports. My Department will, of course, continue to keep in close touch with both sides and will be ready to help at any time when this seems possible."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. I certainly do not wish to say anything that would in any way exacerbate what I feel all of us believe to be a deplorable situation. It is deplorable in terms of lost production and in the forced idleness of many workers who, I am convinced, would be only too glad to return to work. It is deplorable in terms of lost exports at a critical period in our attempted climb back to economic recovery. It is deplorable also in the light of the possible threat of lost investment in this country in a very important sector of our economy. I must say that I deeply regret to have this confirmation, that what would appear to be a very reasonable offer on the part of the company has been rejected, albeit by a majority vote.
484
I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. First, is there not a case, in the light of this deplorable situation, for the Government's introducing rather earlier than their present programme would appear to allow the trade union legislation which they have in mind? Secondly, do not these deplorable events reinforce the case for making contractual agreements voluntarily arrived at between management and the trade union side legally enforceable?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, this is indeed a depressing Statement on a very depressing situation. I would express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will not remain inactive in this situation, and that they could perhaps put their emphasis on persuading the unions that it is in their own long-term interests to honour the present agreement, to return to work, and immediately to start new negotiations, as the company has suggested, for a new deal. Can it be put to the unions that if there is no intention to honour this present agreement, but merely a desire to try to pick out the best parts of it, no management could ever agree to negotiate a new agreement, which might suffer the same fate? I put this forward as a possible suggestion. I hope that we shall not have any inactivity here. I realise the tremendous job that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has, but I am sure that if she could have one more go at the unions on these lines we might get some results.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate noble Lords' not pressing me hard at this moment. Clearly, in a matter as delicate as this the less I say, not being the Minister actually in charge of this situation, the better. I agree almost wholly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, except in relation to his latter remarks. Next Tuesday we are to debate the Government's White Paper, In Place of Strife. In relation to the making of binding bargains, there was nothing in this particular instance, which is not an agreement entered into with an employers' association, to prevent the parties, if both sides had agreed to do so, from making the agreement legally binding. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was on to an important

485
point. Although I must not quote what Mr. George Brown said in another place, noble Lords will know what he said, and they will know that my right honourable friend entirely agreed with him that progress in the improvement of industrial relations must depend on the honouring of agreements that have been entered into.
I would say that my right honourable friend is showing her usual tremendous energy, and her officials are hard at work in this delicate business of attempting a conciliation. Therefore I will not say any more, other than that I think the House is quite right, as indeed is the country, to look with alarm and anxiety at this very dangerous situation.

TECHNOLOGICAL CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE
3.48 p.m.
Debate Resumed.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, to return to the question of technological progress in Europe, we have listened to two interesting opening speeches, one which dealt almost exclusively with the technical technological aspects of European co-operation, and the other, from the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, which dealt more with the political framework within which this technological progress might take place. I would say at once that I do not propose to take up all the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. His speech was characteristically detailed and comprehensive and he brought up a great many points about joint projects in technological matters. I should like to take up some of the more important points, and to leave the others to when I come to wind up the debate (if I may do so with the leave of the House), and to weave the whole thing together into some kind of pattern.
So far as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is concerned, I thought that he painted a rather gloomy picture of the future of the world in the dread grip of the scientists. It sounded to me rather like one of those Peter Simple columns in the Daily Telegraph. But he went on to disclaim any intention to be a Luddite in these matters, and so I acquit him of the worst suspicions that I entertained
486
when he started to speak. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, of course, about the doubtful future that we must have in Europe if we cannot do some of the things that he and the noble Earl outlined. I agree with him, too, that if we are to have a strong Europe, technologically, economically and politically, it is necessary to accept that we must all be prepared to give up some of our sovereignty. There is no doubt in my mind that if we are to move forward in the international field, whether in Europe or in broader international fields, we must at this stage in our political development be prepared to accept that the nation State is not the final element in the political structure, and we must be prepared to see our national sovereignty eroded in the cause of international co-operation.
When we consider the European scene, particularly, as we are invited by the noble Earl to do to-day, one of the most important factors we much consider, I think, is one that he has mentioned: that we live to-day in a world in which super-Power blocs are predominant. He mentioned the three that most people would identify as being those in which most of the great political decisions of the world are taken. Certainly such decisions are taken now in the United States and the Soviet Union, and I agree with his implication that quite soon they may be taken also in the People's Republic of China, which I believe will be a super-Power before many people are prepared to accept. In practically every field of activity, political, military, economic, technological, those super-Powers now predominate, and this seems to me to be the real case for the strengthening of Europe. It is not only a question of creating a single market; it is also a question of building a Europe that is united and integrated in all fields, especially perhaps the political one. Here I go a long way with a number of things that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has said, although, as he will know, not all the way.
We regard the enlargement of the present Communities in Europe as being the best basis for this kind of integration, but as practically everyone who can read will know, there is a veto on the enlargement of those Communities. We are concerned, naturally, that while that pathway is blocked the whole of Europe should

487
not be paralysed, and we are determined that it should not be. We have therefore been looking for other ways of moving forward, not only in the political field but in military matters. and also in the field that we are specifically considering to-day, the field of technology. I am therefore grateful, as I am sure all your Lordships are, to the noble Earl for bringing this matter forward for us to look at, albeit briefly, to-day.
Perhaps I may, in a very few minutes, recapitulate the political story that has brought us to where we are to-day. After the French veto to which I referred, of December, 1967, a series of proposals were drawn up by the Ministers of the Benelux countries, and these were formally presented to the other members of the European Community and to the four applicant countries in January, 1968. One of the provisions of the proposals was that joint action should be undertaken in fields not covered by the Community Treaties—that is to say, by the Treaties of Rome and of Paris—and the number of people to participate in these joint activities would of course vary according to the project. One of the fields of projects specifically mentioned was that of technology.
The then Foreign Secretary announced our acceptance of these proposals, which would have allowed us to go forward in technological and other co-operation, at a meeting of the Western European Union in January, 1968. In February, 1968, the Italian Government played its part in this process by circulating a memorandum, of which we were given a copy; and although it was similar in a number of aspects to the Benelux proposals, it gave prominence to, and isolated, a number of these proposals. At the next meeting of the Western European Union, which took place in Rome in October, the Belgian Government made its contribution, when Monsieur Harmel took up one of the themes of the Benelux proposals. He put forward suggestions for co-operating in fields not covered by the Community, and specifically he proposed co-operation and consultation in the fields of foreign policy and defence. But he mentioned—and this was discussed at some length at the meeting which I attended in Rome—the very clear possibility that other areas, monetary policy and technology, might be added at a later date.
488
So, as a result of that and of a meeting which took place in the margin of NATO a little later, and at which the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was present, it was agreed that a draft paper should be produced at W.E.U., in Luxembourg, in 1969. At that meeting six delegations of the Western European Union—that is to say, all the countries present except the French—agreed to consult on important matters of foreign policy before taking decisions in that field. The possibility of consulting on other matters, including technology, was left open for later discussion. So that is where we stand at the moment. We are going forward inside the Western European Union with an obligation to consult on matters of foreign policy, and the field is left open for consultation of a similar kind to take place in that forum on technological matters.
In the meantime, of course, as the noble Earl has mentioned, there are already two important projects going on inside the Common Market, to which I think we have every hope of being invited to accede, or at least to take part in. The first is what used to be called the Marechal Group—now, as we have been told, called the Aigrain Group, because Monsieur Aigrain has taken over its chairmanship from Monsieur Marechal. This was a Group which was set up in 1965 with terms of reference to:
"investigate the problems connected with working out a co-ordinated or common policy in the field of Scientific and Technical Re search, and to propose measures for putting such a policy into effect".
This Working Group produced a report in September, 1967, and as a result the Council of the Common Market adopted a resolution, now sometimes known as the Luxembourg Resolution, which set out a programme of investigations into this field of technology.
The Marechal Group, or Aigrain Group as it now is, took those up until 1968, when the Dutch Government, as part of its programme of insisting that the applicant countries, including the United Kingdom, should be brought into these deliberations, held up the work of the Marechal Group—in fact, virtually brought it to a standstill. The Group has now resumed work and, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has said, there is a possibility that we may be invited to participate in it. As I think he will know, our position is that we should be prepared to

489
consider taking part in the work of this Group if we received an invitation from the Six as a whole to do so, but only on a basis of complete equality, and not with any kind of second-class membership.
The second project that I referred to is in the field of international patents. The Member States of the E.E.C., the Common Market, approved at their meeting in March a draft memorandum which was to be sent to certain non-Member States in Europe, including ourselves, inviting them to participate in negotiating a European Patent Convention. This may not sound anything very dramatic or spectacular, but I am sure noble Lords will realise that of course it is an extremely crucial matter to be solved if we are ever going to move forward to anything like a European company, certainly any European company of a highly advanced technological type. Our position on that remains that we naturally want to see any positive move made towards harmonising patents, and we are now looking forward to receiving an invitation from the Six to take part in negotiating a Convention on European Patent, which I think will be (although, as I say, it does not sound very dramatic) a fairly important step forward. But I must say again that we want to take part as a full and equal member. We are ready to take part in any preliminary discussions that the Common Market countries may propose to that end.
Whatever may become of these invitations and of the other activities I have outlined, it is essential (and here I agree entirely with the two noble Lords who have spoken already) that co-operation in Europe should be strengthened, especially in the industrial sphere. Both the noble Lords who spoke earlier mentioned the book by M. Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, called The American Challenge, and as a result of that and of other publicity given to the American technological invasion of Europe it has been suggested that Europe is virtually being colonised by the big United States corporations. I think this is an over-simplified picture, and indeed there are fields in which the United States investment works to the advantage of Europe. I do not think one ought to be too black and white about this, but certainly I agree that there are disturbing implications, and the wide differences—which are growing differences—in some sectors of
490
technological capability between Europe and the United States are a matter of real concern.
It is not so much the fact that knowledge and expertise are lacking in Europe; it is not a lack of inventiveness. Indeed in many advanced technological fields I think we can claim that in this country, certainly, and in Europe as a whole, we are at least as inventive, and in some cases more so, as the Americans. What we really lack is the capacity to develop these inventions and to produce and market them quickly enough to meet the United States competition. That is the difference. I believe it is not, as it is often called, a technological gap that exists between us so much as a management gap, or the means of producing and marketing highly advanced technological equipment after the basic research has ended. The basic reason for this is that we lack a large enough market. The United States bases its advanced technological industries on a market of over 200 million. We cannot, because we are not yet integrated.
Noble Lords who have personal experience of this will know that technology-based industries have a high cost; they are labour intensive and capital intensive and all these costs are now so high. There is another factor which comes into this, which is the factor of built-in obsolescence—the speed at which advanced technological equipment becomes obsolete. All this means that if a European producer, whether he is British, French or German, is going to make investment in advanced technological equipment worth while, he must have a home market of something like the size of the American market. I do not want to take an arbitrary figure but it is probably somewhere about 200 million. If he has a market smaller than that the chances are that his operations will be unsuccessful. What we need—and this hardly needs saying after the remarks I have just made—is a home market as wide as the whole of Western Europe. It is just as simple as that, if we are going to make investment in technological projects worth while. It is self-evident that it is not until there is a widely integrated European market that we shall be able to compete on equal terms with American industry in the advanced sectors.

491
Those few remarks point basically to the need for European integration, both in the political field that was outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and in the economic field. But when we come on to the specifically technological field, the area to which the noble Earl devoted himself, he was good enough to admit that there is already a good deal of technological co-operation in Europe. There is co-operation within the framework of international organisations, like O.E.C.D., and of course quite apart from intergovernmental co-operation there is important collaboration between industrial and commercial firms, who talk to their opposite numbers without necessarily referring to or even informing their Governments. After all, in countries like ours and other democratic countries there is no reason why they should do so.
Then, of course, there are the numerous joint governmental projects, to which the noble Earl has already referred. As I have said, I hope he will forgive me if I do not take up each one of the points that he made because he covered practically the whole field of technological cooperation, but I should like to mention briefly one or two of the things he brought to the notice of your Lordships. I think there is very little to be said about Concorde at the moment. It is one of our major projects with France. It is perhaps paradoxical that most of our technological co-operation in Europe of a bilateral kind is with France, and the Concorde aircraft is one of our major projects. I think everyone here will know that it made its maiden flight on March 2 and now goes on to the next stage of its development. Also, as the noble Earl has said, we are co-operating with the French on the Martel air-to-surface guided missile, the Jaguar aircraft—and indeed something I think he did not mention, a series of three Anglo-French helicopters.
We are discussing with the Germans, the Dutch and the Italians the other joint project of which the noble Earl made a good deal in his speech, that is the M.R.C.A., or multi-role combat aircraft. This is scheduled to come into service in the second half of the 1970s. It is a project which is likely to involve the production of well over a thousand aircraft, and it is the largest single European col-
492
laborative project in prospect at the moment. A decision whether to proceed with the next stage of this project, which is known as the "project definition stage" should be taken within the next two months or so. Here perhaps I should say that I am afraid I cannot comment very constructively on the Press report that was brought to my notice by the noble Earl, in his speech, about some kind of package deal between the French and the Germans on this project. The article concerned, which appeared in the Daily Express, has now been brought in to me and I have had a chance to read it. All I can say is that we have no official information about this; no word has come to us from our German friends, certainly, and I suspect that the idea that the Royal Air Force might find itself equipped with French aircraft is, to say the least, premature.
The next project of particular interest to which I should like to refer is the CERN project—C.E.R.N. being the initial letters of the French title of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research. This was set up in 1954 and its aim was to provide for collaboration among European States in nuclear research. Therefore its object is purely scientific, but it is a successful example of European co-operation; and its technological work, which I am assured by my scientific friends is of a very high order, is carried out in its laboratory at Meyrin in Switzerland. As the noble Earl said, this organisation proposes to build a giant accelerator with a Hower of 300 GeV. This will be the largest accelerator in the world, and in 1968 the Government announced that they had considered carefully whether or not to participate in this project. Although they recognised the scientific value of it, they were particularly concerned at the effect which taking part in this project might have on the balance of resources between high energy physics, in which, of course, the giant accelerator is an element, and other scientific activities. There is a strong argument advanced by scientists that high energy physics already gets too much of the money allocated to scientific research. We were concerned about this, and also at this time we had to take into account the implications of the devaluation of sterling. We reluctantly came to the conclusion that in the light of other commitments we could not

493
justify expenditure on this very large project.
The question of the gas centrifuge was also raised. As many noble Lords will know, this is a project for collaborating in exploiting the gas centrifuge, which is a method of producing enriched uranium. This is an extremely important scientific development and the Ministers met in November of last year, and again recently, to discuss this project. An agreement on this project will of course have very considerable political significance. This is not necessarily confined to the three countries concerned.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? It was definitely stated in The Times this morning that agreement had been reached yesterday. Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Mulley were there and Dr. Stoltenberg and the Dutch, and agreement had been reached to set up three centrifuge plants, I think in Britain and Holland, but not I suppose in Germany.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I was just coming on to that. The noble Earl beat me to it, as he so often does. I was about to deal first with his question about the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but now that he has brought up the question of the communiqué of yesterday's meeting perhaps I may deal with that. It was indeed stated that we had reached broad agreement on the structure of what is called a tripartite collaborative venture, and among those decisions, as The Times reported, and I think the noble Earl quoted from that newspaper, it has been decided to set up two joint enrichment plants, one in the United Kingdom and one in the Netherlands. The headquarters of this venture—I may not be using the exact word for the installation—will be in the Federal Republic of Germany. Later the communiqué went on to say:
"Ministers recalled their agreement at The Hague that the collaborative arrangements would have to be consistent with the policies of the three Governments in relation to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and to their international obligations in this field. They agreed that it would be necessary to include in the proposed agreement on centrifuge collaboration appropriate mutual undertakings and provision for appropriate safeguards to be applied in relation thereto."
I hope that what I have said will put the noble Earl's mind at rest on the
494
compatibility of this tripartite collaboration and our responsibilities under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I would now briefly mention one or two other points—I must not keep your Lordships any longer at this stage. We have some plans afoot in Europe in the field of fast breeder reactors, which the noble Earl mentioned. There is, first of all, as he will know, a top level expert group. It is drawn from the member-nations of the organisation called ENEA, which is the European Nuclear Energy Agency, and this is considering prospects for various types of nuclear reactors known as the fast breeder reactor. On the two specific questions he asked me, the Europeanising—I am using his word although I would not necessarily use it myself—of Capenhurst and Dounreay, I think he will recall that we had discussions last year with several European countries about arrangements for assuring them of supplies of enriched uranium from Capenhurst for their civil reactors, and I think he will sea that these ideas are to a great extent, or might well be, now overtaken by the centrifuge collaboration project.
So far as the Dounreay project is concerned, whether we might turn that into a European venture or not, this subject was discussed last year again with the ENEA, the European Nuclear Energy Agency, and the discussions are still going on. So far as Dounreay is concerned, the development has reached a point where its technology is a commercial matter, and it is not a question of Europeanising it in an inter-governmental sense but really of licensing the project; and this we are discussing with a number of our European friends.
Perhaps I ought to deal briefly with the space question, although if any noble Lords wish to press me further on this subject I shall be delighted to go into it more fully when I, with leave, wild up the debate. But as the noble Earl was rather critical, albeit in a very graceful way, of our approach to European space projects, I think I ought to say this We have had our differences with our European partners and it would be foolish to try to conceal the fact. I think most of them exist because we firmly believe that space projects, like any other technological project, must be judged by purely economic criteria. I use the words "economic criteria" in a very broad, not

495
in any short-term and immediate, sense. It does not seem to us to make sense to try as it were to buy political integration and political goodwill by taking part in scientific ventures which we do not believe are economically and industrially viable.
To us, the ELDO programme, the launcher programme, which the noble Earl particularly mentioned, simply does not make sense. It does not make sense for us and it does not make sense for Europe, and on both counts I think we were right to take the action we took. As I say, if I am pressed I shall be delighted to go into details later. It is quite wide of the mark for the noble Earl to suggest that we withdrew for political reasons. That view has no validity at all. In the first place, to say that we withdrew is not strictly correct, but to say that we did so for political reasons is well wide of the mark.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I said that we partly withdrew from the ELDO "B" project, going on to 1971. I should like to make it clear that I was not expressing views of my own; I was reporting very positive views expressed to me by officials in Europe.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point. I was making the point that I hope the noble Earl will not give validity to those views. They do not bear examination. What we did was not to withdraw but simply to decline, for good reasons which I am prepared to go into if pressed, to undertake additional expenditure. We did not withdraw from anything.
The noble Earl asked me a specific question about ELDO and ESRO and their merging, and he will know that we voted for a resolution of the European Space Conference which called for the setting up of an integrated European Space Organisation to carry out an agreed European space programme. A committee of officials has now been set up to work out a convention for this organisation by October of this year. This will be presented to the next European Space Conference, at which I expect the noble Earl will be present, early in 1970. We have nominated our member for this committee and he will attend the first meeting of the committee, which is due to take place on March 18—in fact next week.
496
I am coming to the end of these remarks which I have to offer at this stage of the debate. The noble Earl mentioned the criticisms of the Government from some of our friends on the Continent. I realise that he was only reporting faithfully what he had heard, but I should like to say this—and this is the point I want to make at this stage of the debate, because it might create a framework in which later remarks could be made and against which they might be weighed. We have very strict and searching criteria of value for money which have to be applied to any project for technological and scientific co-operation. We insist that any expenditure, whether it is expenditure of money or of resources or of skill, is allocated in such a way that we get the maximum benefit from it. As a result, some of our friends have accused us of being un-European; and of course the opposite is the case. I am quite sure noble Lords will agree that it is not, and it cannot be, in the interests of Europe, whether this is a widened Europe or the present Europe, to distort the allocation of scarce resources simply in order to ward off ill-informed criticisms of being anti-European.
Where there are opportunities for collaborative ventures we are always looking for them; and I think, as I have pointed out in the (I hope) short time that I have taken so far, we have taken part, and are taking part, in a number of collaborative ventures. If any others come to light, we shall study them closely. Provided that we find them satisfactory from all points of view, we shall take part in them, or at least shall consider taking part in them. But they must be satisfactory from all points of view. It is not enough that they should be European: they must, as the jargon has it, be cost-effective; they must be industrially and economically viable. But I think that to suggest that because of this we are in some way un-European is really to be, if I may say so, quite perverse. I am sure that the people who study and know about these matters in Europe will agree that we shall be of far more use to them in Europe if we take an intelligent view of this kind of project than if we simply rush into everything just because it happens to have on it a European label.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble

497
Lord once again, but how does he apply the cost-effective criteria ot, say, joint research into air pollution, which many people consider to he extremely important? We cannot apply cost-effectiveness to every project, I think. Would he think so?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if you take cost-effectiveness in its widest sense, I think it is possible to apply to any project the criterion of what returns from this project we expect for the resources that we deploy and expend upon it. Of course, it is not always true that you are going to get back an immediate financial return. Your return might be one of some other value; and in the case mentioned by the noble Earl I think everybody would agree that if you get back a return that is of value to the human environment you probably have something that is worth the resources expended. But there must be a cost-effective factor and a cost-effective calculation made here. I only make the point that it is not enough to take part in a venture simply because it has a European label on it, and then to pat yourself on the back and say, "That shows what good Europeans we are" It may in fact show what bad Europeans we are.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Would he not agree that it is not only for each nation to make its estimate of cost-effectiveness? It is for the Group as a whole to say whether they think a project is cost-effective. What the noble Lord seems to suggest is that we should be sole judges of whether the great common European project is cost-effective or not. I had hoped that I had suggested certain means by which this could be discerned and discovered. The noble Lord has not referred to that point at all.
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords. I thought that, if the noble Lord would forgive me, I would not in the course of this debate follow hint down that particular road because it is a rather wide area. One could in fact conduct an entire debate on the subject of integration, international commissions, weighted voting, supra-nationality and so on. That is the whole point of the noble Lord, but it is not really the point of the Motion before the House to-day. Where I do agree with him is that European tech
498
nological co-operation can never be fully effective until there is greater integration, until the Community is enlarged. But surely no noble Lord would suggest that we in this country, however much we believe in a widened and unified Europe, should go into a project which we believe to be commercially and economically unviable simply because other people taking part in it believe it to be viable. This seems to me to be suggesting that we should take part in projects that might involve us in great commercial loss and be a waste of scarce resources, simply because other people believe them to be viable when we do not. I am sure that no noble Lord in this House would suggest that we should handle the nation's resources of skill and of capital in that way.
I have said all I want to say at this stage. I think there has been some steady progress in European technological co-operation and in joint projects. We shall continue to look for opportunities to take part in these projects so long as they seem to us to be cost-effective. I have. I know, not covered all the points that were brought out in the noble Earl's most interesting and comprehensive speech, but I shall listen with interest to the speeches that follow, and I shall hope at the end to cover all the points made, both in the two opening speeches and in those which are to follow.
4.26 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, I too would associate myself with the expression of thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for introducing this important Motion. None of us can he in any doubt that it is of the greatest importance that we foster and contribute wherever possible to closer collaboration with Europe in the scientific and technological field, but I was pleased that the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, made the point that we must be careful to interpret "technology" in much wider terms than research and development and as extending through design, production, management and marketing. In some of these aspects we may have a good deal to learn from Europe.
I hope that your Lordships will find it helpful if I try to break down into three areas the subject of technological collaboration. The first one was concentrated on particularly by the noble Earl; he referred to it as "advanced technology".

499
This concerned such subjects as space, aircraft, nuclear and advanced electronics problems. Within this area, of course, fall inter-Government activities such as he mentioned: ESRO, ELDO, CERN, Concorde and so on. I do not propose to make any further comments on that particular area, because I regard it as by no means the only area, and there are times when I think it is not necessarily the most important area, of desirable collaboration in Europe. Certainly, by itself, it will not constitute an adequate base for European collaboration.
The second area, on which I should like to say rather more, I will describe as "basic technology", which is not easy to describe in a few words but in mechanical engineering, for example, it would cover a wide range of techniques in materials production and processing: subjects like welding, tribology and metrology, and a whole diversity of basic technological knowledge and understanding which affords the base on which industries thrive, or fail to thrive, and lacking which no industry, in my opinion, can hope to participate effectively in the advanced technologies to which the noble Earl referred.
My impression is that in this area of basic technology there is quite extensive and rapidly growing collaboration. It takes the form of technical publications, of conferences and increasingly direct collaboration between our national establishments of research and development, our industrial research associations and our universities with corresponding institutions on the Continent. There is, I know, increasingly close association between industrial concerns in this area. I do not wish to suggest for a moment that there is not considerable scope for further extension of this collaboration, and I should like to pay tribute to what I believe the Ministry of Technology is doing in stimulating more basic work within this country and in fostering closer collaboration in this field.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whether he is aware of the recent establishment of what is called the European Industrial Research Management Association, which comprises a grouping of over eighty of the largest European firms and which is said to be
500
self-financing and is intended to provide for discussion of basic technological issues in industrial firms. I distinguish greatly between discussing it in industrial terms and in terms of outside institutions. I should certainly like to know if he can tell us whether any British firms are involved in this association.
My third area I will call "industrial technology". This is the aggregation of the intimate techniques and skills employed by different sectors of industry within their own particular fields. As I see it, this is not an area of technology in which Government can play, or should play, a significant part, except in so far as it exercises an indirect influence on the vigour and initiative of industry through its procurement procedures and through fiscal and legal devices which remove impediments.
May I at this point say a further word about the so-called technological gap? Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, had advanced technology in mind as the focal point of this gap, and it must be admitted that in such fields as space, supersonic flight, micro-electronics and computers Europe is at a disadvantageous economic state of development relative to the United States. But there are a whole range of less exotic fields, fields of much greater present economic importance, covering such industrial activities as machine tools, plastic-making machines, printing equipment, plate glass manufacture, shipbuilding, aspects of motor vehicles and telecommunications equipment in which Europe is not the weaker community. Indeed, in the field of motor vehicles your Lordships may well be surprised when I say that such technological advances as fuel injection, disc brakes, hydrolastic suspension and monocoque construction all came from Europe. Unfortunately, one cannot say that they all came from this country, hut we are now talking of Europe, and Europe is not in many fields the weak partner that we sometimes think she is.
I would suggest, therefore, that there is no occasion this afternoon for us to think of Europe in any sense of inferiority because the Americans are capable of quite magnificent. almost incredible, technological achievements. What Europe has to do, and do quickly, is to harness

501
and develop in depth its immense intellectual potential and industrial resources, and this is why I think we should not put all our attention on the advanced technologies, because these will not contribute much in the short term to our economic strength.
Would your Lordships allow me now to change the emphasis? I should like to spend a few moments talking about the sociological, as distinct from the material, aspects of technological progress, and by way of introduction I would refer to a new field of intellectual endeavour known as "technological forecasting". This is an attempt to predict along the time scale the likely achievability of definable scientific and technological objectives. In the main, these possibilities have been outlined by scientists and technologists working within, and thinking outwards, from their own disciplines, and having read a good deal about this forecasting I am in no doubt that in the main the possibilities that have been forecast will prove to be achievable; or it may well be that in the pursuit of them other more desirable scientific and technological objectives will emerge and effort will be concentrated on them. The uncertainty, as I see it, lies much more in the time scale. It depends then on the scale of effort devoted to the project, and this involves what we are discussing this afternoon, international collaboration. But what I want to refer to more specifically is another uncertainly as to whether some of these objectives will prove to he worth achieving in humanitarian terms; and I feel the more prompted to refer to this because of the debate held on February 19 and initiated by the noble Lord. Lord Byers.
Some of the possibilities that have been forecast, indeed many of them, no doubt would bring unadulterated benefits to the community, but there will be others—and I suspect from now on more in the biological field than in the field of the physical sciences—which will give considerable cause for anxiety. After all, in the field of the physical sciences we have been taken to the limit of anxiety by the hydrogen bomb. What causes me concern in this matter is that, irrespective of benefits or anxieties, the pursuit of essential scientific and technological ends in the absence of a parallel and commensurate pursuit of the means of resolving
502
the sociological consequences will lead us into increasing difficulty. It can only exaggerate anxieties of the kind that were expressed in the previous debate, and reveal the increasing discrepancy between our ability to solve scientific and technological problems and to resolve the issues which they raise sociologically.
If I may now do so, I should like to put alongside the kind of possibilities that have been posed so far the need for us, and for Europe, to start, as it were. at the other end of the situation; to define the social problems either already existing, or likely to result from further technological progress, and start from there and assess what kind of contribution science and technology can play, and will need to play, in their resolution. I should like to mention what seems to me to be a quite outstanding field: that of urban development. There seems no doubt that not merely highly developed countries but under-developed countries are faced with the certainty of increasingly large urban conurbations, and this field of sociological development and of problems affords an immense field of contribution from science and technology.
May I mention a few of the problems that are involved? First, within the field of building technology, there are problems covering such questions as demountable buildings, the use of plastics in building construction, heat and sound insulation, the design and production of houses for developing countries, and the structure of the housing industry. Secondly, problems of computation, involving the application of computer science and technique to a wide range of urban problems in demography, such as forecasting housing needs, the types and balance of employment, transport facilities, power supplies and educational development. Then environmental studies in respect of safety, noise, atmospheric pollution, vibration, and the definition and maintenance of standards in these respects. Then transportation in all its known and, as it were, possible aspects, including electric cars, conveyor belts, pipe-lines, and so on. Then services for urban areas, demanding improvements in their arrangements for electricity, gas, water supplies and improved means of waste disposal and drainage. One could go on in this way.

503
I do not wish to suggest that sonic of these problems are not being studied—indeed, decisions are being taken and action is being taken—but I should like to ask (and I hope that the noble Lord Lord Chalfont, will have an answer for me) who in this country is responsible for co-ordinating the study of this range of problems. It seems to me that no single country in Europe could attack this comprehensive range with an adequate effort to resolve them with the urgency which is required. I see this, as I am sure does the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, as a crucial, fruitful and not expensive field of European collaboration.
Close scientific and technological collaboration, however it is discussed in detail, is only possible through close personal contacts. This is an aspect which has not been touched upon this afternoon. As I see it, Europe is at a disadvantage as compared with the United States and the U.S.S.R. This is due in part to language difficulties, but also to the fact that in the United States there is much greater provision for travelling fellowships which are attracting to the United States, and not to Europe, a substantial proportion of our mature graduate output for research and related work and, unfortunately, in many cases for permanent residence. I am aware that the Royal Society and the Science Research Council are trying very hard to increase the flow of people within Europe. The sums of money which are available for this task are far too small in the light of its importance, and I hope that when circumstances permit the Government will find it possible to increase the allocation of resources.
I should like to lead up to a further question to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I myself would much prefer an increase in the flow of graduates for research within Europe between centres of excellence in particular fields rather than an attempt to create a grandiose new scientific-cum-technological institute such as was proposed a few years ago and which, I understand, is still under consideration. Unfortunately, I do not find it possible to get a clear statement of the present position, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to help me on this matter. I am much more sceptical of such an institute in technological than
504
in scientific terms. As I implied earlier in my remarks, the place where technology comes to fruition is productive industry. If an outside institution, be it academic or otherwise, is to make an important contribution to technological progress, this will be dependent on the intimacy of its association with industry. This is difficult enough to achieve in this country between individual institutions and industry as to suggest to me that the time is by no means ripe to try to achieve success in this field in Europe. On the other hand, where it is possible to establish close co-operation between an industry and an educational institution in Europe, I hope that every possible means will be found to ensure a flow of Britishers to this co-operative effort.
In conclusion, I suggest that, if European technological collaboration extends no further than the hope that we may thereby achieve closer comparability with the United States in our 'standard of living, this will take us nowhere worth going to—unless, at the same time, by deliberate and sustained endeavour we seek to reduce the discrepancy between the standard of living which is already enjoyed and the standard of the developing countries. I realise that this would lead into another debate, but unless we seek deliberately to resolve this discrepancy, even to the point of our own hardship, I consider that the concentration of technological collaboration in our own interests will lead to tragedy. Therefore, I express the hope that some day we shall have another debate on that matter in relation to the subject which we are debating to-day.
4.45 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I wish to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for initiating this debate. This is a fascinating subject to those of us who are connected with the technological developments in this country, but it is also a vital subject, for unless we solve these problems we shall not have the material resources to run a Welfare State. I do not propose to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about the management gap. That is beyond my ken, and there are others in the House who are better qualified to deal with that matter. Nor do I propose to follow the noble

505
Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, in his fascinating consideration of the sociological aspect of whether any specific work is worth while. There must be justification for any work, and this is a matter of vital importance, not only to the future of our nation but to mankind as a whole.
I am apprehensive that, inadvertently, in the organisation of technology we may be pressing for too large a European superstructure. There are real dangers that we might create little empires of special branches of technology with one expert from Germany, another expert from France, and another expert from Italy, all in the same unit and all having to be appointed in order to keep a proper balance of nations and tongues. We should avoid imposing any superstructure of this nature. I am also apprehensive about the suggestion that a sort of M.I.T. or Caltech. might be set up in Europe. I think it has been suggested that Brussels might be a good place for such a body. I feel that this would be complicated and expensive, in view of what it might eventually produce. There would be a danger of its becoming a white elephant.
I am all for reinforcing our present technological units, most of which are technological departments of our universities. A little duplication among our university colleges is good and necessary for the dispersal of ideas and the sorting out of problems, but we should avoid the situation that too many colleges may cover too many specific technologies at one time. Already in this country we have too many universities and too little money to supply them. Therefore we must rationalise the specific projects which are being undertaken by the various universities, though the shortage of money will go some way to bring about such a rationalisation.
When one considers the linkage of colleges in this country which are studying the same specific technology, one should bear in mind that there should also be linkages with colleges in Europe doing the same specific work. That is the way in which the best co-operation, the cooperation of the scientists will be secured. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, has pointed out that there is already a great deal of collaboration going on, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned certain subjects
506
in this connection. I propose to mention briefly three of them, because each illustrates the fact that collaboration is going on, and is possibly going on entirely adequately.
The first subject is molecular biology where there is a very complete flow of scientists throughout the whole of Europe and, indeed, throughout the whole world. I doubt whether more co-ordination is needed than is going on at the present time. If the noble Lord, Lord Todd, had been in his place, I should have spoken with some hesitation, because this is his subject rather than mine. My second example is that of desalination, work on which is progressing, and in the van of the progress is Professor Silver, of Glasgow University. I should be very surprised indeed if there were not complete co-operation and interchange of ideas between everybody who is studying desalination in Europe and Professor Silver. I do not think that further co-ordination is necessary.
THE EARL OF BESSBCROUGH: My Lords, I was thinking of co-operation with a commercial aim in view, which would cover the exporting of plant. I am quite certain that the interchange of information between establishments in Europe is very good, but I was thinking entirely of the marketing aspect.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point, and I am sorry that I misunderstood him in that way. This comes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I am not competent to follow either of the noble Lords. I fear over-organisation of the basic technological sciences. I support the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in his plea for closer personal contact and all that can be done to ensure it. There must be an interflow of brains between the nations; and, in order of importance, I support, first, what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has said about post-graduate work and travel fellowships. To my mind, these fellowships are very inadequate at the present time. Much more could be done about post-graduates from this country going to do postgraduate work in their technology in Italy, France, Germany or any other country that is studying the particular technology.
Secondly, I suggest that there should he interchange of professors and lecturers. By that I do not mean just coming over

507
for a week; I mean coming over for a year, two years or three years, but retaining their status at their original universities. More should be done along those lines. It will take a certain amount of money, since it is not merely a matter of organisation; but I am sure that if the money were available the universities and colleges would discover means of spending it profitably.
The third point that I wish to make about the interflow of brains—though this is at a level of lesser importance than the other two—is with regard to undergraduate exchange. It is perhaps partly for the universities themselves to put their house in order here, though this raises the question of Government grants to students. But a scheme under which an undergraduate would spend a complete year at a university on the Continent, which would count towards his course in this country, might be developed. After all, such a system is working very successfully in certain universities for the study of modern languages where one complete year out of four is spent abroad. Another point about undergraduate exchange, which I ask the Government seriously to consider, is that they should take off the tax where European students coming to study at universities in this country are paying full fees.
The trouble is that at present the inter-flow of ideas is not being encouraged. It may be difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to reply to this point right away, but this is a matter which is hindering somewhat the flow of students. My view is that it is extremely important to fertilise the grass roots of technological co-operation. If you are training the students, developing them at the postgraduate stage and developing the colleges where the specific technologies are growing, then the problems for decision will be put on to the plate of the right people. Co-operation should arise more from the development of technological work than from any attempt to superimpose it from above. Co-operation grows naturally; on no account should it be superimposed or it becomes a dead hand.
4.58 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, like others of your Lordships I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for having given us the oppor
508
tunity to discuss this subject. But, as an admirer of his, I was rather sorry that he had to devote 22·3 per cent. of his speech to something that was more appropriate to the hustings. However, in the further development of his speech he gave us a very elegant and exact account of what is happening all around Europe. I do not want to go over the whole details of technological work, which have been ably dealt with by other noble Lords and will no doubt continue to be dealt with in this debate. I want to deal a little with the subject to which both the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, referred, which was the setting up of research laboratories.
Reference has been made to a European institute of technology. I think this derives from a remark made by the Prime Minister in his Guildhall speech of 1967, when he mentioned as one of the desirable objectives an institute of technology. However, after reading his remarks I think it is more than likely that he was not referring to an actual physical institute. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, suggested to me before the debate that that was so, and perhaps he will be able to confirm what I have said. The actual remarks made by the Prime Minister were:
"We are prepared—and here I pay tribute to the forward thinking of the C.B.I.—to join with other Governments, and with industry here and on the Continent, in sponsoring a multilateral European institute of technology to examine case by case, area by area, industry by industry the means to greater European technological co-operation."
I do not think that suggests an actual research institute. At any rate, I hope it does not, because I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said; that is, that these international laboratories for scientific research are really misconceived.
In my opinion, there are only three reasons why one should set up such a laboratory. One is that equipment of such costliness, of such magnitude, is involved that it is impossible or very difficult for a single country to provide it—at least, for a European country to provide it. This, of course, happened in connection with the development of nuclear facilities in Geneva, although I believe that some difficulty was caused there by the fact that the French had the purest iron available for a magnet, and they were not

509
prepared to let it out of France. I understand that the magnet is in France but its poles peep into Switzerland. Thereby, French pride and national prestige are conserved, and at the same time international work can be carried out. One can see that this rather limits the location of an appropriate laboratory.
A second reason why one might set up such a laboratory would be if one were concerned with a location that was available in only one country. An example of this would be astronomical observations which might be suitably placed, as indeed they have been, in Switzerland, high up in the Alps; and it would obviously be difficult to do this in the Netherlands or in Denmark. So it is clear that one has a second reason there. A third reason—and here it would be perhaps less of a laboratory than close co-operation—would he the observation of phenomena that were widespread, and where it was necessary to make the observations over a wide territory. A typical example of that is in oceanographic observations, where I can see every advantage in having very close collaboration.
If one does not have these, all one does is to put people together, creating all the problems of supervising them when they speak different languages, when they belong to different nations and when the control of the laboratory is almost certainly under a varied national control. I am afraid that I have little belief in the solution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn; it seems to me that that is a will-o'-the-wisp so far as we are concerned in the immediate future. I think, my Lords, that it is most important that when we talk about European co-operation in research we should first of all not regard it as exclusive. We should regard it as a useful thing to be done because there may be people who are prepared to do it and there may be problems that can be solved. We do not want to think, because we have lost an Empire, that we are going to conquer the Continent.
5.3 p.m.
LORD TODD: My Lords, like other speakers I must express my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for introducing this debate to-day. He in his speech, and other speakers later in their contributions, touched on a number
510
of the points which I myself wished to make. For that reason, I am going to be rather general, and I hope rather brief; but I should like to pick up a number of these points and pull them together. It has always seemed to me that when people talk about European technological co-operation they tend to do so in terms of inter-Governmental projects like ELDO or Concorde, and they usually seem to overlook the fact that, however grandiose or expensive a project of this type may be, it represent; only one aspect—and then not even the most important one—of technological co-operation. I am going to confine my remarks essentially to technological cooperation: I do not wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, into the byways of sociology, however important these may be.
Basically, the need for greater cooperation technologically in Europe rests on the danger that native European industry may lose its position and slip into decline in face of penetration by large, technologically advanced American industrial corporations. It is clear that this is a real danger; but it is equally clear, I think, that it is not due to any deficiency in European research and development skills. The so-called "technological gap", as I think the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already stressed, is not the gap in research and development skills: it is essentially a gap in industrial capability. No doubt there are a number of factors concerned in this, and among them there may be deficiencies in management techniques in Europe. But to my mind by far the most important reason for this greater capability in America is the size of its domestic market—a domestic market which is big enough to encourage the growth of large enterprises able to risk large sums of money on new ventures with an economy of scale when they go to production and a reasonable prospect of an adequate return.
We are accustomed to hearing people talk about the astonishing difference in productivity per man in American industry as compared with British and European. Factors of three and four are bandied about. I sometimes wonder whether that gap would not look a great deal smaller if one took into account the differences in, say, scale of production

511
in such industries as the chemical industry, or in the length of production runs in industries like the aircraft industry. After all, the technological gap between Europe and the United States of America would simply vanish overnight if the 50 American States seceded from the Union and set themselves up as independent entities on the lines of the European States. I do not think that is likely to happen, so I think that Europe has got to do something itself. There is only one way it can do this, and that is by recognising that it should be one unit and one market. That means that, if we are going to make it effective, we shall have to go in for technological co-operation at the level of the industries themselves, and that co-operation will have to develop on the pattern of normal commercial operations involving the exchange of know-how, the concentration of production, perhaps in some fields the development of more supra-national companies, and so on.
The barriers to developments of this type are of course formidable, and are a consequence of the historical evolution of the fragmented Europe which we all know to-day. To remove these barriers, Governments will have to take seriously, and as matters of urgency, a great many problems, such as those concerning patent and company law, trade barriers and freedom of capital movement; and in particular they must seek to achieve a far higher degree of standardisation in every area throughout Europe than we have yet achieved. I think that only if this is done will it be even possible to get industrial co-operation to develop in a rational and fruitful way. True, Governments may well have to discard some of their cherished freedom of action on the way, but I think we must recognise that 19th century ideas of national sovereignty are incompatible with the realities of 20th century technology.
In the debate to-day there has been mention of a number of large technological projects operated on a bilateral or multilateral basis and involving, essentially, Government money. Of course there are some areas, like nuclear energy and aerospace, where in many cases the cost of new projects is so enormous that they are beyond the reach of industry, and even beyond the reach of individual
512
countries, so that if countries are going to participate at all they will have to combine. A good case can be made for a number of these. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that some serious consideration is being given to the question of fast nuclear reactors, because it seems absurd that we, being currently well in the lead in this area, should see quite independent efforts in the same area going on in, for example, France and Germany. I hope that the possibility of a joint effort in this field will be explored as a matter of sonic urgency.
In the aerospace field we have seen the ELDO project and the Concorde project, and we have heard to-day about the present status of projects such as the European air-bus and the proposed multi-role combat aircraft. Of such projects all I would say is that all of them need close study before we embark on them: we ought to have a pretty solid assurance that they are viable, or likely to be viable, commercially and technologically, because good technology and bad projects do not go well together. We ought also, before embarking on them, to form some idea of the likely cost.
It is true that it is not possible to make precise estimates of cost when dealing with wholly new technology, but I am sure that many noble Lords must, like myself, have noticed with dismay the inevitable escalation that occurs with every project of this type that comes forward. I can understand an estimate being perhaps 50 per cent. out, or even perhaps 100 per cent. Out; but the escalations we see make me feel that we ought to look more closely at our machinery for estimating costs. I hope that before we embark on anything like the multi-role combat aircraft we shall get some satisfaction that it is likely to work; and, secondly, that we shall be realistic when we first make a pronouncement about its probable cost. One thing that must be remembered is that once one embarks on an international project of this type it is extremely difficult to withdraw without incurring, perhaps rightly, a great deal of political odium.
My Lords, I should like, finally, to make one or two comments about such projects as the European air-bus, which at first sight looks a very reasonable thing, and the Concorde project. It seems to

513
me that the trouble is that co-operation in Europe in civil aviation is generally considered in terms of exchange of research and development information and in terms of joint projects for new aircraft. But I do not think that this attacks the central weakness of our position at all. Europe has a larger population than the United States and is just as extensive geographically, but it makes much less use of civil aviation. The United Kingdom and the E.E.C. countries together buy only about half as many aircraft as the U.S.A., and the utilisation is generally lower. That means that Europe is making relatively less use of this form of transport and that there is consequently less opportunity for European aircraft to prove their qualities in their domestic markets and to get their costs down by long production runs. In this way, they become less attractive to overseas aircraft buyers.
If this is so, it seems to me that improving the environment for civil air transport in Europe should be a vital part of any programme of technological co-operation. Initiative could be taken in a number of directions. For example, we all know the notorious unreliability of European weather, which causes all kinds of delays and diversions and diminishes the appeal of air traffic. But fully reliable automatic landing systems are now available. Could they not be brought into standard use and so make European aviation completely reliable in any type of weather? Again, much of Europe is densely populated. If we consider only cities with populations of more than 250,000, there are more than twice as many of them situated within 1,000 km. of each other as in the United States. This, it would seem to me, points to a real need for short take-off aircraft working from small airfields, and particularly to the development of really accurate integrated air traffic control systems leading to a dense network of short-range inter-city services.
My Lords, these remarks bring me back to the point that I tried to make at the outset. What we really need most of all is not large and spectacular projects but technological co-operation in depth, right down to the level of individual industries and firms. I believe that large aerospace projects will be of value in the long term only in so far as they encourage and promote the will to a far more wide
514
spread integration of what I would call Europe's at present underdeveloped industrial capability.
5.17 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, in rising to participate in this debate I, too, must thank the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for putting down this Motion and giving us this opportunity to discuss collaboration on technological matters in Europe. I propose to be as brief as possible, because of the long list of speakers remaining, and to confine my remarks to aircraft collaboration in particular. The collaboration in aeronautical matters has not been uniformly successful, at least to date. I should like to consider four principal projects; at least principal so far as I see them, although I realise that there may be other noble Lords who would put a higher priority on other projects.
First, I would mention the Anglo-European air-bus, now designated the A 300B. I am of the opinion that this project has failed so far and that the promise that it holds is so limited as to suggest that we ought actively to consider whether or not to continue in it. We know—or at least we were told just before Christmas—that the cost of that project had very seriously escalated. Then, just after that escalation had been announced, we heard that a radical redesign had taken place and that we were now to call the aircraft the A 300B. It was to be a smaller aircraft fitted with the RB 211 engine which had been so successful in the American market. I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he can give us the latest figure on the cost of that project having regard to the recent re-design.
The increase in cost, however, is not the only objection I have to that project. The second objection concerns the question of minimum orders of which the Government made great play when we were considering this aircraft on an earlier occasion. They said, I think, that 75 was the minimum level of orders that could be accented but the airlines were reluctant to commit themselves to that figure and that they, the Government, were therefore unwilling to proceed with the project. The re-design of the project which was announced just before Christmas was apparently done at the behest of the airlines, and there should

515
therefore now presumably be no objection to the airlines committing themselves more firmly to the aircraft. But they have not done so. Perhaps, therefore, there are further difficulties, which might result in our having to look elsewhere for a suitable machine.
But, my Lords, regardless of the airlines, I have very grave doubts about proceeding with any large transport aircraft of this nature which has only two wing-mounted engines. The tri-engine layout or the tail-engine layout is, in the view of many people, a much safer and a better arrangement. We notice with interest that the Boeing Company, until recently exponents of the underwing design are now tending to go back to the tail engine design. Their latest proposal, an aircraft very competitive with the A 300B, is a tail-engined aeroplane.
The third objection to the A 300B is the question of time. We are told that that aircraft, if we now proceeded with it, could be in service in 1973. But, of course, if Boeing decided to proceed with their proposed aircraft, that could certainly be in service before 1973, not by much perhaps, but at least by a year and possibly by 18 months. That company has a very wide experience of that sort of aircraft, which is not a very advanced aircraft by Concorde or S.S.T. standards. Furthermore, because of its considerable experience in this field, Boeing is able to generate much greater customer confidence than might be possible by the consortium proposed to produce the Anglo-European aircraft, which consists of three companies—the British company Hawker Siddeley; the French company, Sud Aviation and a German company which has been specially formed for this programme.
One should not assume that the chaos—and it can hardly be called less—that surrounded the American supersonic transport problem is likely also to surround any air-bus project that they may launch. Some months ago, I asked an Unstarred Question about the future of the air-bus. At that time I pointed out what, to me, appeared to be the absurdity of proceeding with an aircraft which was going to use, as was then proposed, the RB 207 engine which at that stage was to be developed only for this aircraft. I grant that the new A 300B proposal now uses the RB 211, or smaller engine, which
516
has been ordered for the American aircraft the Lockheed 1011. This is good, but the other objections remain.
In my view, and I believe in the view of many others, the fundamental design changes—and they were fundamental—made or announced to this aircraft last Christmas were the convulsions of a dying project. I wonder if, when the noble Lord replies to the debate, he can say whether the Government are still financing the initial design work of the air-bus. We know that they were financing the design of the A 300, but there is some doubt about whether they are still providing funds for the A 300B. In my view the A 300B is a political aircraft of doubtful design philosophy, unwanted by the airlines and likely to arrive too late. I therefore urge the Government to withdraw from this project and to consider urgently whether they should not now support the BAC 311 which has been advanced as an alternative. I hold no brief for BAC, but I believe that the 311 is worthy of support. I also believe that if the Government thought it right, in the wider interests of European collaboration, to stipulate that any support for that aircraft was conditional upon major parts of the airframe being subcontracted to European constructors, this would be an acceptable and a reasonable proposal.
I should like briefly to touch on the multi-role combat aircraft. Judging by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, when he opened the debate, there may still be some major hurdles for that aircraft to overcome. I am always suspicious of the "multi-role" anything, particularly aircraft, and I wonder whether, if we proceed with this machine, we may not find ourselves with an aircraft designed to fill many roles but capable of filling none. This, perhaps, was one of the problems with the American F111, which had a vast number of variants to fill all sorts of different roles for the American Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and, indeed, at one stage for the R.A.F., but which, in the last resort, was found to be unsatisfactory.
My suspicions of the M.R.C.A. are deepened when I hear that the design leadership in that project, if we proceed, is to be divided; so that for the single seater aircraft the Germans will have the leadership while we shall have the

517
leadership for the two-seater machines. It seems likely, therefore, that that, too, may run the risk of becoming a political aircraft. I wonder whether the cause of European collaboration which, with reservations, I generally support, will be best fostered by advancing with projects of this nature when we might get a better aeroplane for less cost with a national project. I am perhaps biased. Being fairly closely concerned with aircraft of one form or another, I naturally tend to support the British industry. But the M.R.C.A. seems to present all sorts of problems which have not perhaps been too carefully gone into.
The other military aircraft at present under consideration—indeed, further than that, it is now flying in prototype form—the Jaguar, appears to have survived Government whims and fancies on both sides of the Channel and, with luck, may have a sound future. But, like the Concorde, to which I now come, that depends upon a satisfactory test programme. I have put clown in your Lordships' House a number of Starred Questions concerning the progress of the Concorde and, contrary to what I have been branded in the past, I am not a "Concorde knocker". Indeed, I believe that, like the Comet 1 some 15 years ago, the Concorde is now poised to scoop the pool. As testing proceeds I expect to see many of the so-far uncommitted airlines in a position where they will have to take options on, or, better still, place orders for the machine. We are often told that the future of the Concorde is doubtful because of the boom on the one hand, or perhaps, on the other hand, because people do not want to get to New York in only 3½ hours instead of 7 hours. I suggest that people who say that should study the history of air transport, and indeed of all forms of transport, rather more carefully, because every time a faster aircraft or means of transportation is applied to a particular route, the customers always want to go on the faster aeroplanes, even if, as may be the case with the Concorde, they have to pay more for doing so. When jet aircraft were introduced on the North Atlantic route, piston-engined aircraft were running half empty or worse.
Initially, of course, when the Concorde comes into service the 747s will also be operating—in other words, the large
518
jumbo jets—and I am sure that there will be a surplus of capacity, for a while anyway, while the traffic growth catches up with the available seats. In that competitive position the larger aircraft will find themselves very pressed. If, therefore, airlines are obliged to order supersonic aeroplanes, the Concorde, with its lead, variously estimated from five to seven years, is likely to be the only competitor in the market. I leave aside the Soviet supersonic aeroplane, not because I do not think it will be a competitor, but because I do not know, and I do not think that any of us can predict, what is likely to happen with that aircraft in the world markets; although it the past performance of the Soviet aircraft industry is anything to go by it is unlikely to be much of a threat.
I suggest, my Lords, that in the euphoria of the first flight of the Concorde which took place the other week and the apparent rosy commercial future before it, we ought not to forget that the programme is running very late. The lead that it has over the Boeing supersonic aeroplane (Boeing is, of course, responsible for the American supersonic programme) is due largely to the difficulties and mistakes that the Americans have made and not to the smooth progress of the British project. I wonder whether there is not an object lesson in that delay which is applicable to other collaborative projects. Perhaps the lesson is that before Concorde, Sud Aviation, the French company who all along have had design leadership for the airframe of the Concorde project, had little or no experience of a subsonic transport aircraft let alone a supersonic one. The only aircraft it had ever built was the Caravelle which was certainly a successful aeroplane but was by no stretch of the imagination a modern aeroplane, either then or now. I do not want to rub in this point too much, because clearly it is a delicate one, but we must not forget that the Concorde's first flight was a year behind schedule. One can but wonder whether that delay would have happened had the design leadership been differently arranged.
There is one other bright star in the Concorde firmament and that is the collaboration that has taken place with the greatest possible success between the British Air Registration Board and the

519
Bureau Veritas, the French air-worthiness authority. I know that my interpretation of the French position in that respect is not quite accurate but certainly the British contribution from the Air Registration Board has been splendid. I have suggested, by giving some specific examples, that collaboration has not always been as happy as it might have been. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in his opening remarks, referred to the view of his French colleagues and others that it was difficult for them to know whether to embark on further collaborative projects with us because they wondered whether again they could take our word. I would remind your Lordships that though this point of view is understandable, it was the French who withdrew from the A.F.V.G. project, not us. There, in the background, they were quietly producing their own, and only weeks after they had withdrawn from the collaborative project their own aircraft first flew. They must have been planning that aircraft months before their withdrawal from the collaborative project.
So there are hazards in this collaboration, one of which is unilateral withdrawal, whether by us or by the French. I am convinced, however, that where properly qualified partners can be found and where financial penalties and delays—because there are always delays in collaborative projects—can be quantified and found acceptable, collaboration can be an advantage. Collaboration in aeronautical matters is an expensive and time-consuming business, but none the less I believe that it is essential.
5.32 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, for giving us the opportunity of debating this subject. I should also like to point out that while the noble Earl was going round Europe, examining the problems of co-operation between countries, finding out our shortcomings and trying to see how we could close this gap between the ebullient American economy and our apparently lagging one, I was in America on exactly the opposite errand. I had been called in by various people in America to consider whether this ebullient technology was not only running away but also creating the kind
520
of problems which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, has illustrated so well. In fact, they were calling in the Old World to redeem the New.
I felt this acutely when listening to my noble friend Lord Chalfont. When I was in the United States, I went to Forest Lawn, that great cemetery of Evelyn Waugh's books and of Jessica Milford, where they have a huge notice, which says:
"Pay now, die later."
I am afraid that to me this is what cost effectiveness means in the terms presented to us to-day. If the only criterion we are going to consider is cost effectiveness, then I say, "Pay now, die later", because what in fact we are selling is the ultimate quality of life.
Even in a debate of this kind on the merits of technology I do not think that we should ignore what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, was pointing out so strongly, the corollary to this, which the noble Earl himself brought out at the beginning of his speech. There are other areas of co-operation and collaboration than technology, areas which somehow I feel cannot be judged m terms of cost effectiveness. In these areas, of air pollution, of noise abatement, of wrong urban development, we shall come to a time in the foreseeable future when the Eurasian highway will be the High Street or Main Street of the world city. Then if we go across Europe and find that it has been destroyed by all the successes of technology, we shall begin to realise the consequences which we have ignored. Therefore, I insist that one of the corollaries of our consideration of technology is to find, inside technology or outside, protection against its abuse.
There is only one other point I want to make. Until I learned that the question of cost effectiveness is apparently to be the criterion of all values—I thought it was statesmanship and political judgment which was involved in this matter but now I find that it is book-keeping—I was going to congratulate the Government on gas centrifuge and on the fact that with the Dutch and with the Germans we have arrived at some apparent settlement, not yet fully confirmed, in which I saw some kind of judgment. Over many years my concern has been the

521
dangers of nuclear arms, and the great concern which those of us who know something about this subject have had, ever since we found that the restraint of the ultimate vast cost of separation might be effectively reduced by the production of uranium 235 by gas centrifuge, is that this would give us the cut-price bomb, the Woolworth bomb. Now, this morning, I feel that we have managed to get this under control, and that through the Minister for Disarmament, Mr. Mulley, and the Minister of Technology, we are thinking of a means of effectively producing peaceful uses and controlling possible military uses. I believe, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont told us, that we have in fact secured the control of this issue within the Non-proliferation Treaty. But I hope that this is not just a question of cost effectiveness, because we may be taking this out of this worthwhile political demonstration and reducing it merely to elements which would not be highly commendable.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would give way, in case he should sit down under some misapprehension. I would make it clear that when I talked of the judgment of cost effectiveness I was referring to a specific project for the production of a launcher by the European Launcher Development Organisation, with which the British Government decided, for arguments of cost effectiveness, not to continue and on which not to undertake any additional expenses. I should be the very last to suggest that all technological endeavour should be judged on a cost effectiveness basis. As my noble friend has rightly said, statesmanship, compassion and humanity must play a great part, and I hope that I have not given the impression that I think in any other way.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I was merely stressing what he is stressing now: that we ought to have other values than merely whether this is going to be a cheaper or even a better way of doing something of which we disapprove. I remember that in our discussion on the 300 MeV in this House, some of us did not go on the basis of cost effectiveness, simply saying that this was going to cost as much as a naval dockyard in order to provide a high voltage accelerator
522
machine for the physicists. We felt—and I hope that most noble Lords here feel—that the judgment taken by the Government on that is a firm judgment. We felt that this was a question not of values merely in terms of money, but in terms of judgment. I myself objected to it, and would still object to it, on the grounds that we were paying danegeld to the nuclear hierarchy and that we should not in these circumstances do that kind of thing. This is not a question of cost efficiency, but a question of a larger and wider balance as to whether we want to do this kind of thing while neglecting other areas in which, as the noble Lord said, compassion and many other things enter.
5.42 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Bessborough for initiating this debate. I apologise to my noble friend and to the House for not being in my place when he ma le his speech, but it was impossible for me to be here at that time. It is interesting to bear in mind, when considering European technological co-operation, that since the last war nearly 60 per cont. of all major technological innovations have been originated in Europe, and that half of these originated in the United Kingdom. This may possibly explain the Belgian Government's statement in their Note on technological co-operation which they presented to the Communities Council of Ministers on February 29, 1968, to the effect that in the realm of computers, nuclear generation, aircraft and spatial devices Britain had a notable technological advance from which Europe should derive all the advantages possible.
It is also certainly welcome news that on December 10 last the Council of Ministers unanimously adopted a resolution opening the way to closer technological co-operation between the Six and other European countries, especially Britain and the other three membership applicants. But I think this will not mean much unless Governments are prepared to take positive decisions on specific industries and projects. If one considers Europe's space programme, I think it is fairly true to say that it is at the moment in disarray on account of Her Majesty's Government's attitude. I understand that during the Western European Union Parliamentary Committee meeting held

523
mid-January in London the French representatives said that Her Majesty's Government's policy on European techological co-operation was falling between two stools. They said that Her Majesty's Government were criticising, and withdrawing from plans for developing European rocket launchers without proposing anything worth while to replace them.
In the same vein, Mr. Theo Lefevre, the Belgian Science Minister, and the current President of the ELDO Council of Ministers, commenting recently on the present situation in European space cooperation, and expressing views regarding the merging of Europe's space organisations, had this to say:
"Looking back, we can now see that it was a mistake to set up in 1963 two European space organisations"—
he was referring to ELDO and ESRO—
"one for launchers and the other for scientific satellites, instead of creating a European NASA."
I understand that last year the Spaey Committee was set up, and that agreement was reached between Britain and the Six regarding the functioning of a European NASA, though I understand, too, that a compromise was reached at that time regarding launchers. Since then it would appear that Her Majesty's Government have been dragging their feet regarding a long-term applications programme, which in the past, anyhow, I understand has held up the drafting of a European NASA convention. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said earlier regarding this Convention, which is soon to be drafted, does that mean that a long-term applications programme has now been agreed with our partners?
In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said about cost-effectiveness in his intervention when Lord Ritchie-Calder was speaking (and I am thinking here of launchers), does he not feel that in the interests of European unity Her Majesty's Government should reconsider their attitude so as to adhere to a principle which was agreed, in effect, at the Bonn Conference; namely, "solidarity until objectives are achieved", instead of solidarity as far as the ceiling?—and I am talking about the financial ceiling. Does the noble Lord not feel in this context that it is most regrettable that,
524
again, M. Lefevre, a Minister of a country which has supported us so diligently and effectively in the past, should feel compelled to say, in an interview reported in the Brussels paper, Le Soir: "Britain has let us down."?
Turning to computers, the merging of companies which produced International Computers Limited may have engendered a quantitative change in the structure of Britain's computer industry which may well be capable of "buttoning up" (if I may use that expression) the United Kingdom's computer market. But the real struggle for power must take place in Europe. With this in mind, I understand that this company is looking towards Europe to extend and reinforce opposition to the Americans. Can the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, tell us, when he comes to reply, whether Her Majesty's Government are giving any encouragement with regard to a grouping of European companies in this particular field?
In this context of computers, I should like to quote some words from Christopher Layton's recent book, European Advanced Technology, in which he says:
"Governments should encourage this process of industrial integration by working out joint requirements in computer systems, agreeing on a common policy for the standardisation of data coding and high-level languages, and using the financial help they give to development to promote European companies instead of purely national ones."
It would seem that the opportunities in this field for computers are vast, for according to Louis Armand, in his book, Le Pari Européen, consideration is even being given to placing in orbit the "memories" of computers so that they may be consulted from all points on earth—in other words, libraries of the sky.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said in Brussels on February 8, 1968, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said earlier to-day, it was necessary for Europe to create a single, homogeneous, industrially developed market. He also said that Britain, as a contribution to its development, was collaborating towards the technological development of Europe on a Government-to-Government basis; also in the sharing of research programmes and by commercial arrangements between industries. Surely much more needs to be done to facilitate inter-penetration between firms in the United Kingdom and

525
on the Continent and towards promoting increased joint requirements. On the aircraft and components side, for instance, Dowty in the United Kingdom and Messier in France have created joint subsidiaries; the French subsidiary to handle contract work for the Jaguar, the British subsidiary for the airbus.
On the hovercraft side, the British Hovercraft Corporation are co-operating with an Italian group regarding a military requirement. I understand, too, that the British Hovercraft Corporation are interested in the French URBA system manufactured by La Societé l'Energetique. I understand that this could lead to a joint requirement for such a type of urban transportation. But for this type of linkup to thrive I feel that a far less nationalistic outlook is required in this country. I have given only small examples of co-operation, but I feel that we should be thinking in terms of large-scale twinning of companies. I also feel—in fact I am fairly confident—that the Minister will have been interested in the example of the Agfa-Gevaert combination of companies which, as Christopher Layton says in his book, presents an up-to-date case study in overcoming the existing obstacles to merging across European frontiers; in other words, a European response to the challenge of American scale.
Earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to the fact that the Communities Council had agreed to a French proposal for a European patents system to he examined. If I understood the Minister aright, he expressed willingness for Her Majesty's Government to participate in any discussions for creating a European Patents Board. I must say that the news the noble Lord has given this afternoon is most welcome, for again according to Louis Armand's hook this question of a European patent system has been considered now for the last 15 or 16 years. As to the Maréchal Committee, to which the Minister referred, I understand that that Committee was instructed to submit by March of this year a report on the possibilities for co-operation with non-member countries. Can the Minister when he comes to wind up say whether the report is out and is being studied by the Council of Ministers?
In conclusion, my Lords, I would say that one hears around this country and in Europe much about technological co
526
operation and all the benefits one should derive from it, but so far little of a positive nature seems to have been done. As I said, excessive nationalism in various countries is a lot to blame for this, and one hopes that Her Majesty's Government could take a certain lead, when considering the Communities Council's proposals, resulting from the Maréchal Committee report, to achieve to a greater extent a concerted policy regarding orders in the public sector. That is something which the Belgian Government raised last year in the Council of Ministers of the Communities, and I hope that this is a matter which Her Majesty's Government will consider very carefully, for without this it seems to me that it will be difficult to build up European technological cooperation to any great extent or to achieve a larger grouping of companies.
5.54 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, the Motion which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has moved this afternoon, and which we have all welcomed, relates specifically to progress in European technological co-operation. I feel that some noble Lords this afternoon have interpreted that term somewhat liberally. Technology is the application of experience and scientific knowledge to the creation of new things and new processes; and my personal hope is that any new European ventures in technology in which we participate will be in accordance with that definition and will, moreover, be designed to be, if successful, of true benefit to both ourselves and our colleagues.
I cannot help feeling that for the time being we are producing new scientific facts quite fast enough and that any additional effort in the field of science and technology should largely be devoted to applying them. This is not a theorem for all time, but as I say for the time being. I believe we should at present be concentrating on producing new "hardware", new systems, new processes, both at home and in our collaboration with Europe, and the quite ordinary firms can play an important part. Whether the new institutes under the Maréchal Committee are likely to have a similar point of view I do not know, but I certainly hope so.
Recently there has been a great deal of direct international co-operation in technology. The most massive example, as has been mentioned several times this

527
afternoon, is the Concorde. After years of labour, elaborate arrangements for Franco-British collaboration, the great test programme has started satisfactorily. One cannot but wonder, however, whether this great feat of technology, which is a notable monument to international co-operation, would not have been easier to achieve had there been, as the noble Earl suggested in a more general context, a single person in overall charge; and not only a single person in overall charge, I would say, but a single organisation for the task. We have had the picture of two great organisations working in concert, and, good as the result has been, I think the concert orchestra would inevitably have been more harmonious under a single conductor. The development of modern technology is difficult enough without organisational complication.
I have seen something of this myself because, as Chairman of the Air Registration Board, I have been concerned with the achievement, not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, mentioned, with the Bureau Veritas but with the Secretariat General d'Aviation Civile and the Section Technique Aeronautique, of a single set of airworthiness requirements by which to judge the safety of the Concorde. Once again, good will and common sense have triumphed, but the adoption of a single code of a single authority would have been far less wearing for all concerned. That is one of the things which will have to be brought to pass if the future of civil aviation in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Todd, was envisaging it, is to eventuate in a reasonable time.
But it is not much use being critical of the organisations which exist unless one is prepared to make suggestions for what might take their place. My feeling is, my Lords—I am not now referring to the Concorde or to any particular case at all—that international technological objectives are best achieved by single international technological teams, and that these are most likely to come into existence as the result of industrial associations, either consortia of European companies or mergers of European companies, or special companies brought into existence for special projects and internationally staffed. I should like British firms to be
528
encouraged to look across the Channel and to look across the North Sea to see with whom they might effect advantageous commercial conjunctions—and here I think I am on the same track as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, was a few moments ago.
There are many technological objectives which British firms are perfectly capable of achieving on their own. There are some which begin to look too big for single firms, and occasionally too great even for an association of British firms alone. Sometimes, too, technology developed abroad is more stimulating or more advanced than our own, and it is not difficult to discover a number of areas where the combined effort of a Continental and a United Kingdom firm would be definitely fruitful. It is possible to identify combinations of, say, British production efficiency and Dutch technology, or British scientific strength and French manufacturing skills, which, if effected, would be industrially especially powerful. I agree with the noble Earl that it would not be inappropriate for such combinations to receive Governmental assistance in our own case, possibly, through the I.R.C.
My chief reason for speaking in this debate to-day, therefore, is simply to emphasise the advantages of industrial technological co-operation with Europe; to emphasise in fact just one of the facets of the wide-ranging speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. We are familiar in industry with the notion of buying and selling licences for know-how and paying and receiving royalities for the use of patents. This is the minimum kind of co-operation. I should like to see, in a variety of industries, more international teamwork aimed at profitable and beneficial objectives. Collaboration need not be confined to great projects at national level.
One final point. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, suggested that ELDO suffered because it had no clear commercial objective. I think he is right, and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, agreed. But the European uranium project reported in the Press this morning does not appear to suffer from this defect. It can indeed be profitable in the usual commercial sense of the word, and I found it encouraging to gather from the communiqué that this

529
considerable technological operation is likely to be organised on sound industrial lines.
6.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, as others have done, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, upon moving this important Motion on European co-operation so skilfully. As drawn it covers an immensely wide range of subjects, and for this reason it is an attractive debate to take part in, because it is to be hoped that one does not repeat too much of what has been said before. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, perhaps flatters a number of us when he indicates that he is the only non-expert on technology who is taking part. My purpose in taking part in this debate to-day is to draw attention to the aircraft industry in European co-operation, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has done, and as I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, will do.
This industry has proved, I believe, the most difficult of all to harmonise successfully into European collaboration, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said. Its potential benefits are enormous—greater, I believe, than many of the subjects which have been raised this afternoon. A strong European aircraft industry has the obvious advantages of shared research and development costs, the basic home market which its members provide, and its experience and expertise in the design of new aircraft. All these can surely wrest from the American aircraft industry the near-monopoly grip it has at present over the Western markets.
This American stranglehold in practice means the supply of some 85 per cent. of all civil and military aircraft in service in the Western World. Above these natural advantages a strong European aviation industry has one great commercial advantage over the American industry, and that is the remarkable difference between the man-hour costs. I am told that the man-hour costs in Europe are approximately one-third of what they are in America. If one relates this to production, one finds that the man-hour costs of aircraft amount to something like 50 per cent. of the cost of building the aircraft. It is this factor among others, which in time must make a European
530
aircraft industry very competitive with its American counterpart.
Having described what I believe are the obvious benefits of European co-operation, and adding, if I may, the important fact that the civil aviation industry is without doubt a very great growth industry, I am led to ask what we see as the result, so far, of European collaboration and the effect it has had on the British aircraft industry. I believe that the answer to that would be, from an optimist, "disappointing", and from a pessimist, "very damaging".
On the military side (and perhaps I could say here it always appears that on the military side there is a distinct advantage over the civil side, as Governments are the main purchasers and the manufacturers are assured of at least a minimum market), there have been three major projects, not including the helicopters. In the first place, there was the ill-fated A.F.V.G. project. In my opinion the cancellation of this project, on which the Government had set their hearts as the cornerstone of our defence policy, caused a serious setback in European co-operation; and it led to serious doubts as to the real intentions of France, as to the future of European collaboration and the role which each partner would play in it.
To be more cheerful, one looks at the Jaguar project. This project already has a basic market of over 400 aircraft and from all accounts it seems to be going rather well. It is a project with a joint company with, I believe, a good central control—something which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, reminded us was an essential factor. Then we have the important potential project, the M.R.C.A. which again the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, mentioned. This is the successor to the A.F.V.G. and is a contender for the lush and rich markets of the replacement to the 1,000-odd F104s serving the NATO countries. In my opinion this project is vital to the future health of the British aircraft industry yet, despite the noble Lord's words of comfort this afternoon, we witness delay von delay in the making of any announcement. We read of meeting after meeting between Governments, with no apparent decisions being taken; and now we hear from the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough,

531
that there is a whisper that the whole project may be abandoned in favour of a French project. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to give us some firm assurance that this is not true; and I should be glad if, at the same time, he could give us some facts—as, for instance, the date when the proposed agreement is to be signed with the Germans.
If I may now turn briefly to the civil side of aviation, we see the two major projects. We see the Concorde, which has already been discussed, and also the European air-bus. Like the M.R.C.A. it is clouded with uncertainty: uncertainty whether it is the right aircraft; uncertainty whether it will be a commercial success; and uncertainty about which European partners will be eventually involved in it. We read that the Government are very hesitant as to whether they should commit a sizeable investment into what in their opinion may be considered a doubtful commercial success. We read of the other partners' growing impatience at the Government's hesitancy, and we learn now that there is to be a meeting in Bonn to-morrow and on Friday between the French and German Governments when it could well be that a decision will be made to go ahead with the European air-bus without Britain. Perhaps when the noble Lord replies he could comment on whether in fact France and Germany have warned Britain of this possibility.
The result of both the military and civil joint projects is that Britain is involved in only two of the major projects and faces the strong possibility of being squeezed out of two other major projects, the M.R.C.A. and the European air-bus. The question one immediately asks oneself is what happens if the British aircraft industry does lose out on these projects. Will the Government finance the industry to go it alone with British projects, or will the Royal Air Force be reduced to purchasing American or French replacements or B.E.A. to purchasing an American or European air-bus?
The measure of the success of collaboration for the aircraft industry has up to now in my opinion been very frustrating, and the reasons, I believe, are mainly two. The first is the problem
532
of national prestige, coupled with a deep I suspicion among the partners as to what role and share of the cake each will get. And the second is lack of central control, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said, of each project, leading to delays and rising costs and much frustration. From all of this I believe that the British aircraft industry has a special case now for careful Government protection in European collaboration. It is by far the largest and most powerful partner, twice the size of the French industry, six times the size of the German industry. And for that reason it is the most vulnerable. It has the greatest experience and knowledge and it is equal in this field to the American industry. It carries out most valuable export orders and of course is again the centre of a great growth industry.
It is my belief that this great industry has in the past been not strongly enough supported by the Government, particularly over the terms of agreement of the European project. For instance, over the five major projects the British airframe industry has been given only one design leadership and that was the leadership of the ill-fated A.F.V.G. project. I really do not think that is very good. The British equipment industry has also, I think, had little protection. In the case of the Concorde, Sud Aviation has tended to go to the American aeronautical equipment companies when no suitable equipment is available in France. On the other hand, to give the Government credit, the British aero engine industry, and Rolls Royce in particular, have been supported particularly over the European air-bus project. If, however, the project is built without Britain it is doubtful in many people's minds whether Rolls Royce would in fact win the contract.
I would end by saying that basically European collaboration must be right in the long term view. I believe our experience up to now has been very frustrating, and I hope the lessons have been learned. What I believe is the real problem facing the Government and the British aircraft industry to-day is not the long-term future of European co-operation but the immediate threat of an apparent policy of a so-called European partner to exclude us from two of the major projects to come, the air-bus and the M.R.C.A. If this threat should

533
become a reality, the British industry would, I believe, be faced with a serious danger of becoming merely a sub-contractor of the future, unless the Government are prepared to back it on a "go-it-alone" policy with British projects. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, described his Motion as an Easter egg which he hoped was not infertile. The proof of infertility will, I think, be judged by the way the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, replies to the debate. I hope that in the case of the aviation industry he will be able to say something to reassure the Government's support for the industry. Such support now seems more than ever vital during these rather turbulent times of European co-operation.
6.15 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for introducing this Motion. It covers a very wide spectrum, and the aspect on which I shall mainly concentrate is the danger of using technology for political purposes. It has been said with truth that this country is ahead of other Western European countries in most fields of technology, though many of the European countries are making rapid strides. Since the direct road into Europe is blocked for the foreseeable future, it has no doubt been very tempting to use such technological advantage as we have as a stalking horse to try to get ourselves in by a roundabout route. I was on the whole encouraged by the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on this matter, and I think that I may be speaking on very much the same wavelength.
Apart from specific projects and proposals, some large kites have been flown from Whitehall; for example, the proposal for a European technological community, whatever that meant. That kite has, I think, been hauled down and been replaced by more concrete proposals; for example, that for a European technological institute, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, referred. On specific projects, past experience illustrates the hazards of trying to exploit technology for political ends. The ELDO proposal, for example, was designed to off-load Blue Streak on to Europe. It was not a success, and we were, in my personal view, quite right to decide to
534
come out of that organisation. Perhaps it is "offside" to comment on the Concorde so soon after its maiden flight, yet its story demonstrates what can happen when a political objective is paramount. We must all hope that the Concorde will prove to be a viable commercial aeroplane. I was very much encouraged by the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on this subject. However, I suspect that the Government were quite right to try to cancel it on technical and cost grounds five years ago. But they found that they were caught in a political net from which there was no escape.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. He mentioned Concorde. I accept, despite my optimism, that the Concorde must prove itself in its test programme to justify ultimate production.
LORD SHERFIELD: I thank the noble Lord. I would illustrate my theme in the context of atomic energy, the area of which I have the greatest experience though I recognise that I may now be somewhat out of date. It is in the field of atomic energy that we have the only technological community which has so far been brought into existence, Euratom, and its history clearly brings out the difficulties inherent in this type of organisation. Frustrated by nationalistic policies, saddled with an expensive research programme mainly directed to the development of a reactor probably without a commercial future, it gives clear indications of what to avoid in the future.
Happily, atomic energy also provides an example of a successful venture in European technological collaboration, the Dragon project. It has had the advantage of a specific objective, the development of a reactor prototype with commercial possibilities. It has the further advantage of the management having been in the hands of a single country. Here I should like to support strongly the views of noble Lords who have advocated this principle of single management as opposed to separate management and separate design and development teams. Admittedly, there were some delays due to the international nature of the project and to the difficulty of awarding and carrying out contracts in a number of countries, but national projects are also subject

535
to delays, and the Dragon was not greatly out of line in this respect. This project has been notable for its low political content and minimal Government interference. The design has now been taken up by a European industrial consortium, British, German and Swiss, and is being marketed on its economic merits.
My next point, which has a strong bearing on the character of future projects, is the progress now made in this country, the Netherlands and Germany in the development of isotope separation in uranium by the centrifuge method, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. The news that an agreement on the shape of this project has been reached between the three countries is welcome. I do not know whether there has been a technological breakthrough in this most difficult process, and I hope that any temptation on the part of the Press and others to overplay the prospects will be strongly resisted. Atomic energy projects have suffered severely in the past from premature and exaggerated claims of industrial and commercial success.
If this process really now shows promise of being technically feasible and economically viable on an industrial scale, then it may well be more suitable for the satisfaction of European needs for low enriched uranium than an increase in diffusion plant capacity. But I trust it will be left to an industrial consortium or consortia to develop and market the process. I was encouraged by reports in the Press that this is in fact the intention and that there will be one prime contractor to build the plant, and a single marketing organisation. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, had to say on this subject, and I found it reassuring as far as it went. Of course, I realise that there are international implications in this project; notably that there is an inspection problem in relation to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that this must be handled between Governments. But otherwise I hope that the project will not be dealt with as a matter of high political significance, but rather as a co-operative industrial and commercial undertaking.
I do not suppose that there is any field in which there is a greater duplication and waste of resources in Europe than in
536
the field of fast reactor technology, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and by the noble Lord, Lord Todd. The extreme nationalism of the European approach to this subject is the prime cause of this duplication; and in view of the major lead in this field which this country enjoys, we cannot be blamed for it. However, now that the fast reactor is on the verge of commercial exploitation, it seems that a fresh attempt should be made towards some rationalisation of the European effort.
Here, again, I consider that this attempt can best be made at the industrial level, and the first step so far as this country is concerned must surely be to commercialise the work on the Dounreay fast reactor by transferring the responsibility for the construction and completion of the prototype to industry. I have therefore noted with some pleasure that there is a proposal to transfer the Atomic Energy Authority fast reactor team to one of the consortia, and I hope that any difficulty there may be in doing this will be resolved as quickly as possible. The sooner the Nuclear Power Group takes charge, the sooner it can explore the possibility of collaboration with other European industry.
This brings me to the question of nuclear fuel. Here the Atomic Energy Authority has already taken steps to collaborate with Europe by setting up joint fuel companies in Italy and Germany, with the Italian company making progress. This is another field in which it should be possible to operate by means of a European consortium at the industrial level. But a further step needs to be taken in this country before great progress is likely to be made in this direction. This step is to transfer the nuclear fuel operations of the Atomic Energy Authority to a separate company in which, while the Authority may have a substantial holding, it would also take industrial partners who are already involved in the nuclear fuel field, like Rio-Tinto-Zinc and Rolls Royce. This was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and it would be interesting to know what progress is being made in putting this recommendation into effect. Perhaps the Minister may be able to say something about this matter when he comes to reply. There is not much room for delay in this field if we are not

537
once more to be overtaken by an international company based in the United States.
Much is made about the success of CERN as a co-operative venture in the field of higher energy physics, and it has indeed been a success, but it is well known that international collaboration gets easier as the project approximates to pure basic research, and progressively more difficult the nearer you get to industrial and commercial application. The objective of CERN, for all the huge sums invested in it and proposed to be invested in its possible successor, is pure research. The same is true of nuclear fusion, a field in which Euratom can claim some success.
Judging from these precedents, I believe better results are likely to follow in the future by dealing with most large collaborative schemes as industrial and commercial enterprises rather than as political or prestige projects. Nowadays, Governments are so heavily involved in research and development, and indeed in national industrial applications, that it may be impracticable to denationalise such ventures altogether. My belief is—here, I think I am saying in different words the same thing as the noble Lord, lord Kings Norton—that they should be approached on their economic and commercial merit and left as far as possible to the industries in each country to work out. I have no recent information as to how Foratom is getting along, but I think that this organisation might serve as an instrument for the kind of European industrial collaboration which is needed in the nuclear field.
I submit that political advantage (at all events, in successful cases there will be substantial political gain) should be treated as "fall out" from the technological collaboration, rather than the other way round. It seems that in the past projects have been selected for political reasons and the economic and commercial advantages taken largely on trust. Technological success, as many American examples show, is due more to management than to scientific research, more to practical organisation and proper market research than to political motives: one design team, not two; single management for each project, not a duumvirate or a triumvirate. These are preconditions for success. Official supervision may indeed be necessary where
538
Governmental money is involved, but it should not lead to interference or to an attempt to control management. There is, however, one area in which collaboration is essential on a Governmental level, and that is in NATO, where the Scientific Committee offers an important forum for European and European/North American scientific collaboration. With the revival of support in the evolution of NATO as a result of the Czechoslovak crisis it would be interesting to know—perhaps I should know—how this organisation is progressing.
There is just one more view which I have to express, arising out of inter-Governmental co-operation, and that is that the lesser should be preferred to the greater. If a Community or a new organisation is proposed, settle for an Institute; if an Institute is proposed, try for a specific project. The International Geophysical Year and the Year of the Quiet Sun were examples of successful international scientific collaboration without the need to set up any permanent international organisation. Such an organisation, even an Institute, involves the creation of a vested interest and an international bureaucracy, with all the expensive administrative consquences that flow from it.
One word, in conclusion. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, referred to Mr. Christopher Layton's book, European Advanced Technology—and very interesting it is. But I would strike a note of of caution. The book seems often to asume that Europe is as we should like it to be, not as it is. The programme it advocates is so ambitious as to be unrealistic in terms of current European attitudes. We shall, I fear, have to be content with more modest and more partial solutions in a smaller number of cases. I have ventured to suggest one or two in areas of which I have had some experience, but even so I fear that I may have been propounding counsels of perfection.
6.32 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for initiating this debate and giving those of us who have given a thought to various aspects of the subject an opportunity to place their conclusions on record. My noble friend Lord Chalfont stated that a Convention report

539
on the European patent situation might be expected. For the five minutes or so which I intend speaking I should like to concentrate on that one problem which must be solved before any real, cohesive technological co-operation can be developed and stabilised.
There is a long history of the lack of co-ordination in the practice of patent law, and the differences have to be experienced in order to realise how wide they can be between one country and another. The need, therefore, to have another and. I hope, final examination of these differences is an urgent prerequisite to any progress in co-operation, especially where the products of research are brought to fruition. Such an examination might prove a greater degree of possible kinship between us and one or two of the nations of the E.E.C. A start has to be made to finalise this problem. This start could be one of the "limited and specified spheres" which the noble Lord. Lord Gladwyn, suggested in his speech in this Chamber on March 4. From a Convention report, which should be thorough, an end could be made of the differences in patent law and practice and a new European pattern could emerge. It would be one problem we could solve outside the Treaty of Rome. Until this particular problem is solved there will always be the danger of handicapping complete technological co-operation, if not of crippling it seriously.
My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on May 10, 1967, the appointment of a Departmental Committee to examine and report on the British patent system and patent law. He also stated his intention to set up a Standing Committee to advise the Board of Trade on more urgent questions of international collaboration in patent matters. If this Standing Committee has been appointed I should like to ask whether progress has been sufficient for a report in the not too distant future.
From the information in the second paragraph of page 29 of the brochure entitled Britain and International Scientific Co-operation we learn that:
"Since 1945 much discussion on harmonisation of national patent laws and on the possibilities of some form of international patent grant has taken place"—
540
I repeat, since 1945—
"and is continuing—for example in the Council of Europe and among member countries of the E.E.C. and EFTA and, recently, at the Secretariat of the Industrial Property Union.
"In 1962 the E.E.C. countries published a draft convention relating to a European Patent Law and the Board of Trade issued a translation. At that time the United Kingdom Government said that if, as seemed likely, the final convention were satisfactory it would wish to accede provided that it could do so as a full member."
This was in 1962. We are now in 1969, and we are not yet members.
My Lords, we are now discussing what is possible within "the limited and specified spheres" which were suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and if we take the limited and specified sphere of approach one need is to harmonise and, if possible, standardise the form of international patents of European industry, if European industry is to close the technology gap. There are difficulties in the way; one, of course, is of language as well as practice, but the English language is becoming increasingly more of a lingua franca even for the Japanese, as well as for other countries. I think it would be right to say that the standards of British patent agents are on the highest professional level and could very well be included in the basis of a code of international conduct.
Our approach to patent law is based on our common law, and the Continental system is based on civil law. There is a considerable difference. It is sad, even ironic, to realise that we in this country started the patent system way back in the seventeenth century. Now we have to wait upon others whose systems are yet lacking in many of the fruits of our experience. We should be ready now with a new initiative of our own to unite, step by step, with, say, Germany and Holland, and others who might then see the advantage of such co-operation. Ultimately we could agree on a form of European patent; and unless we do I cannot see full-scale development of European technological co-operation at all. One thing I think is certain: the United States, especially the big companies in the United States, would welcome the institution of a European patent control system. If this step can be achieved, the closing of the technology gap could extend beyond Europe.

541
In conclusion I would say this. The need was identified and pinpointed 24 years ago. Is it not time that we took the initiative in a new limited approach, in the hope that the merits of our efforts to seek collaboration will inspire others to co-operate. Even success in a limited approach must be pursued with determination before we can establish a new and lasting foundation on which good will can be built. My Lords, I apologise that in a few minutes I have to leave for another engagement and I therefore regret that I shall not be able to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Chalfont in reply to the debate.
6.40 p.m.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bess-borough for putting down this Motion and introducing it so skilfully. As my noble friend mentioned, we have seen the publication of Christopher Layton's book entitled European Advanced Technology which takes the reader on a conducted tour through the technological gardens of Europe with a nicely embroidered commentary about what is blooming and what is not. Mr. Layton considers that a good deal is not blooming. Those who are specialists will recognise the levels of perception that he achieves, and certainly his book and for that matter a good deal of other published material drives us into realising that there are critical thresholds in most advanced sciences and technologies below which our efforts can largely be dissipated and above which we have to work in order to achieve any success at all, but that in the latter case the rewards sometimes can be very high indeed.
It has been said that history is not a good guide because we have improved since then, and if we have it is because intuitive thinking has become a highly technical matter. Some promising lines of development or scientific research fail to yield results as expected after enormous effort and sums of money have been expended, and in research in particular misses are probably more frequent than hits. If it was easy to get hits all the time, then we should not be troubled with the agonising decisions about the allocation of national funds. Here is where the difficulties lie—in trying to get our priorities right and in trying to deploy
542
available funds to the best advantage. And it does not always mean "going it alone". Results can be achieved by co-operation on an international basis and my noble friend's Motion seeks to highlight this in Europe. There are two main matters to consider: first, to seek ways of building up joint research efforts in order to save money and avoid duplication; secondly, to seek industrial alignments to obtain economies of scale, and in both cases to match United States progress. There is no point in joining in international co-operative ventures unless there is some particular point in doing so on the lines I have mentioned.
In the scientific field, it is "big" science that strains national budgets and the co-operative ventures in space and high energy physics are worth reviewing. I should like to declare an interest in both these fields. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said, CERN, which started in the early '50s as a European centre for the study of high energy physics, has matched the United States' efforts in this direction and can be regarded as an extension to the facilities of a number of European universities, facilities which any one country would find difficulty in affording and which has given the Treaty countries in Europe the opportunity of making a major contribution to the advancement of fundamental science in the field of particle physics. In the words of the Convention,
"CERN provides for collaboration among European States in nuclear research of a pure scientific and fundamental character and in research essentially related thereto."
Its output is therefore largely in terms of scientific knowledge. Accounts of all work are published and annually it publishes a highly professional report, not the sort of report which could be debated in your Lordships' House.
CERN has developed steadily over the years and has recently conceived a number of expensive projects indeed, most of which have attracted the support of the Treaty countries, the latest of which—and most expensive of all—is the 300 GeV accelerator which, if it goes ahead, is to cost £150 million by 1977. Assuming a 9 per cent. growth rate in this country of Science Research Council expenditure per year, the experts believe that our contribution, which is around 25 per cent., to the 300 GeV project can be contained

543
within the existing budgets as distributed over the many fields of science. The technical case for the 300 GeV accelerator has been made out and the implications of the proposed United Kingdom involvement have been fully discussed in the White Paper on the subject. As a result, the Government have concluded that we cannot justify participation at present on financial grounds. Unfortunately, nobody has yet thought of a cheaper way of carrying out particle physics studies and the scientific merit of the new accelerator is not in doubt. If we have the money, I believe that this is a pure science investment which is justified subject to safeguards.
But what is going to happen? This is one of the fields where making headway clearly means working above the critical threshold of effort and facilities. If we do not contribute in due course to the 300 GeV accelerator, and the other Treaty countries in consequence decide to abandon the project, then to remain in a viable position in this field of science our national effort would have to he stepped up above the threshold—and probably the CERN contribution anyway—otherwise we shall have to consider the possibility of opting out of the main high energy field and reducing our efforts to fringe work. Will the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his reply he able to give us the Government's present thinking on participation in this particular venture in the CERN programme and, for that matter, their general thinking on the future of CERN? Do the Government feel that the Convention could be renegotiated in any way in order to improve it?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why he thinks that it is desirable that this should be done in Europe, rather than in America or in the U.S.S.R.? I should have thought that it is equally possible for scientists to share in any activity of this sort, wherever it occurs.
LORD IRONSIDE: I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on this point, and in fact it may well be the best thing to co-operate with other countries not on a European basis, but on a world basis.
CERN has been one example of how to organise a European scientific centre
544
and keep it going over the years. The ingredients needed for doing this are imaginative programmes and continuity. But there is a grave danger now that a gap could occur after the completion of experiments using the intersecting storage rings. However, there is one other aspect of CERN which has caused some concern to a great many people. It is that contracts gained by British industry for supplying CERN facilities have been few and far between. Reasons have been argued over and over again, but I believe that it is not surprising in view of the fact that CERN have no special mandate to encourage technology and industrial participation, which, incidentally, is in direct contrast to ESRO. But I feel that in cases of European co-operative ventures, contracts to industry count as benefits, and if the ground rules are well-conceived British industry can compete as well as any in Europe. One cannot force industry to get contracts with CERN, but I should be interested to hear whether the Government have given further thought to this particular aspect of CERN affairs and what new conclusion they have reached.
I should like to talk about ESRO, which was conceived in 1960 and is similar in principle to the CERN organisation and I think has a better set of ground rules, even though its charter is slightly different. I have been personally connected with the ESRO organisation as a supplier. I have seen it grow from a small hut in the gardens of Delft University to the network of establishments which now exist in various Treaty countries. It is a remarkable rate of growth in these initial years.
The convention defines that provision must be made:
"to promote collaboration among European States in space research and technology exclusively for peaceful purposes".
Thus industrial participation has been recognised from the start and British industry has received a speakable share of contracts, although still not in proportion to the subscription. Unlike the CERN situation, industry has been able to identify future products more readily and has probably, therefore, put in greater efforts to get business. Also, one cannot deny that there is a strong British base for aerospace business, anyway, and this has been a natural advantage.

545
However, the present institutional arrangements are far from ideal from the point of view of ESRO, ELDO and CETS. In fact, the situation in ESRO deteriorated in 1966 to such a point that it lost its legality in the planning sense. I mean by this that it could not plan beyond 1971, and this, in the European technology centre in Holland, has certainly led to a lowering of morale and a loss of the best scientists. I do not want to detract from ESRO'S successes, as the Organisation has launched three scientific satellites with the aid of U.S. launchers, and all these satellites have been very successful indeed. This is a considerable initial achievement, but there has been a serious gap in the programmes which has brought great disillusionment in those areas.
Combination of space interests in the ELDO and ESRO organisations seems logical, so that European requirements for launch vehicles can be organised by one European space authority which can manage scientific exploration in space, as well as the more important phase which we have to consider of application satellites which, in the estimation of the broad opinion of forecasters, could bring benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds per year to Europe and the United States for a number of years ahead, for what is, by space standards, a small investment of something like £100 million. Surely this is the sort of thing in which we should have a stake.
It is all very well for ESRO to plan a large astronomical satellite, which, incidentally, if it had come off might have given ESRO technical indigestion. And the Jupiter probe—an idea which NASA has been trying to sell to Europe for a long time—would that have worked out? These are scientific projects of great magnitude. In United States' eyes we may be best at doing the scientific missions, but if we do not have a stake in applications our industry will not obtain the full benefits of exploiting space techniques. I am not here referring only to the business of making a satellite body and designing the means to launch it into this or that orbit; I am referring to all the techniques for exploiting earth resources—communications, broadcasting and monitoring the atmosphere and the weather. There is a long list of disciplines involved, such
546
as optics, photography at different wavelengths, radar, infra-red, lasers, spectroscopy, television and general electronics of a very vast nature. Analysis on a grand scale, only possible with computers and highly-developed software, would be required, and hence a sophisticated technical approach is necessary.
One might argue that it is the space fraternity which has been stimulating the use of application satellites to keep themselves in business. But some attention has been forthcoming from the earthly professions who would make use of the remote sensing and other application satellites. I have heard it said, for example, that in agriculture there is no interest in obtaining information remotely from a satellite; but, on the other hand, I find people in the fields of geography, geology, oceanography and meteorology who have expressed considerable interest. I should like to see the professions studying this problem in earnest to see what it is they want from these satellites. The reason I say this now is that there is the more delicate question of organising a resources satellite chain from the diplomatic point of view, so that distrust is not engendered by the countries who may feel that they have natural resources to exploit or to be exploited. Clearly, the United States and Russia can put up satellites and can use them in what way they like, without much objection at the moment. But if European States are going to co-operate, it will be much more necessary to arrange international agreement as soon as possible. It is far more difficult to do this at the moment than to put a satellite up into space.
I now turn to the question of a European Technical Institute which I believe, if agreement could be reached, could focus its interests on to the really important fields of technical excellence, such as computers, underwater studies, transport and power generation. Little has been said in detail by the Government about their idea of such a technical institute. Do they have in mind, for example, that this will be an institute like the International Institute of Refrigeration, which divides itself up into sections or commissions and conducts its business at conferences and publishes papers—in other words, a rather loosely constituted sort of institute? Or is it to be centred in one enormous permanent

547
building in one country? Probably this would not be the best idea, in any case, but it might be very sensible indeed to consider one institute with different wings or centres of excellence in different countries.
I say this because we have no European organisation centred in this country at the moment—at least, not one of which I am aware—and I think that in any future European organisation it would be essential to have an establishment here, if for no other reason than a psychological one. The Dragon reactor at Winfrith, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is a good example of how a European establishment works in England, and I believe that Continental scientists were very impressed by it. The very fact of having European centres here would, I am sure, give a lead to British industry as well as to Europ: as a whole. If one is to get the best out of European co-operation, it does not seem logical to me always to have establishments located on the Continent of Europe. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord who will reply for the Government will say in more detail what sort of technological community is being proposed. Is he able to spell out some of the principal points which the Government have in mind?
Co-operation in science and technology ultimately strengthens industry, and it is the birth of new co-operative ventures from scratch that inspires, whether they be scientific or industrial. I believe that the most difficult thing to do is to make a success of a joint venture which picks up old projects and facilitates and tries to refashion them. Was it right, for example, to build ELDO on Blue Streak? Would ELDO have succeeded better if the European designs had started from scratch? Similarly, if a joint European venture in fast breeder reactors is set up, I believe that success would not necessarily be assured by throwing in the Dounreay reactor to seed the growth. The basis of real success in reactors might be to start work on an entirely new facility to meet considered European needs.
Scientists, it seems, do not readily like to work on other people's partly completed schemes—the "not invented here" factor comes into operation. This after
548
noon the high-speed centrifuge was mentioned, and this may be thought to be a promising project to enter into because it is something which is starting from scratch. One of the most difficult problems in connection with this venture will be the mechanical engineering of the centrifuge, so that it will work properly at the very high revolutions which will have to be achieved—something of the order of 100,000 r.p.m.
A new body which is likely to prosper is the European Molecular Biology Organisation. The big question here is: should there be a European laboratory? In the field of bio-medicine the organisation of people to work together in one laboratory does not seem to offer advantages over and above the exchanges which naturally occur. Molecular biology, which is more specialised, may not demand fantastically expensive facilities like CERN and ESRO, in which case a European laboratory will, in my view. have no particular advantages. In fact, the European Molecular Biology Conference, established by twelve nations in the CERN, Agreement on February 13 of this year, has decided that a central laboratory is not yet necessary. Medical science is in fact the most international of all sciences, and the exchanges and publications are prolific. But if very expensive facilities are required for molecular biology later on, then I think there would be some sense in creating a European central laboratory.
My Lords, in conclusion I think that the scientific areas that need strengthening most—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, whose speech I am following with great interest? Has he any further information he can give on this subject? I have heard a great deal about the controversy over the European Institute for Molecular Biology. He raised doubts; he mentioned them. I wondered whether he thought it was worth pursuing the arguments as to why this should be such an inappropriate area. He referred in particular to the fact that this was, in his opinion, unsuitable; that it was more suitable to small laboratories. I was wondering whether there is anything more he can say, because I think it is a very interesting subject, and it is rather depressing if this is not a suitable area.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, I think that this is a suitable area for co-operation, but I must admit here that I have not read the detailed report on the plans for setting up the central laboratory. However, from other comment that I have come across I understand that the actual outlays for molecular biology are not very great; and the latest comment that I know of is that in fact this laboratory does not need to be considered yet. If some fantastically large facility like an enormous electron microscope, or something like that, is required, then I can see some sense in considering this particular laboratory further.
I think that the scientific areas that most need strengthening are, first, the exploitation of computer technology (and I have not mentioned this yet), in all its aspects of process control, number crunching and language—particularly language, perhaps, because here there are a variety of languages, rather like the variety of railway gauges which existed in the last century. And it may be that a European Institute concentrating on computer languages might be able to evolve what might even become a standard language. Then management techniques here are also very much concerned with computers; and in the next decade, particularly, I think, oceanography and nuclear power. There are other aspects, but I think that these are the really important ones.
7.3 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, like the noble Lord I always listen with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, to whom we are indebted for introducing another of these technological debates. He knows his subject so well, and he always makes it appear so easy to those who have the opportunity to listen to him. Yet sometimes I wonder what these debates in fact achieve. The Opposition itemise a number of queries and the Government itemise a number of replies, and that seems to be that, until the next debate. Indeed, my Lords, I sometimes wonder, listening to these debates and to the complex technological problems which have been referred to, how a busy Cabinet can take decisions on these highly technical and scientific problems at all.
550
Later, when the Government have listened to the experts and sorted out the various schools of thought—and there are many—and taken a common sense judgment on policy, in many cases these decisions taken by the Government have to be put into international agreements, both in the public and in what has been referred to as the private business sector—which of course explains why my noble friend the Minister of State is replying to this debate. But I would say, having listened to the speeches to-day, that we appear to be making progress with several projects which arc worth while, and it is my view that it is important to our standard of living in future years that we do so, for we have missed the bus so many times in the past, or have finished up buying American.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, referred, as did other noble Lords, to the controversial Concorde, and I should be glad to have the assurance of my noble friend Lord Chalfont on this project. I hope that, after the tests have been made in France, and when the Concorde in this country has been flown here, the Government will take the decision to go on with this project. It has those who "knock" it in the Press; it has those who are in favour of it. But I believe that the balance of considered opinion about this, both in civil aviation and on technological grounds, will be that this aircraft not only can be a great dollar-earner for this country, one that will be able to help in a very considerable way our balance of payments problems in the 'seventies, but, even more than that, perhaps, can help us establish, or re-establish, the European lead in civil aviation.
My Lords, the great aircraft plants in this country, on the Continent and in the United States of America are going to need important projects. Both here and on the Continent, and in the United States of America, the competition is going to be intensive. Since 1935 we have increasingly, year after year, carried a great deal of our national economy in armament projects of every kind, and in our engineering and technological industries. if we get peace in Vietnam, as well as a measure of international disarmament, it will mean that Governments in all of these countries will have to turn to civil projects as never before. I ask your Lordships: in all the work

551
that is going on in research and technical development on the Continent, in the United States and in this country, are we ready for this? I believe that America is planning this now, and I believe that this is very much in the mind of President Nixon when he discusses the international industrial problems of the future.
I suppose that since 1935 a great deal of the industry of America, the Continent and this country has been concerned in what is referred to by some people as "the wasting products"; and once these vast orders for military aircraft begin to wane, we shall be hard put to it to find projects for the great plants in all countries. It is not enough to say that we are going into consumer goods. Unless we can face this problem in research and technical developments now, we may in the 'seventies be facing large-scale unemployment.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said that many of these international projects in the public sector should be left to private industry to undertake themselves. I only hope that he will have the opportunity one day to go to the United States of America to try to sell British aircraft. I suppose one of the finest salesmen we have had there is my right honourable friend Mr. John Stone-house, who was very successful in this respect. But the moment you go to the United States of America as a representative of private industry to sell aircraft, your customer must immediately refer to Washington; and it then becomes a political matter, a matter for the Government. To think that you can go, as a representative of private industry here, to the Continent or to the United States, or to other large markets, and sell without Government backing, without Government assistance on currency, is to live in Cloud-Cuckoo-land. More and more, it is the Government that we depend upon to see that we get these large-scale orders, these great capital goods orders, that are so important to our balance of payments.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, does this apply to aircraft equipment, as well as to aircraft?
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, if you ask any salesman of British
552
aircraft equipment who sells in the United States he will answer: Yes, it does.
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont said in his speech, we all know it to be true that we have led in technology but have lost over marketing. Of course, whether it be in films, in aircraft or in anything else, America, with a population of 200 million against our 50 million, has a bigger market. But as my noble friend has said, this will not be so if we have the common sense to pursue our ends in combination with Europe, and with the Commonwealth. We should never forget that Australia turned to the United States for much of her technology and aircraft research and development as well as hardware because here at some time we forgot the Commonwealth—and in this thought I include Canada.
My Lords, I suppose that the one thing we have learned in recent years is that no country in our economic position and with our resources can afford many of these important and worthwhile projects which will have a great future in the '70s and '80s. No country alone can afford them: but together, in association with the European countries, we can; and it is this end that we must pursue. Of course, as many noble Lords have said in this debate, the amount of money available is one of the factors to be taken into account in deciding on any projects in competition. Which project? How much money is available? The strain on Ministers in making their decisions is considerable; the strain on technical personnel throughout industry is considerable, quite apart from the problem of the brain-drain, because the Governments of all large countries are to-day involved not only in the economic management of their nation but in these technological problems in the public and private sectors. But if we go on in the way we are going—and I believe that we are going in the right direction—the prize is great. I hope that the Minister will go forward, and will even take risks—and particularly on the Concorde—to try to achieve this aim.
7.14 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, many speakers, and most justifiably, have congratulated my noble friend Lord Bess-borough on setting down this Motion for debate and on the manner in which he

553
opened it. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in the most charming manner, chided him for occupying part of his speech with passages which he considered would be better delivered on the hustings. Of course, it would be pleasant, for a naturally peaceful and friendly character like myself, to be able to place the great subject of technology, especially in the setting of to-day's debate, above and aside altogether from politics and the conduct of the Government of the day. It would he a particular relief in view of the fact that the debate is to be wound up on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who inclines to take everything I say so terribly personally. It would indeed be agreeable to saunter through the technological garden of Europe pretending that everything in that garden was lovely with the help of British green fingers. It would be pleasant but not, I think, responsible in a Parliamentary sense.
In this debate we have had to take into account the vital importance of technology to the prosperity and standard of living of any advanced nation and, in particular, ours, so dependent through history on the skills of the people rather than on raw materials. We have had to take into account the native enterprise as well as the skill of our people which has enabled us to overcome so far, but only just so far, the handicaps of a relatively restricted home market and the lack of some most important mineral resources. We have had to take into account the impetus and inventive drive of the brilliant individuals and design teams which were employed within our borders and which were envied by many other lands five years ago.
All these elements have been deprived, disheartened or reduced in some degree during these last years when expectation has turned often to a form of disillusion. We have had to take into account—and this must be the most poignant factor of all for the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont—the great opportunity which our technological virility gave us in our bid to join the European Community. It should have been, it could have been, one of the principal keys to the Continent of Europe—to open the door. Where it has been used at all by Her Majesty's Government, it has been used too often to turn the lock against us, partially, only partially, but discouragingly.
554
In such circumstances, however tenderhearted the man at this Dispatch Box may be, those failures cannot be ignored nor the perpetrators comfortably and altogether excused. I doubt whether there is any heart more politically tender than my own. I will therefore spare the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in two ways. I will be as brief as I can in summing up the content of this full and fecund rebate, frequently critical. I will also state, in deference to the noble Lord's acute sensitivity, that I do not personally believe that he had any responsibility for any of the failures to which I soon have to refer. I will personally drape him, figuratively. in a whiter-than-white sheet in that respect.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I briefly interrupt to say that I doubt very much whether the noble Lord will be able to lay any failures at the door of the present Administration; but if he does he must understand that I share them.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord is very noble; for there are a good many. However, to begin with, I ought to say that there are areas in which the Government can still retrieve the position, or even make an ad vance over new ground. It has been pro.)osed that a European Institute of Science and Technology might be set up by O.E.C.D., probably at Maastricht in Holland. France has not yet agreed to support this although I understand that we, together with the Dutch and some other European countries, have given support to the idea. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, dealt with certain moves towards this and I found what he said reassuring and encouraging as far as he was able to go. I am not minded to press him further unless he feels that by enlarging on what he said about three and a half hours ago with reference, for instance, to an enlarged Aierain Committee he can give me and others further encouragement.
My Lords, the Government can. of course, give encouragement to private firms to work together on a large scale. One of the three Continental models for this is the Agfa-Gevaert consortium mentioned fairly extensively in Mr. Christopher Layton's book. These are the multi-based European industries. Can the Minister tell us what our Government are doing by way of encouraging private

555
industry in Britain to set up or join in consortia across the Channel?
I am not going to dwell at any great length on the Concorde. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne and others have done so. I pray that this great aircraft may achieve success, in spite of an early effort to kill it off shortly after the Government assumed power. I wish it success for a great range of reasons, the maximum of success; and will not grudge and will not withhold any congratulations which accrue to members of the Government, in particular (and I am happy that he is sitting in the Chamber) the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who have been its enthusiastic champions. I went to see the two existing Concordes at Filton and Toulouse in their earlier days, and I was moved and heartened by the concept and its implementation. I was troubled by some of the lost or missing opportunities of closer and more immediate collaboration, but I believe that these shortcomings have since been overcome. Concorde is a reality in the air over France; it will soon be a reality in the air over England, and it is something from which we can all draw satisfaction and pride.
My Lords, there are other joint aircraft ventures on which the future may smile. In opening the debate my noble friend spoke of the Jaguar. He also spoke of the Anglo-French helicopters. He invited the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to inform us on the progress or otherwise of the desired M.R.C.A.—the multi-role combat aircraft—and the European air-bus. With regard to the former many of us, I know, would like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when winding up the debate, to be more definite than he was in his opening speech about the lack (as we all hope) of substance in the report of the Dassault offer to the Germans as a substitute for M.R.C.A. To hear from the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, as we did, that predictions about the R.A.F. receiving eventually the Mirage G were "premature" fell short of the denial which we should like to have. My Lords, my noble friend Lord Balerno, and other noble Lords, asked to what extent the Government are enthusiastic or hopeful regarding the proposed European Molecular Biology Organisation, and this may be one of the
556
matters on which the noble Lord will be ready to expound. It was also mentioned a minute or two ago by my noble friend Lord Ironside.
There are four major, thrusting projects in which the Continental countries of Europe counted on our co-operation and even leadership. All have 'been mentioned in this debate, some more extensively than others. But in case the mnemonics have disconnected themselves from the organisations in the minds of some of your Lordships, I will name them briefly now. There is ELDO, the European Launcher Development Organisation; ESRO, the European Space Research Organisation CETS the Conseil Européen des Télécommunications par Satellite and CERN, the Conseil Européen de Récherche Nucléaire. My Lords, the British attitude to all of these is a theme for sadness, a theme of forfeited opportunity and faith destroyed, or at least disrupted.
ELDO and ESRO seem to me the saddest and, in a sense, the most significant of these. The purpose of ELDO was, and remains, to enable Europe to play an independent part in space. The agreement was signed in 1962 and entered into force on March 2, 1964. A change of Government took place in Britain in October of that year. Within 18 months, at the beginning of June. 1966, the new Government had indicated the possibility of Britain's withdrawal from ELDO, but for the time being they decided to remain. Since then, last year, however. a decision has been made to pull out by 1971. I do not know whether the Government will say—I do not think they will—that there has been no irretrievable announcement about pulling out, but they have made clear that our partners cannot count on us beyond that date of 1971.
There has been a further piece of financial sleight of hand regarding the £17 million which the Government undertook to contribute during their remaining years of membership. An amount of £7 million is to be withdrawn—the Government will, I suppose, say "diverted" rather than "withdrawn", as this sum is to be transferred to a project which the Government prefer, that is. a programme of application satellites. I think I am right in saying that this programme does not yet exist, in that it is not yet embodied in a committee. There may be a working

557
party of some kind, and I have heard of a proposal for a Governmental conference during this month or next. Perhaps the noble Lord will say whether a date has been fixed for such a conference or what stage the project, or the embryo project, has reached. Will he also say, so far as he can, what degree of enthusiasm and support has been shown by our erstwhile partners in ELDO for an embryo to which we have arbitrarily decided to transfer £7 million which they had a right to expect as part of our residual contribution to ELDO?
The justifying of our withdrawing from ELDO could, it seems to many of us, hardly be called convincing. As I understand it. the argument is that because ELDO, with its reduced budget, could no longer have the same targets as the original ELDO, the new concept—I believe it is called Target Plan T.9—comprehends a different programme, a new programme, from which we arc therefore entitled to absent ourselves and to reduce and cease our contribution. As it was chiefly Britain who brought about this reduction in the budget and thereby the lowering of the target, there is something a little cynical in this line of argument. The noble Lord has said very frankly that he is ready to be more explicit on this issue, and I shall be grateful to him for that.
ESRO came into official being on March 21. 1964. It set itself a very clear programme: the tiring of fully-instrumented vertical sounding-rockets; the launching of two fully-instrumented satellites in near earth orbits; the launching of four eccentric orbit satellites and the launching, in the sixth year of the programme, of two fully-instrumented space probes or large satellites. with the eventual launching of several large astronomical satellites. That was undoubtedly an ambitious programme, but to most of the partners in EsRo it seemed realistic. So far as her contribution is concerned Britain has now set a 6 per cent. annual growth: a ceiling of 6 per cent. This is less than the other partners consider necessary. ESRO counts among its successes the 2,000th orbit of the satellite Aurorae, completed on February 22. Aurorae has now been in orbit for five months with all systems fully operational and collecting valuable scientific data. This is the programme, the success story, on which we have set a gross ceiling of 6 per cent. The other partners, therefore, have the option either
558
of cutting down the whole programme at Britain's behest, or compensating from their own resources for Britain's under-investment.
CERN came into being on September 29, 1954. As we have heard in this debate, although a partner, Britain has stood aloof from the major project, that of the 300 GeV giant accelerator. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned other projects receiving better support from Britain, but he will none the less be aware of the disappointment caused by our self-exclusion from the most important project of all. My Lords, we are standing completely aside from CETS, the European Council for Television Satellites, a field in which I should have thought, and others indeed believe, that we should have a distinguished part to play.
All this adds up to a sorry impression of Britain in European eyes. In opening the debate my noble friend related something of his embarrassment in having to defend British reluctance or aloofness. I have had the same experience. It was said to me the other day by a friend of Britain within the Community that we are making it more and more difficult for such friends to defend us and to promote our entry. He told me that the only interpreted reason for this conduct was that we wished to retain as many technological "chips" in our hands as possible with which to buy our place at the European table. Some of them are very high value "chips" indeed, but the nations of urope are not playing roulette. What they wish to see from Britain is European behaviour, as an earnest of our realistic intention and good faith.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has made a great deal, as he had to, of the touchstone of cost effectiveness. He explained during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that he was referring specifically to the ELDO project. It is only fair, I think, to say that until that moment my noble friend Lord Bessborough and I, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and perhaps other noble Lords, had the impression that he was making this explanation of our technological reluctance, across the board. So it is right to emphasise that we are alone or almost

559
alone, in that particular partnership. in thinking the project not worth continuing.
One way of looking at science and technology is as part of the great campaign, generally a bloodless and productive campaign, of humanity against the unknown. That unknown can be microscopic or infinite, visible or invisible, tangible or intangible, audible or inaudible. Whatever its form, it is a proper challenge to the human spirit and intellect. It is worthy of doughty campaigners. In that campaign Britain must belong in the front line. It is depressing to observe that on many fronts we have fallen back among the camp followers. If the noble Lord in winding up can give examples of where we are advancing to our rightful place in the order of battle, he will raise the morale of everyone in this Chamber and of many outside its walls and beyond the coasts of our country.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why we were not in the front line twenty years ago, when we could have been?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord has given his own answer about ninety times.
7.32 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am in somewhat of a difficulty, because if I were to answer in my winding up speech all the questions put to me we should be here for a very long time and we have another item of business coming this evening. What I propose to do, with the indulgence of the House, is to wind up very briefly, covering a few general points and going very lightly over the major projects that have been mentioned. If any noble Lord feels that any question of his has to be answered, he has two remedies. If he feels that he can contain himself this evening, he can write to me and I guarantee to give him a full answer to his question. If he feels that he really must have an answer now, of course I will give way on any point. I hope this will meet with the approval of your Lordships, because I have already made one long speech this evening.
Perhaps I should begin by saying that I hope the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald,
560
does not think that I am over-sensitive about his animadversions and strictures upon me and my performances. On the contrary, I enjoy a little invective, as he obviously does. I know that it is all in the best possible spirit. Incidentally. I congratulate him on his impeccable pronunciation.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Not quite.
LORD CHALFONT: Well, interesting, if not impeccable. I should like to repair an omission in my earlier speech, because I think that some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, felt that I had not sufficiently dealt with the central subject, by saying that of course I go a good deal of the way with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in the case which he made for having some way of discovering and identifying common purposes in technology just as we hope to find ways of discovering common purposes in political matters, foreign policy and defence. As he and other noble Lords have rightly suggested, the Monnet Action Committee for a United States of Europe is an excellent forum for the exchange of ideas of this kind. As we know, this is a non-official forum. It does not commit or represent Governments, simply Parties. But, as the noble Lord pointed out, part of our representation on it includes a member of Her Majesty's Government, and I see no reason why the ideas which we have on this subject of some kind of machinery for identifying and solving problems should not be put forward in that forum and I can assure him that I am confident that they will be.
LORD GLADWYN: I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I come to a whole range of problems that have been raised to-night. I think that I should answer on the spot the specific question put by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, because he was asking for information. And I am fortunate enough to have the information. He asked whether British firms were taking part in the European Industrial Research Management Association. I can tell him that they are taking part and that those taking part so far are Lucas, British Oxygen, Distillers, Guest Keen, Parsons, Piikington, Rolls Royce, Tube Investment

561
and Vickers—a fairly resounding roll call, I think he will agree.
In regard to the European Technological Institute, the Giscard d'Estaing proposal, I propose to say no more unless I am pressed, than that we are going along with it. The proposal for a European technological centre which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, rightly said was a better name for the Prime Minister's proposal than the other, remains on the table, and if anyone wishes to take it up we shall he interested to discuss it with them. We have heard a good deal about the European Molecular Biology Conference, and there has been a certain amount of talk about the laboratory project within this general organisation. I can only say that the idea of setting up a European laboratory, which came in for a certain amount of criticism this evening, is under expert study and I think that it would be wrong for me to make any kind of comment on that until the study is completed. We cannot know what our attitude will be until the experts have had their say.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked about the multi-role combat aircraft. I am sorry that I cannot add to this but I can tell him that within the next two months, give or take a week, there will be a decision on the project definition stage of this aircraft. The air-bus was another question which came in for a good deal of attention and here, unless pressed, I should like to confine myself to answering the specific question put by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who asked what was the cost of the A.300B and whether Her Majesty's Government would be financing it. I can tell him that the firms which I mentioned in my opening speech, who produced the proposals for the A.300B, estimate the cost, at January, 1968, prices, at somewhat over £170 million but, of course, this is an estimate which could escalate, as everybody knows. There is no Government commitment to expenditure on this project and indeed, as I said earlier, we have not given a view on this estimate.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how much money Hawker Siddeley have now been involved with, as they have been continuing this development for three or four months?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the general position about the A.300B is that we took part in the first stage of this airbus project with the Germans and French. I cannot give the noble Earl details at this moment about the actual financial commitment here, but the firms withdrew their proposals for the A.300B in December, as the noble Earl already knows, and put forward these proposals for a smaller aircraft with an RB.211 engine, costing about £170 million. These are being studied in detail with the French and the Germans. I can only say that our criterion here—this seems to have worried people in other contexts but I really must insist here upon our criterion—is that this project should be commercially viable, and we shall study the proposals in this light. I am sorry that at the moment I cannot give any more detailed information than that.
LORD TREFGARNE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but this is a rather important point. Can he say whether the sum of £170 million he has mentioned—which I take it is the total contribution from all three possible participants—includes the development that may be necessary for the RB.211 engines?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give that information to the noble Lord, but I will write to him and let him know. Obviously, it must be available; it is just that I have not got it at the moment.
I think it would be wise now to come on to the ELDO project, and to do so quite briefly. I think I have said all that I want to say about this matter. I could go through the history of it, and give long explanations of why we declined to go ahead with the additional expenditure, but all I feel bound to say at the moment is that there was no sinister political implication in this. We felt that this continual escalation in costs, which rose to something like £224 million in 1968, from the original cost of £70 million, which is an escalation of considerable proportions, was Teaching a stage where it would be quite wrong for any responsible Government, having to take great care about the allocation of their resources, to go on with the proposals that our Allies were putting. I hope that I shall not be pressed further

563
on this point. As I say, I could go into a great deal of chapter and verse, but it would take a long time.
My Lords, on the question of Concorde, the other important point that has been made, like everyone else in your Lordships' House I hope that the success of this project will in the end be achieved. I cannot give any categorical assurances about anything to do with this programme, because we do not know yet exactly how it is going to turn out. Concorde has, of course, proved itself with flight testing, and I think everyone is delighted that it has. B.O.A.C. hope to have the second prototype flying in about April or May, and I see no reason why it should not go on from then.
Unless any noble Lord feels that I have missed something that I should deal with now I should like to wind up these brief remarks simply by going back to the general points which have been made by many noble Lords, and perhaps most cogently by the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Burnley and Lord Ritchie-Calder: that is the need to apply wider criteria to this whole business of technology and technological collaboration than simply the immediate narrow criteria of cost effectiveness. I agree with this entirely. I agree especially with the argument of the gap that has developed between the rich and the poor countries of the world, a gap that is growing and not getting narrower: the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. Unless we are prepared as an industrial developed country to do something about this, we shall be faced with a confrontation of a kind that will make the cold war of the last 25 years look very much like a children's party.
I think that, in this particular context, which I regard as being possibly the most important psychological political problem that we have to face in the last half of this century, Europe can play its part; and this is a part that we, the British Government, want Europe to play. This is not to be a rich man's club; it is not to be a collection of rich white nations all intent upon the importance of their own material prosperity: if it were, then I, for one, would not want any part of it. This must be a Continent which will improve its own prosperity, improve its own
564
security, and improve its own political influence: one which will then make that political influence felt around the world in solving the great problems of hunger, race and population, and this terrible and growing gulf between the rich and poor.
As the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Ritchie-Calder, have wisely said, cost effectiveness is all right, but only if with it goes statesmanship and a proper appreciation of the needs of humanity. I believe that your Lordships may be confident that Her Majesty's Government will have those factors in mind whenever we consider this or any other international problem. We must assess the right priorities for the allocation of our resources, some of which arc scarce. But I believe that your Lordships can be confident that, in doing so, we shall have at heart not only the wider interests of our people, but those of the people of the rest of the world.
7.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this, to me, fascinating debate, but I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord St. Oswald for their excellent winding-up speeches. It seems to me that there has been some general agreement about the importance of European consortia, bilateral or multi-national, at the industrial level as between firms with a minimum of Government interference. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was particularly strong on this, but so were the noble Lords, Lord Kings Norton and Lord Balerno, among others. In my view this approach should certainly take priority over dealing with these problems through formal governmental organisations, although I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has been able to tell us that there is a chance of our becoming members of the R and D Committee of the Six, the Mareéchal or Aigrain Group. Again, I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, stressed urban research in development, and those less exotic and expensive fields such as pollution, to which I personally attach great importance. I fully agree with all that the noble Lord said about this matter.

565
We must, my Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said, work out European priorities. We do not quite know how this is going to be done, but it must be done through some group or in some way. And these priorities must be worked out often, but not always, on a cost effective basis. There was general agreement, I think, on the importance of single management control. All speakers have made important and distinctive contributions. I am sorry that I cannot mention them all, but I must now leave the floor to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE PRICE OF GOLD AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
7.48 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY LORD BOOTHBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are aware of the urgent need to double the price of monetary gold in order to provide sufficient international liquidity to finance the growing volume of world production and trade which is to be expected over the next decade, to prevent recurrent monetary crises, and to give necessary assistance to the underdeveloped countries. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hasten to say that at this late hour I shall be as brief as possible, which means pretty brief indeed. As I am a little touchy on this particular subject, I think I ought at the outset to declare a personal interest: I own a few Consolidated Gold mining shares; I only wish that I owned more of them.
My Lords, we are living in an age of vast potential expansion, vast poverty and a vast shortage of international liquidity. I do not think anybody would deny this. Bank rate in this country is 8 per cent.—a crisis rate; if I may say so, a disgraceful rate—and interest rates in the United States and other countries are rising. But the dollar and sterling still claim to be the reserve currencies of the world. They do this with what result? Production is being throttled back in the rich industrial countries of the West, and money which is urgently needed in the underdeveloped and starving countries of the rest of the world is being denied to them. My question, therefore, is a perfectly simple one: how do Her Majesty's Government
566
propose to get out of this dilemma by means of an increase in international liquidity, which is the only possible way?
As I have often said before, it all stems from Bretton Woods. The theoretical price paid there for fixed exchanges was adequate international monetary reserves, and they were not provided. The Americans then possessed most of the monetary gold of the world, and that is why they insisted on convertibility, which within two years brought about the first and biggest crash of the pound. I am on the Record about this. On July 31, 1947, I said in another place:
"This convertibility of sterling is imposing upon us an unbearable burden which we are simply not capable of carrying…It is sheer, stark insanity, in our present position, to embark upon this ludicrous course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; cols. 765–6.]
That can be quoted from debates and no doubt will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Within five weeks, my Lords, convertibility was abandoned in disarray; and within two years the pound was sharply devalued.
True, the scarce currency clause was written into the Bretton Woods Agreement, but in fact it has never operated. Why? Because the whole onus of restoring a balance of payments was then put upon the deficit countries and not upon the surplus countries. Here again I am on the Record, because I said it at the time. As Dr. Aschinger subsequently said:
"When a country runs into deficit the fault usually lies with itself. Surpluses, on the other hand, are very often the upshot of inflationary trends in other countries."
The implications of this doctrine, if it is true, are not very encouraging for us; because it means that, if we do get into surplus, as Her Majesty's Government are desperately trying to do, it will be due to the defects of other countries; and that is not a very satisfactory situation.
I have frequently said that fixed exchange rates, unco-ordinated monetary policies (national monetary policies), a gold price fixed in 1934 and never since changed, and non-discriminatory international trade can never be made to mix or work. This has now been proved. There have been 11 devaluations of the franc and the pound since Bretton Woods. There has been a persistent and worsening shortage of national reserves. particularly gold. We have now reached a stage when restrictions of every kind

567
are being imposed by most countries in the world, almost daily, in order to preserve a system that was allegedly designed to permit freedom of trade and payments—and, with it, economic expansion. Contraction is now the order of the day.
Two questions arise. First, was American insistence on convertibility at a fixed price of 35 dollars an ounce in 1945 at Bretton Woods due to the fact that at the time they had most of the monetary gold in the world, and with it economic domination over the world? I thought so, and said so, at the time. In fact, we did hand over economic power over Western Europe to the United States for nearly twenty years—witness Marshall Aid. And not only over Western Europe; over the whole world outside the Soviet orbit.
The second question is: was there a more sinister motive? Lenin (who nobody can deny had a capacious intellect) said that in order to overthrow the capitalist system gold had to be overthrown first. But he went on to qualify that statement. He said that in the existing state of the world, and until capitalism had been overthrown, the Soviet Union should use such gold production as they possessed—which is rather less than many of us think—to the best practical purposes. And they have used it to the best practical purposes. We do not know (I see the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, shaking his head) how much gold the Soviet Union do possess; all we can say is that they are certainly using it to the best advantage.
Reverting to my question—was there a more sinister motive?—as I have said, Lenin stated that the overthrow of gold must be a necessary prelude to the overthrow of the capitalist system. Mr. Harry Dexter White was not a stupid man. Did he see ahead as far as that? On this point I do not carry with me my noble friend Lord Robbins, who is a passionate defender of Mr. Harry Dexter White. But before he died Mr. Harry Dexter White was being exhibited as a Communist and as a paying member—well, not a paying member but an actual member—of the Communist Party. Alternatively, it could have been that the ultimate demonetisation of gold, and its replacement as a world reserve currency by an inconvertible dollar, was the longterm objective of the United States. And
568
I say to your Lordships tonight that neither of these is a feasible solution.
I conclude my speech with a few assumptions and a few conclusions. The assumptions are these. There is a great and growing shortage of international liquidity to finance a great and growing increase in the volume of world production and trade. Not even my noble friend Lord Balogh can deny that. Hence, what Lord Cromer has aptly described as the "Bankers' Bedlam". Too late to avert a crisis, the bankers scurry off to Basle, where they must have almost permanent rooms in the hotels, and there either fail to agree, or get the deficit countries, including ourselves, into even greater and more inextricable debt by means of "currency swaps" and other devices. Hence the I.M.F. Budget with which we are to be presented next month and which we face with some trepidation. I hope that it will not be too harsh. They are quite kind and quite genial chaps, the I.M.F. boys; but do not let us be under any illusion that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who any longer decides what the British Budget is to be. It is the I.M.F. boys who come over and pay such frequent visits to the Treasury who tell him what he had better do, and in fact what he has got to do.
My Lords, the third assumption is that gold will continue to be the basis of settlement of international surpluses and deficits, and for a long time to come will hold a privileged rank among international means of payment. The link between national reserves and gold must therefore be preserved. Why? Simply because the great majority of countries, especially in Europe, trust gold more than paper money, Government promises (just look at War Loan or Daltons when you think of Government promises), and paper panaceas such as the proposed Special Drawing Rights, which have no backing in terms of gold at all, and which in any event, even on the most optimistic assumption, cannot seriously dent the world illiquidity at the present time.
Two billion dollars has been mentioned as a maximum figure. It is nothing like enough. We should not forget, I think, that the purchasing power of the dollar itself has fallen by between 80 and 90 per cent. since 1940. The cure lies

569
in expansion, industrial expansion, not further restriction; and a rise in the price of gold to 70 dollars an ounce would only be in line with the depreciation of the dollar in terms of purchasing power since the price was fixed at 35 dollars an ounce in 1934.
My fourth assumption (and I am nearing the end of my assumptions) is that by refusing to raise the price of monetary gold we have aggravated the liquidity shortage by discouraging the production of gold, now running at only about a 1 per cent. increase; and by diverting what is produced from central banks into private hands and for private purposes. We have made sterling almost useless, and the dollar, with the present U.S. deficit, highly suspect, as reserve currencies. We have created a great uncertainty about the future price of gold which we see reflected in the Press every single day and almost every hour of our lives. This is encouraging speculators all over the world, and meanwhile we have been forced to deny much-needed aid to the underdeveloped countries. If the drawing rights of the underdeveloped countries to-day were added together, the figure would not counterbalance that of the United States alone.
My fifth assumption is that the short-term debts of the United Kingdom are, as the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, has said, hollow bricks manufactured at Basle and elsewhere during the past five years, and gilded, for the sake of appearances, in mortgaged gold—and that is not real money to me. Our present so-called international system, as Enoch Powell so aptly said the other day, is based on the systemisation of a lie—the lie that the relative values of gold and of respective paper and credit currencies are constant; because they are not.
My sixth assumption is that reasonable stability of exchange rates, although highly desirable, is no longer of paramount importance. I do not go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, when he says that fixed exchange rates should be done away with altogether, and that we should go back to floating exchange rates. I think there should be wider margins, and I leave it at that. As a seventh assumption and before I reach—to the great relief of your Lordships—my conclusions, I would remind you that
570
Mr. Schweizer said only last year in New York that the pre-eminent role of gold in the international monetary system is still assured.
If that is the case, based on these assumptions I reach my conclusions, which are that there are only two ways out: first, the demonetisation of gold, using the S.D.Rs. as a screwdriver, and the replacement of gold by an inconvertible dollar. That is what Mr. Fowler, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, was clearly after in Washington last September. It proved to be a non-starter then; it will prove to be a non-starter for the rest of our lives, and I should think for the lives of our children and grandchildren. S.D.Rs, as a screwdriver? My Lords, an axe would be required; and a screwdriver is no axe.
The second way out is an increase in the price of gold. It is the only commodity the price of which has not moved since 1934, as against every other commodity in the world the price of which has doubled, trebled or quadrupled. To double the price of gold would give us all a breathing space, perhaps of ten years, perhaps even longer, in which to devise a rational international mcnetary system based on gold and the International Monetary Fund, which in due course should be developed into a Central Bank for central banks, as many of us have said, and many of the leading bankers have said during recent years, but about which absolutely nothing has been done.
This doubling of the price or gold would immediately increase the liquid reserves of the Group of Ten—the rich countries of the world—and enable them to avert constant currency crises between one another, and to give aid to the less fortunate peoples of the world—including, let me add, the coloured population of South Africa. It would greatly improve our own prospects for a continued rise in exports, for which the Government, to give them due credit, are striving very hard indeed, and enable us to realise at last that borrowing is not the same thing as having money in the bank. It would re-establish international monetary law embodied in the E.M.F. Charter and now being recklessly and flagrantly contravened. It would be the precise opposite of the old pre-1914 gold standard because it would be a guarantor

571
of stability and liquidity alike, in a context of expansion.
Finally, my Lords, it would stop the speculation and private hoarding—speculation about the future price of gold, not only from day to day but from hour to hour—for many years, perhaps for ever, if the I.M.F. scheme which I have so long and so often advocated came off, because gold would flow only into central banks, and from them to the I.M.F. itself. I see no reason why, if this system were to be devised, the central banks should not give at least one third of their gold reserves to the I.M.F., which would then be in complete control. That degree of supra-nationalism seems to me to be necessary and desirable. It would bring an end to the present ghastly uncertainty about the future price of gold, with all its speculation and hoarding, and dreadful and dreaded consequences.
Meanwhile—and this is the end—the two-tier system is not working, and nobody can claim that it is. It has become an urgent necessity to find within the next few weeks—or months, at the outside—a temporary modus vivendi between Pretoria and Washington regarding the sale of newly mined gold to the central banks. If this happened—and mercifully there are signs of it under the new American Administration—we should be spared, at least for a time, the crises from which we reel to-day, one to another. The ultimate solution remains to double the price of monetary gold and to link this with a radical reform of the I.M.F. which would transform it into a Central Bank for central banks.
My Lords, I thank you for having listened to me yet again on this subject. I promise you that I shall not trouble you with it again for a very long time. Before I sit down perhaps I may say that I am reminded of a man who was very different from myself. He was ornate; I am by nature sedate. He was howled down in Parliament. That fate has not yet befallen me, although at one moment I feared it might befall me this evening when I made yet another speech on this subject. He was finally acclaimed as one of the greatest statesmen this country has ever produced. Alas! the only person who has ever acclaimed me as that, is myself. My Lords, Disraeli said, when he was howled down at the end of his
572
maiden speech (and this is a Bowdlerised version): "You will not listen to me today but one day you will listen to me". And one day, my Lords, you will listen to me on the subject of the price of gold.
8.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has put down this Unstarred Question is because he wants a big increase in the present insufficient amount of international currency. What I should like to say is that all those who want to increase liquidity ought not to dispute too much with each other about the best means of doing so; for that will only help those financial and banking authorities in all countries who do not accept the need for greater liquidity, and who may not be in the majority but who have on their side the weight of inertia, and who also have on their side the timidity of ephemeral political Governments who, in democratic countries, are often apt to play for safety and to do nothing, especially if those who want something done spend all their time in disputing with each other about how to do it.
My own view, which I have expressed to your Lordships before, was put very well, and I could not put it better, by the late Lord Keynes in the draft which he wrote of his plan for a clearing union during the war, which was approved at that time by the British Treasury. Lord Keynes said:
"We need a quantum of international currency, which is neither determined in an unpredictable and irrelevant manner, as, for example by the technical progress of the gold industry, nor subject to large variations depending on the gold reserve policies of individual countries, but which is governed by the actual current requirements of world commerce, and is also capable of deliberate expansion and contraction to offset deflationary and inflationary tendencies in effective world demand."
My Lords, if Lord Keynes had got what he hoped to get then, the Free World would have had a clearing union with unconditional drawing rights on 25,000 million dollars worth of bancors, as he would have called them, and the Free World would now be a vastly stronger world. Its potential growth would not have been constantly hampered and frustrated by a shortage of international currency reserves which has caused these continual balance-of-payments crises in one free country after another.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for one moment, merely to say that of course he is right, and Bancor would have been absolutely right. But Bancor was destroyed by Mr. Vinson and Mr. Harry Dexter White in the teeth of Keynes.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I know it was. I was going to say that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, yesterday, in reply to a Question, was good enough to give your Lordships sonic comparative figures about international currency reserves and world exports. He gave the figures for 1948: total amount of exports 53·3 thousand million dollars—or 53·3 billion dollars, as the Americans call it; total amount of reserve currencies in 1948, 48 billion dollars. In 1967 there were 190·5 thousand million dollars of exports, compared with only 73·5 billion dollars of currency reserves. If I may add one more figure, which I got from the International Monetary Fund publication, in 1938—before the war—the figures were 27,000 million dollars of exports and about 29,000 million dollars of reserves. So that in 1938 the reserves exceeded the exports by 7 or 8 per cent., in 1948 the exports exceeded the reserves by 10 or 11 per cent., and in 1967, now, the reserves are only 37 per cent. of world exports, compared with more than 100 per cent. before the war.
My Lords, surely when the noble Lord gives the expected figures by which international reserves would be increased by the Special Drawing Rights of something like 2 billion dollars a year for five years, amounting to about 2 per cent. of the total, he must agree that these increases are dwarfed by the tremendous increases in exports for which he gave your Lordships figures yesterday. The noble Lord quite rightly added that the velocity of circulation reduces the need for more currency. Of course that is true, both in domestic monetary transactions and in international ones, too. But the noble Lord would surely not suggest that the velocity of circulation since the war has increased by nearly 300 per cent.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord is going to speak in a minute; could he not put it then?
LORD BALOGH: I should like to ask a question, not to make a statement. What does the noble Earl mean by velocity of circulation of gold?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not know if the noble Lord was in the House at Question Time yesterday, but when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, very kindly gave me these figures on the recent comparisons between currency reserves and world trade, he pointed out, quite rightly, that the quicker money circulates the less of it you need; and that is an obvious platitude.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, as he told us, has been giving advice to many people for a very long time, and for some reason they have never taken his advice. But he has perhaps partly made up for it by continually telling us how right he has always been. Let us suppose that, by sonic miracle, the financial and monetary authorities of the world were to accept the noble Lord's advice now and double the price of gold. The present total of international currency reserves given by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was 73,000 million dollars, and last July he gave the distribution of this figure between gold and paper currency—about 40,000 million dollars of gold and the balance in paper currency. If Lord Boothby's suggestion were adopted, that would only increase international reserves by another 40,000 million dollars, so that you would have 80,000 million dollars worth of gold, and adding on the other 33,000 million dollars of paper currency you would get a total of 113,000 million dollars, which is still less than 60 per cent. of the total of world trade, still a much lower percentage than we had either in 1948 or in 1938. I should not have thought that an increase of this order was an unreasonable one, having regard to the needs of the world for more international liquidity.
Of course I know the noble Lord cannot get up and say that he is in favour of increasing the price of gold. It is a matter which has often been considered, sometimes favourably, by the Treasury, but the great obstacle is the attitude of America. without whose agreement it would not be any use. The late President Kennedy was advised, which your Lordships may think was not good advice, but he took it, to give a pledge that the gold content of the dollar would never be reduced. In American economic termin

575
ology devaluation is synonymous with raising the price of gold, which of course is not really true at all. It would be true if you devalued the dollar in terms of gold but did not devalue other currencies in terms of gold. But if you devalue all currencies simultaneously in terms of gold, that simply means that you are acknowledging the fact that gold ought to have risen in price, as all other commodities have risen, in the last thirty or forty years. But if the Americans think it is a matter of national pride that they cannot do this, it would not be practicable to try to do it without them. What we can perhaps do is to talk to people of influence on institutions like the Group of Ten or O.E.E.C., who may be willing to listen and to think of, to them, new ideas of this kind. But if we do not, if we cannot persuade the Americans to agree to an alteration in the value of gold, we must at least try to persuade them and others to do something upon an immeasurably larger scale than has been done by the recent Special Drawing Rights Scheme.
Of course it is true that, in the last twenty or thirty years, the economy of the Free World has advanced. But it has advanced unevenly, like a cripple with one leg and a crutch; and the only reason why it has been able to continue to advance in the uneven way in which it has advanced, is that the United States have never been required to pay off their vast external currency deficit which has been accumulating for the last twenty years. Suppose that they found they had to pay it off; suppose that the international bankers required them to pay back some of it—it amounts, I think, to more than 20,000 million dollars. Or suppose that you got an American Congress or an American Administration who suddenly felt that they ought to try to pay off their foreign debts in foreign currency. Or suppose that the American public became tired, as they may well do some day before long, of bearing so much of the burden of helping underdeveloped countries, of defending the Free World and of helping other countries with their trading deficits.
Suppose that were to occur, and that America were to stop accumulating this vast currency deficit. The economy of the Free World would then collapse more disastrously than it did in 1931; and if
576
we are to get rid of this lurking danger which is always behind us, we must increase international liquidity to a far greater extent than what is now proposed, and we must do it soon.
8.23 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I rise in fear and trembling. When a humble person like myself disagrees with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, he must indeed be in terrible panic. Nevertheless, if I rise to my feet in order to oppose their view, it is really because I understood Keynes once to say that gold is one of those barbarous relics which mislead us into the abyss. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that we ought to raise the price of gold in order to end the uncertainty about its price. Should one, for instance, legiti-mise car speeding because there are many people who exceed the speed limit? Should we further speculation by satisfying people's speculative urge, by giving them profits, by raising the price of gold? They will thirst for more.
What is most interesting in this debate is that we have never been given facts: nor have we been given any idea of the relationship of the monetary side to the real facts of production. First of all, we ought to look at trade. Since the last World War trade has expanded far faster than production, and it is still rising very fast indeed. There is no proof that there is a shortage of international liquidity if you look at trade, because trade has never before been expanding quite so fast. Even last year the expansion was near its maximum—not quite the maximum, but near its maximum. So from that point of view, again, there is absolutely no reason to suppose—
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, to ask him about the prosperity of South-East Asia and South America?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, the prosperity of those countries is connected with various political factors into which we do not now need to enter. In any case, I could not give them because I am not a great expert on them, although I have visited those countries. But I should not have thought that it had anything much to do with gold. Actually, the gold reserves of the Latin American countries have increased quite smartly. One of

577
the troubles is that they cannot spend it fast enough on development expenditure.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, says that he does not believe that the velocity of circulation (whatever he may mean by that in this context) is rising very fast. What is happening is that on the basis of a certain amount of gold a much larger credit is built up. You may express it in this way—I think it is a perfectly sensible way of expressing it—but the real situation is that we have expanded credit on the basis of gold and foreign exchange reserves much further than it was expanded before. Indeed, what I am a little puzzled about is that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, now says that we want to have more liquidity because the monetary circulation has not risen fast enough. I always understood that his friends, both here and in the lower House, had been complaining that the monetary circulation has risen too fast and that our Government at the moment were rather reckless in increasing monetary circulation in this country too much.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is confusing domestic monetary circulation with international monetary circulation. My remarks about velocity were simply a comment on what Lord Beswick said yesterday in reply to a Question, and if the noble Lord would take the trouble to read it I think he would understand it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think in fairness to the noble Earl I ought to say that I was referring to the improved or increased international co-operation, the swap arrangements and so on, which enabled us, as my noble friend is also saying, I think, to make a given quantity of monetary reserves do a greater job.
LORD BALOGH: But, my Lords, the internal circulation has an immense amount to do with it; it has a most intimate connection with it. What does international liquidity do? It is to pay balances; not for trade—for trade balances. If all countries expand together the trade can expand rapidly without the balances rising, because both imports and exports rise together. The need for reserves arises when there is a great difference between the policies of various important Governments in respect to their internal prosperity. If one country expands rapidly then the other will not. Difficulties have arisen to some extent,
578
but only to some extent, from the fact that the Germans especially, and to some extent also the Japanese, have not been expanding that fast in terms of money, but they have been expanding very fast in real terms; therefore their exports have gone up, their imports have not risen as fast, and we have had to pay in cash. That sort of cash payment needs international liquidity. International liquidity is necessary to pay for the balances.
I fear that for us, the British, now to say that we need more international balances is not altogether a very tactful or a very good thing, because obviously our personal problems are involved. Therefore it would be much better if we waited so that somebody else should take the matter up so far as the international situation is concerned. Because foreign countries—and especially the French—will make an enormous case against us by saying that we want much more international liquidity in order that we may be able to go on in what they call our "profligate way". Obviously there is little in that case again us; but for tactical reasons I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has raised this matter just now.
It seems to me that if this world is to find its balance again there are two major problems to be overcome. The first is, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said himself, very rightly, that a system should be established in which creditor countries have to contribute to the balancing process as much as debtor countries; that creditor countries should be made to benefit by expanding as much as debtor countries are forced to contract. In that way, the need for international liquidity will decrease.
The second thing, it seems to me, is that in making our readjustments we shall have to give up our main reliance on indirect global controls. Neither deflation nor inflation have been working very well when managed either by fiscal or by monetary policy. It seems to me that a much more sophisticated and much more direct policy on incomes VS ill be needed if the creditor countries are to be permitted to expand without their fear of being overwhelmed by an irresistible wave of inflation—which obviously Professor Shiller is now resisting; and by resisting it he makes the process of readjustment in all other countries much more

579
difficult. In our case it is the increase in our wages and other incomes which constitutes the basic danger for our international liquidity and our international solvency. So long as our incomes rise faster than our productivity we shall not be able to accelerate the increase in productivity sufficiently, our costs per unit of output will rise faster than those of other countries, and we shall, therefore, be in debt; and therefore we shall lose our economic independence. It seems to me that this is the point to emphasise.
I do not believe that a revaluation of gold—apart from giving profit to people who ought not to get any profit out of their anti-social activities, and apart from giving a national present to Russia. to Rhodesia and to South Africa—will accomplish very much. It may accomplish one thing, however: that the rich will get richer and the poor may get much poorer, because some of their debts have been expressed, unfortunately, in gold. Therefore, I feel that for once I must, with deep sorrow, part company with my noble friend Lord Boothby—I hope he still calls me that after this. I think that much more direct, much more thoughtful, much less arbitrary and much less "squandermania" measures are needed than a change in the price of gold.
8.35 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I arrived in Britain from South Africa only to-day. I only knew of this debate at a late hour to-day, and therefore I am speaking almost off the cuff, though noble Lords are aware that on a number of previous occasions I have shown an interest and declared an interest in South Africa. I shall be very brief and deal with only two or three points in a vast subject. One of them was mentioned by the noble Lord who has just sat down. We do not want, he said—he almost said it would be a painful thing, but he did not quite use those words—to reward those who do not deserve to make a profit. Now, who are they?
LORD BALOGH: Speculators.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, people who mine. Why should they not be rewarded fairly according to
580
the cost of the efforts they make, just as every other labourer is worthy of his hire? Investors—if you like, speculators. Is not this a word bandied about by politicians to cause prejudice? A speculator is surely a person who buys and sells, and thereby makes a market; and there must be a market, whether you are talking about rice, wheat, boots and shoes, platinum, diamonds or gold.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend for one moment, I might say that Lord Keynes was one of the greatest and most successful speculators of all time.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, indeed he was. It is no crime to speculate. Secondly, it is no crime to enrich South Africa or Russia because you do not happen to agree with some of their internal policies. If we were to devise our economic way of life in order to enrich those countries who pursued policies we liked, and to avoid enriching those countries who pursued policies we did not like, we should get into a terrible tangle. Surely we must trade with the whole world without prejudice, and without trying to direct our affairs this way or that.
The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that not only would the rich get richer—which he would regard as a terrible thing apparently—but the poor would get poorer. Not at all. Whenever the rich get richer the poor get richer too, because there are more riches to go round, and if trade and industry and world movement of affairs increases, it enriches everybody. If South Africa gets richer, or Russia gets richer, the world is not going to be impoverished thereby; it is going to be enriched. In particular, in southern Africa neighbouring African countries are going to be enriched because more and more the Republic of South Africa is itself becoming not only an economic adviser and supporter, but a power in southern Africa, a power for good, just as we have sought in vain for many years to be a power for good in other parts of the world. Unless one is going to cut off one's nose to spite one's face, one cannot say, "We will not do something that is going to be good for the trade of the whole world because it will enrich particular countries".

581
I wish to make a plea for a slightly different solution from that which has been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and that is a return to the free rates of exchange and a free price for gold which was the system for the greater part of the last 100 years. 1 have ventured to say on other occasions that it is only since we have had a fixed price for gold that we have had recurrent gold crises; they did not exist before. If the price of gold is fixed by the terms of demand and supply, by the daily market in gold itself, then it is self-adjusting, and one does not build up the pressures which lead to these recurrent and upsetting gold crises.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, ventured to quote himself from Hansard of twenty years ago, if I may say so with great effect. I have not got Hansard here and I did not expect to speak tonight, but I may remind those Members of the House who happened to be present of a debate on finance which was held in the last week of November of last year. Just before I went to South Africa I spoke on this subject, and ventured to say that there would be another crisis in a short time, possibly within a year. In fact it occurred within a fortnight, and we had Mr. Jenkins's mini-Budget. I prophesy again, and I am sorry to be a prophet of woe, that unless we tackle together the problem of the exchanges and the problem of gold intelligently and sensibly—and that means freeing it, and freeing it probably means allowing it to rise—we shall be forced to do it in circumstances after yet another crisis. Who knows that it may not come in another fortnight? If it does not come in another fortnight, it may be in another month; and if it is not in another month, it will be in another six months. But it is as inevitable as the return of the sun to-morrow morning. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Boothby, and I am glad that he has brought this matter back before the House.
I should like to say one last word to my noble friend Lord Dundee. If Keynes's schemes for this and that had been followed, how different it would have been. But how many "if's" and "and's" are there in the world? If Socialism had operated for the last fifty years, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. no dou'lle would he richer in intelligence and in happiness, if he was not a com
582
missar as well. Maybe we would all have been better off and the rich would have been poorer or the poor richer, or perhaps they would all have been poorer. But "if's" and "and's" do not get us anywhere. The fact is that people as a whole do not believe in Keynes. I was a believer in Keynes when I was a young man, and read him with the greatest of interest. I hoped that his wisdom might prevail among the leaders of the world: but it did not. The fact remains that gold is the only guiding commodity in the financial structure in which all people in the world believe. Theorists like Lord Balogh who do not believe in it are limited in number, and they are not the people who rule Governments—even he does not now, I believe. Gold is believed in; paper is not.
I apologise for repeating one other sentence which I uttered last November. We in these Islands and the voters in most countries that have voters do not trust their own Treasuries. How much less can one trust the Treasuries of other countries? If one does not trust them, how can one expect to make a paper credit-note work?
8.45 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I intervene only because I am provoked by Lord Boothby's reference to Harry Dexter White. I am reporting a circumstance which was part of history. I was the messenger in 1942, just after Pearl Harbour, who took to America Keynes's proposals on Bancor. I did not understand it; I do not understand it now. I was merely the messenger "by hand of officer alone" on a mission to the White House. One thing which was clear, obvious and manifest—Keynes said it and I say it now—is that Harry Dexter White was the tool of Wall Street. He was not a Communist; he never was a Communist, and he died in the process of being accused of being one. That was in the McCarthy days.
I would ask Lord Boothby not to repeat this absolutely macabre story in which White was identified as a Communist. He was not. He was, in Keynes's terms, a tool of 'Wall Street, Why? Because, as the agent of Wall Street, he shot down Bancor. He destroyed the whole idea of an international currency for which

583
Keynes was working and which he canvassed in this Chamber, and which one might think was workable. It was not destroyed by some great Communist intrigue: it was destroyed by the demand at that time in the United States that one should not have any international currency but the dollar—but, by concession, they conceded the acceptance of sterling as one of two reserve currencies. There was no gold dollar to which this could be related, yet the whole of the subsequent currency was related to a dollar which was never minted because the U.S. itself had gone off the gold standard—a dollar which did not exist.
If we are going to ask ourselves this question, I must seriously ask your Lordships to consider what is the literal meaning of gold. I do not care who is interested in gold investments or gold mining. There is only one purpose that I know to which to put gold and make it work. That is to make a wedding ring of it and put it on your wife's finger and send her to the wash-tub. There is no other purpose for gold except ornamental or in backing up a currency. We have to escape from the mythology which those like the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, are creating. It is a mythology which we must destroy. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that we are creating an enormous potential of production. We are trying to put it through gold pipes but we have not enough gold to produce the right diameter.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, replies perhaps he would allow me to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. If he gives his personal authority that Harry Dexter White was not a Communist, then I accept it. I also have it on the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. The only thing that strikes me as funny is that before he died he was proclaimed as a Communist, not only in the American Press but in the Press of the world, and I have never seen it authoritatively contradicted.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I reply by saying that the answer is that that is McCarthyism.
8.49 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was fascinated by what the noble Lord, Lord
584
Boothby, had to say, and I was equally interested to hear what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, by my noble friend Lord Balogh, by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. This is indeed a fascinating subject. It is a mythology that we are discussing. But I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for raising this matter, as it gives me an opportunity of saying that the Government are opposed to an increase in the price of monetary gold and I am going to give the reasons why.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and others have said, there is a need for more international liquidity. The point at issue is the method of achieving it. To raise the monetary price of gold would certainly increase liquidity, and it could conceivably bring about a certain strengthening of the monetary system at least for a short time. But it would also have many harmful effects, of which not least would be the loss of the present opportunity of reforming the international monetary system on a sounder and better basis. I propose to spell out six reasons why the Government reject this pressure for an increase in the official gold price.
First, it would mean an excessive and sudden increase in liquidity. We cannot have intermittent changes in gold price if there is to be stability in the international monetary system. That is why in 1934 it was necessary to raise the price to a level at which people could have confidence in it for a long period. Those who advocate an increase in the price as does the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, call for a doubling of the price Ito 70 dollars an ounce. Think what this would mean, my Lords. World gold reserves at present stand at about 39 billion dollars, out of total reserves of gold and foreign exchange of about 67 billion dollars. The effect of doubling the price would be immediately to raise the total of world reserves to about 106 billion dollars, plus an enormous flow from new production and private holdings into official reserves. We need an increase in liquidity, but not a sudden jump like this. In due course a time would come when there would be new pressure for another increase in the price of gold and the world would again be facing the

585
question whether the increase in liquidity was to come about by this means or by some other.
Secondly, the gold price method would mean that the increase of liquidity would be distributed in a harmful and undesirable way. The gold in official reserves at present is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the strong countries. Those with already ample reserves would have more, while many countries with exiguous reserves would gain nothing. I do not need to emphasise the fact that it would be grossly inequitable and would leave the countries which have held their reserves mainly in the form of currencies with a justifiable grievance. It would be an inefficient method. More reserves are needed for the world as a whole, if world trade is to benefit, not just for those who are already well padded. I am not arguing that an increase in the gold price is to be resisted because it would benefit countries like South Africa and the Soviet Union. Indeed the truth is that it would probably create a major inflationary problem in the South African economy. That is a secondary point. The main point is that the new liquidity would not go where it is needed. I know that it is suggested by M. Rueff, the gold apostle, and Lord Boothby in his new apostolic role, that after the price has been increased something might be done to redistribute some of the gains to the less-developed countries. I regard this as an admission of the inadequacy of this technique for increasing liquidity. The practical problems involved in making such a redistribution would obviously be very great.
Thirdly, so sudden and large an increase in liquidity would probably have inflationary effects. This is not a matter of Governments going on a spendng spree with their newly-gained reserves. The greater danger of inflation lies in the unloading of private hoards which would be provoked by the price increase. Countries where there is a lot of private gold hoarding, such as France and India, would feel this particularly.
Fourthly, and most importantly, an increase in the price of gold would probably mean throwing away an opportunity to advance towards a more rational monetary system. If we rely on gold, no matter what the price, the supply of international reserves is arbitrary. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, quoted the
586
words of Lord Keynes in his "Proposals for an International Clearing Union", and he could not have quoted better words. I should have quoted them myself if the noble Earl had not given them to us. But instead I will quote from someone else, from the truly prophetic speech made in this Chamber—and it was in this Chamber, although at the time it was occupied by the House of Commons—on December 12, 1945, by Mr. Boothby, as he then was. He then said:
"I believe it"—
that is, gold—
"is the greatest obstacle to the one thing which will get the world to its economic goal, which is a continuous policy of economic expansion".
I know, as he reminded us, that he was relating that evil of gold in the context of Bretton Woods, but it was gold itself which he attacked as he made clear in remarks which followed. He said then:
"Many hon. Members will remember vividly the Debates of 1925, and the old days of the gold standard of the 1920s. This Debate is like living the whole thing over again. We finished the last war"—
that was, of course, the 1914–18 war—
"a prosperous country, with a prosperous agriculture. It took ten years of deflation to turn it into a really poor country, with a derelict agriculture, the workers migrating to the United States, factories, dockyards and workshops closed down, and with 3 million unemployed. That is what the gold standard did to us last time."
Progress towards the objectives of a genuinely international currency has been slow. Lord Keynes's far-seeing proposals have still to be translated into reality. It may be many years before we get to a point at which the world can rely on an international paper money managed by an international agent or some kind of World Central Bank. But we should not underestimate the progress we have made with the scheme for Special Drawing Rights. Nor should we underestimate the contribution made by this country to get the world to move forward towards reason.
Many people may have been misled by the title of "Special Drawing Rights". S.D.R.s are not a borrowing facility. They are a new form of reserves in themselves. They are quite unlike the existing drawing rights in the I.M.F.—they do not confer on countries the right to draw or borrow currencies from a central pool. Indeed, the radically new thing about

587
S.D.R.s is that there is no central pool or deposit of currencies or gold to back them. Their value lies simply in the fact that all participants in the scheme have undertaken, within the regulations of the scheme, to accept S.D.R.s from other members and provide currency in exchange. In practice, therefore, they will be used in much the same way as gold is now used for the settlement of deficits.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that the scheme would never get off the ground, but it is now in process of ratification, and there is every reason to expect that that process will be completed this spring, and Her Majesty's Government hope that it will be possible to make the first distribution of S.D.R.s before the end of this year. An increase in the price of gold at this stage would, I believe, undercut the foundations of this new edifice. The incentive to move forward would go. We should be back to relying on the arbitrary supply of a certain beautiful metal. International co-operation to regulate the world's supply of reserves would have been dealt a very heavy blow.
Fifthly, my Lords, an increase in the price of gold would create very great problems for the International Monetary Fund, and especially for its debtors. This is a point which we in this country must take very seriously indeed. Debts to the I.M.F. carry a gold-value guarantee and a doubling of the price of gold would mean that those debts would be doubled in terms of sterling or dollars. It is true that the I.M.F. has the right to waive this guarantee. But since there is an absolute gold-value guarantee on the Fund's liability to its creditors, which cannot be waived, we can by no means take it for granted that our debts would not be increased. The I.M.F. would be in some difficulty, and we cannot be quite sure how these problems would be solved. We should of course benefit from an increase in the price because the value of our own gold holdings would go up; but the fact is that our debts to the I.M.F. at present exceed our holdings of gold.
Finally, although we must recognise that in practice the gold price is in the hands of the United States authorities, the fact is that the American Government is opposed, as are we, to an increase in the
588
price of gold. This applies to the new Administration as it did to the old.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord sure?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Qualify it.
LORD BESWICK: I do not qualify that at all. That is the opinion which Her Majesty's Government hold; and, of course, we have had recent opportunities to find out what is the policy of the United States of America.
My Lords, these reasons seem to me to add up to a formidable case indeed against an increase in the price of gold. I have made no mention so far of the two-tier gold system. Since the conference in Washington a year ago the monetary gold price has been separated from the price of gold on the free market. This is taken by some (and it was by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, this evening) as being an indication that the system is about to collapse. But the fact is that, despite recent bidding in a thin market, the two-tier system has worked smoothly since it was introduced a year ago. It is, in a way, a recognition of the dual role of gold: on the one hand, as a medium for official reserves and, through the dollar price, a yardstick for exchange rates; on the other hand, as a commodity which has industrial uses and which people all over the world have always liked to possess, in the same way as they like to possess silver or diamonds. But, of course, there is an overlap between the two functions. A certain amount of private buying of gold takes place because people believe that the monetary price will go up. It is true that private and industrial demand for gold has been rising steadily, but this does not give us any indication of the price which gold would command if it were purely a commodity. The price is inflated by hopes that the monetary price will be increased—and, as I have said, we are against an increase in the monetary price.
Similarly, it is quite misleading to draw attention to the general increase in prices since 1934, when the gold price was fixed, and to argue that the gold price should have gone up in parallel. The fact is that the gold price was fixed in 1934 at a level far above its commodity value—at a level at which the

589
United States could buy all the gold it wanted. But there is no reason to believe that the sequence of events of the early 1930s will be repeated in the late 1960s or in the 1970s. We are living in a very different world indeed.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, by raising the price of gold to that level it pulled the world out of the greatest depression the world has ever known.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords; that step was then taken and it did have tin effect—but here we are again arguing the same old points all over again. As I said earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, wanted, so did I want and so does Her Majesty's Government want a rational system which would start us off on a new basis. My Lords, for these reasons I have to reject the proposals that were put forward so interestingly by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby.

MINES AND QUARRIES (TIPS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
TEESSIDE CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and referred to the Examiners.
  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM FIRE DAMAGE AND LOSSES
  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM FIRE DAMAGE AND LOSSES