Sitting of 19 March 1969

Preamble
Morning Sitting
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

PARLIAMENT No. 2 BILL
Again considered in Committee [Progress, 18th March]
[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]
10.0 a.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Gourlay, because I think you were in the Chair yesterday on that occasion that, as reported in c. 252 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 18th March, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services undertook to send a message to another place to request another place to grant permission for a document already in our Library to be cleared of a condition of confidentiality. The right hon. Gentleman, as reported, at c. 253, indicated that that document might be relevant to our discussions. May I ask, through you, whether such a message has been sent to another place and, if so, what response has been received?
The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): This is a matter entirely out-with the discretion of the Chair.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate that, Mr. Gourlay, but may I, through you, ask whichever Minister regards himself as responsible for our proceedings at the moment to indicate whether a promise given by a senior Minister to take action has been kept, and whether a response has resulted from his action? With respect, Mr. Gourlay, it is intolerable to ask the Committee to go on when action which a Minister promised to take to help the Committee has apparently not been taken and the promise ignored. I must ask, through you, that we have some answer from the Government before we proceed.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Further to that point of order. Not only should we like an indication from the Government that they will fulfil their pledge, but it is important
384
to point out that the document is no longer available in the Library. I tried to obtain it yesterday evening but, as it is House of Lords property, it has been returned to the House of Lords, and this puts the Committee in a difficult position. I gathered that the Library is under confidentiality, but it was revealed to me that the document was about 15 pages long. It is important to have this document and, as it is no longer in the Library, we ought almost to seek to report Progress immediately so that the document can be obtained.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): In reply to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), my understanding was—and I think it will be within the recollection of the Committee—that what my right hon. Friend proposed was that a message should be sent on the Resolution of this House if the House so wished. That was how the matter was interpreted by me. It will be appreciated that, as the matter developed and as the debate proceeded, the House did not express itself in that sense.
Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. The position is quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"I would be prepared to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to join me in sending the request to the House of Lords that it be made available as a document for the debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; vol. 780, c. 252.]
That is a specific statement not hedged by any reference to the House wishing it. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that he was prepared to join the Leader of the House in sending for that document. In those circumstances, surely we are entitled to know whether the document has been sent for, and when we shall get it so that we can consider it in the debate.
Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. The intervention by the Solicitor-General was astonishing, running, as I am sure you would agree, Mr. Gourlay, having been present, clean contrary both to what was said and what was understood in the Committee yesterday afternoon.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has quoted the perfectly clear words which were used and

385
at no time withdrawn or modified by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services. No reference was made to a Resolution and, if a Resolution had been required in the view of the Government, then it was the duty of the Government to fulfil that pledge by tabling a Resolution there and then during yesterday's sitting, so that it would be on the Order Paper today. If a Resolution were required, then it was a requirement of honour on the part of the Government that they should forthwith table the Resolution which would carry out their undertaking. If, on the other hand, a Resolution were not required, then they ought to have fulfilled the undertaking which was given by the right hon. Gentleman and not withdrawn.
The whole of the previous proceedings of this Sitting have been conducted on the basis that this document was to be obtained for the Committee as soon as possible, and we are now told that all that is brushed away. It is regarded as having been passed by. I feel that the Solicitor-General has not only not helped the Committee by his intervention but has shown how serious and well-founded was the anxiety of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).
Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. If there had been a question, as is suggested by the Solicitor-General, that this matter of the document would be disposed of by a Resolution of the House, presumably there would have been some discussion on this matter when we later had a debate upon the Motion to report Progress. But there was no reference to any Resolution, either by the Government spokesman or by anybody else. As far as I know, no one from any quarter suggested that it would be settled by a Resolution. So far from that being the case, in the last intervention which was made in the debate on the Motion to report Progress, referring to an intervention from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
"The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me. I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons. I have since learned from my hon. Friend"
—that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
386
This was the interpretation put upon his speech by the Minister—
"and confirmed, that there is nothing in it which has not been published previously."
That was an argument which had run throughout the debate.
Unfortunately it was not possible to continue that discussion, because my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons intervened with one of the most telling interventions in the whole of our debate.
So far from it being the case that the Committee left this matter, after we had discussed it on the Motion to report Progress, on the understanding that it might have been dealt with by a Resolution, in fact the Committee decided otherwise—which is what the Solicitor-General has just suggested now—the last words said by the Minister in charge of the Bill on this matter being:
"I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 296.]
On any understanding of that language, it must be accepted that all of us assumed that some action would be taken by the Government to see that something was done about the document. It is an astonishing state of affairs that we should come back on the following morning not only to discover that nothing has been done about the document but also to be presented with an entirely different reason from any previously offered why this should be the case.
We are back again, I fear, in the situation which we faced at four o'clock yesterday; that is, that we are not able to proceed with the discussion in the manner in which the Committee would wish to proceed. Therefore, Mr. Gourlay, I hope that you will once again accept a Motion to report Progress. We must get to the bottom of this matter. We must have an authoritative statement from the Government whether they propose, as the Solicitor-General suggested, to deal with this question and whether we can obtain documents from our own Library only by Resolutions of the House of Commons, after having been given an undertaking that the Minister would take the action which the Committee thought desirable.

387
Everyone who heard the debate yesterday must have concluded that the document was to be dealt with by the Minister in charge in a manner which we hoped would be satisfactory to the Committee. We are now confronted with an entirely different state of affairs. I stress the point again which we had to make so often yesterday. The discussion on the Amendment is one which can be influenced by what may or may not be in the document which we have asked to see and which the Minister said he thought should be made available if the Committee wished to have it. There has been no suggestion that the Committee does not wish to have it.
I submit that it would be a further aggravation of the situation if it were now to be said that documents which it was important for hon. Members to have so that they could continue their debates, and which I think hon. Members on both sides would think to be substantial documents or, at any rate, documents which should be examined, should be made available only on a majority decision of the House of Commons. It would be an astonishing exercise of their power, if they possess such power, for the Front Bench to say that documents will be provided only on a Resolution of the House, particularly as we thought—admittedly after some time and trouble—that we had satisfactorily disposed of this aspect of the matter.
We all thought yesterday that the Government would dispose of the question of the document by inviting the House of Lords to enable it to be made available to hon. Members. We all thought that we should be able to obtain the document. Now we are suddenly confronted with an entirely different situation.
I submit, Mr. Gourlay, that those are substantial reasons why a Motion to report Progress is again the only way in which we can satisfactorily deal with the matter.
Dr. Bennett: On a point of order. While I feel that the arguments which have so far been put in connection with the point of order under discussion are paramount, it seems that it would be equivalent to asking a doctor to diagnose the illness of a patient when he has not
388
had any sight of the patient or heard anything of his symptoms or to asking a lawyer to practise his profession when he has never read any law if the Government were to ask the Committee to legislate on this matter without any of the information which is easily available.
I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, first, to agree to accept a Motion to report Progress. Secondly, might I ask you to clarify what is most bewildering to me—whether the remarks of the Secretary of State last night contained a definite and well-founded assertion that a Resolution of the House would be necessary before that document could be applied for? Will the Chair kindly enlighten us whether that is so?
10.15 a.m.
Mr. Sheldon: Further to that point of order. Not only is the quotation which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) put before the Committee important in that it was stated that the document would be available as a document for the debate, but there is another quotation which should be noted in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
"I have suggested to the Committee that, if it is the Committee's wish, this information, instead of being made available on a confidential basis, should be made available to the Committee as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 256.]
I took this to be a final and clear statement of my right hon. Friend's intention. There was no doubt in my mind that we were to have this document made available.
In his earlier comment the Secretary of State talked about mystifying for mystification's sake. There is no greater mystification than that with which we are faced this morning, because we had a distinct undertaking that the document was to be made available. Although we were not to have the benefit of that document for the Amendment which we were then debating, I felt that at least we should have it for the very important debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, on which we could cover some of this ground with the great advantage of the figures and the documentation which would be available. This is of extreme importance. It looks as though we are to go forward without

389
having any understanding of the important figures and of the basis of this decision.
If the House of Commons means anything at all, we should be able to rely on undertakings of this character. If not, our debates become very difficult to arrange. We are unable to decide how to fit in the kind of research project which we may have in mind or how to deploy our arguments. More important, we shall be under great limitations as to what we need to investigate. This undertaking was given and I ask that it be honoured.
Sir Lionel Heald: I did not take part in the debate yesterday, but I was present during the whole of the discussion. I came here this morning, although I have to attend another Committee in a few minutes, with the expectation of getting the document, being able to study it, and then playing a useful part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) explained yesterday in the clearest possible way the importance and relevance of this document to the core of the Bill. It is the basis for the composition of the reformed House of Lords. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman undertook to let us have the document. I came here this morning expecting to be able to get it. I now learn that not only are we not to get it but that the right hon. Gentleman, or someone else, has taken steps to remove it from the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. I regard this is a very grave matter. If it cannot be raised now, it should be raised at the highest possible level—with Mr. Speaker in the House of Commons.
Mr. John Lee: Further to that point of order. It is many hours since this undertaking was given. It was given at a time when it was the confident expectation of many hon. Members that the Committee would be sitting all night and there would be plenty of opportunity, because the facilities of the House of Commons remain open all night, for a search and for the document to be produced. This does not appear to have been done. No attempt has been made to produce the document, although the House sat until 12.35 a.m. before being suspended.
390
I therefore endorse the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) that a Motion to report Progress should be accepted. If that cannot be done, should we not agree to suspend the sitting of the Committee until the document is sent for?
I do not know the right procedure— whether we ask that the Serjeant at Arms should be despatched to the House of Lords to obtain a copy of the document —but at least that is a proposal which I put before you, Mr. Gourlay, because this situation cannot be allowed to go on. We must have the document here.
It is right, too, that I should make this suggestion because this will be yet another reason for a debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. If, as I expect, there is an attempt to curtail that right—I do not know, but it is always possible—I shall be able to show that there will be many matters to raise in that debate. This document, if not produced soon, should form a subject of part of that debate.
The Solicitor-General: This matter is being dealt with by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on the basis of an undertaking. I ask the Committee to consider what was said by my right hon. Friend. He said:
"I am making a suggestion to the Committee. I did not know of the existence of the document … the most courteous thing for us to do would be to send a message to the other place suggesting that it should be laid as a document on the Table here."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 252.]
Later he said:
"I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons. I have since learnt from my hon. Friend, and confirmed, that there is nothing in it which has not been published previously."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March. 1969; Vol. 780, c. 296.]
My submission to the Committee is that that is not an undertaking in the proper sense and that it is clearly implicit that what is required in the procedure which my right hon. Friend has proposed is a Resolution of the House. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with his commercial experience, will recognise that that has not the character of an undertaking such as

391
is suggested. I suggest to the Committee that as the Amendment with which this controversy about the document is concerned has been disposed of, it is wholly appropriate that the Committee should go on with the business.
The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Having heard the numerous points of order, I must say that this is not a matter for the Chair, and I suggest that we should proceed with Amendment No. 121. Mr. Sheldon.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Mr. Gourlay, I know that the Committee always likes to accept your guidance and advice, but I am sure that you could not possibly expect us to leave the matter there in the light of what has been said by the Solicitor-General, including, as it did, a personal reference to myself.
As I understood it, the Solicitor-General said that a Minister's undertaking, unless tied up with the strictness required in a commercial contract, is not to be regarded as binding. This is a devaluation of ministerial assurances—
The Solicitor-General rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am on a point of order. The Solicitor-General may seek to rise in a few moments when I have finished my submission. What the Solicitor-General said amounts to a devaluation of a Ministerial undertaking without precedent in my experience in this Committee or in the House. The words which the Solicitor-General read are clear and plain. I have some respect for the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I say that that undertaking was honestly and sincerely given. The words are absolutely unequivocal.
Though the Solicitor-General takes the view that he has been assured that the document contains nothing new, the Secretary of State for Social Services repeated for the third time in the hearing of the Committee his undertaking to get it. The Solicitor-General may take the view, as may his right hon. Friend, that there is nothing new in the document, but it is a new doctrine that where a document exists the Committee is bound to accept the judgment of Ministers whether there is anything of importance in it. It
392
is the whole purpose of our Rules—the Rules in respect of which I made a submission yesterday—that the Committee must be the judge of that.
Mr. Gourlay, if you are not prepared, as I still hope you are, to accept a Motion to report Progress, may I put to you an alternative suggestion, namely, that if a Resolution to another place is required, and if one is submitted to you, as it can easily be submitted from this side or that side of the Committee in the next few minutes, you accept it and allow us to proceed and seek to have implemented a pledge given in good faith by a senior member of the Government as recently as yesterday?
The Solicitor-General: I rise because of the observations which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) let fall. The right hon. Gentleman must not put into my mouth words which I did not utter. He had something to say yesterday about inconsequences. He has demonstrated that attribute today.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Further to that point of order. Mr. Gourlay, I must ask you to consider the point which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The Solicitor-General quoted selectively from the Delphic utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services in his many interventions yesterday. In fact, it is possible to find in them categorical assurances that this document would be made available.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Even by commercial standards.
Mr. Ridley: That is so. Yesterday, because of the absence of the document, I found myself unable to contribute to the debate. It seemed to me that the debate was meaningless, and I therefore held back from seeking to catch the eye of the Chair.
The Secretary of State for Social Services said yesterday:
"I have suggested to the Committee that, if it is the Committee's wish, this information, instead of being made available on a confidential basis, should be made available to the Committee as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 256.]

393
If that is not a Ministerial undertaking, whether commercial or not, I do not know what is.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: It is a suggestion.
Mr. Ridley: That is using double-talk to the worst extent that I have ever heard in this honourable House.
An undertaking was given by the Secretary of State for Social Services. We are told by the Solicitor-General that the undertaking can be honoured by means of a Resolution of the House. He has twice said that if the House passes such a Resolution the undertaking can be honoured. Without animadverting to the peculiar circumstances where by it seems necessary for the House to pass a Resolution before it can obtain documents from its own Library, may I ask you to press the Solicitor-General to agree to the tabling of the necessary Resolution so that the House can proceed to obtain the document?
It may be that it would be wise to adjourn for a few hours so that the Resolution can be drafted and laid in a constitutional manner. I am not a great expert in the procedures of the House. It may be that it would be expedient to send for Mr. Speaker and ask him to take us out of Committee. But one or other of these things must be done. The matter cannot be left where it is. The Government have given an undertaking to produce a document. They have said that the document can be produced by a Resolution of the House, and we want to know how we can proceed to obtain this Resolution so that the document can be produced.
I wonder, Mr. Gourlay, whether you would be kind enough to inform the Committee whether you would accept a manuscript Resolution drafted by my hon. Friends. I assure you that my hon. Friends and I could produce such a Resolution within a very few seconds so that the proceedings of the Committee need not be delayed. If you agree to accept such a Resolution, I shall proceed forthwith to draft it.
The Deputy Chairman: If the House wishes to communicate with another place, that is a matter for the House. The job of the Committee is to proceed with the Bill.
10.30 a.m.
Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. It is quite clear that the Committee cannot leave the position as it is at present. I left school at 14 years of age and had some education after that only off my own bat, but to me words are words and undertakings are undertakings. My right hon. Friend said clearly:
"I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons."
He went on:
"I have since learned from my hon. Friend, and confirmed, that there is nothing in it which has not been published previously."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol.780, c. 296.]
He did not go on to say that therefore this document ought not to be produced. He said that although there was nothing in it, he was prepared to ask for it to be brought from another place. It was a very clear statement. The whole Committee understands that. It was not a suggestion but a clear statement which all hon. Members fully understand.
Under those circumstances, surely it is quite clear that before this Committee proceeds to discuss the Bill further, we ought to adjourn or to have the Resolution before the House which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested so that we can discuss the matter. We cannot proceed further this morning with debate on further Amendments until we either have the undertaking carried out by the Government or a Resolution discussed in the House, otherwise, we shall be making the whole business of Parliamentary democracy a mockery. I understand your view, Mr. Gourlay, that this is not a matter solely for you; it is a matter for my right hon. Friends. It is in their court to fulfil their previous undertaking and to let us have this document.
Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. The Committee finds itself in exactly the kind of difficulty to which attention has several times previously been drawn by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It will be within your recollection, Mr. Gourlay, that as a result of a point of order

395
raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) we have had two interventions by a Minister. Two statements have been made to this Committee, in the course of the raising of these points of order, on behalf of the Government. They were important statements and statements to which a number of hon. Members have obviously taken grave exception.
It is clearly intolerable that we should not be able to discuss, ask questions, about, and consider these two separate and important statements made by the Solicitor-General. At the moment we are able to do so only in the form of raising with you successive points of order. Because of that I wish to make a submission. I refer—briefly, since I am on a point of order—to those two successive statements, contradictory one with the other, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made.
I refer first to his second intervention, which was contrary to his first intervention, in which he denied altogether that there had been an undertaking given by the Secretary of State yesterday. He referred to the wording used by the right hon. Gentleman as reported at column 252 and laid particular stress on the conditional mood of the verb—that his right hon. Friend "would be prepared". To treat a term of courtesy which we are all accustomed to using as though it modified what was clearly understood as an expression of Ministerial intention is unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
It was particularly unworthy to couple it with an obscure reference to commercial practice in connection with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. If he does not like the conditional tense, he can find the indicative in column 296 where, in the last sentence but one before the Committee came to a decision, the right hon. Gentleman said, "I am prepared". In other words, the right hon. Gentleman, at the moment at which the Committee came to a decision, declared that he was prepared. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that this was apparently taken back and cancelled by the following sentence in which, he claims, the right hon. Gentleman expressed the opinion that since there was nothing new
396
in the document, all that he had said or offered before was withdrawn. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman meant that.
It is impracticable for this Committee to proceed when it has been told by a Law Officer of the Crown that what the Committee regarded as an undertaking has been withdrawn. On the first intervention the Solicitor-General said that if we are to get this document, if the undertaking or suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services is to be carried out, it must be done by a Resolution of the House. I assume for the purpose of my submission that that is correct, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that it would be a monstrous thing if whenever we wanted a document, and a Minister promised it we had to have a Resolution of the House asking for it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman expressly suggested that the course of the debate indicated that the Committee did not want such a Resolution. There is only one way known to this House or this Committee of ascertaining the wishes of the House or the Committee. It is to put a proposition to the House or the Committee. We cannot ascertain whether the House or Committee would like a Resolution except by putting a Resolution and seeing to which conclusion the House or the Committee comes upon it. We must therefore be allowed to test whether the view of the Government is right or wrong that the Committee somehow, tacitly or by implication, indicated that it would not like a Resolution, if that be necessary to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking.
A few minutes ago, Mr. Gourlay, you advised the Committee that such a Resolution could be made only by the House and that for the wishes of the Committee on this matter to be tested, and for the matter to be decided which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has opened of his own accord today by his allegation, it would be necessary for a Resolution to be placed before the House. We cannot do that unless this Committee gives way to the whole House. I therefore submit to you that on the basis of what the Government

397
themselves, through the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said to the Committee, it would be appropriate for you, in order that a Resolution may be moved in the whole House, to accept a Motion now, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. It is that Motion which I ask your permission to submit to the Committee.
The Solicitor-General: I rise because the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) thought fit to refer to "unworthiness". I suggest that if the reports of my two earlier interventions are considered, they will be found not to have any contradiction whatever. I leave it at that.
On the issue which the right hon. Gentleman latterly raised, he and the Committee will appreciate that these alleged undertakings of my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Alleged?"] —I have taken the point and I persist that this was not an undertaking—or the words referred to were said during a debate on a Motion, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Sir D. Glover: It was on a point of order.
The Solicitor-General: They took place in the course of a debate on that Motion. One has the words of my right hon. Friend:
"I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons. I have since learnt from my hon. Friend … that there is nothing in it"—
that is, nothing in the document—
"which has not been published previously."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 296.]
The Committee then divided upon the Question, That the Question be now put, and then upon the Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The Committee, by a majority, rejected that Motion and by that Division indicated its attitude— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to the matters which had been previously dealt with.
Mr. Maudling: Surely the Solicitor-General cannot expect the Committee to accept that. It is an astonishing argument. I understand that an undertaking
398
was given by the Secretary of State for Social Services, when he said that he was prepared to do something. On the basis of that undertaking, the House took the vote. To say that the undertaking then disappears is an astonishing argument.
The Solicitor-General: I think that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), for reasons we can all understand, was not present when the earlier exchanges took place, in the course of which I put to the Committee, rightly or wrongly, my view that what my right hon. Friend had presented to the Committee was not an undertaking.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Solicitor-General has put forward the most extraordinary doctrine. It is one of the most amazing constitutional and political doctrines ever heard, namely, that any promise given can be destroyed by a vote forced on the House of Commons by the Chief Whip. This is the end of truth. I hope that the Solicitor-General will explain what he means, because it is the most dangerous constitutional doctrine. It is impossible for the Committee to proceed. I wish to move that we adjourn immediately so that this whole matter can be reconsidered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Gourlay, your last advice to the Committee was that we should proceed with the discussion on the Amendment. I want to reinforce some of the points of order why that is an impossible course for the Committee to adopt. I believe that if we adopted it, we should not be discharging the duties which we properly have to maintain the proper conduct of business.
I submit once again, on a number of grounds which I shall mention, that the only way in which the House of Commons makes provision under its Rules for dealing with a situation such as this is by a Motion to report Progress. Only by doing that can we extricate ourselves from difficulties which are becoming greater with every intervention by the Solicitor-General.
First, there is a dispute whether there was an undertaking. I do not say that it was an undertaking in the sense of being a firm, absolute contract, signed, sealed and delivered. I think that it was a statement made in absolute good faith

399
by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Contrary to the charges which are made against my right hon. Friend, I know from all my dealings with him over many years that he is a man of absolute integrity.
I believe that he gave the undertaking to the Committee partly because he believed that in one sense it might support his general argument on the Bill. He did not think there was any harm in it. His attitude was, "It happens that all this has been published, but if you want to have the document, and if the Committee feels as it apparently does, I give an undertaking", or "I give an agreement", or "I give an acknowledgment, that I will invite the House of Lords to agree that we should have it made available to us". There was no argument about it. Whatever may have been the vote subsequently, everybody assumed that the request would be made —in a courteous manner, of course.
We do not dispute the claim by the Secretary of State for Social Services that the matter would have to be dealt with as one of courtesy between the two Houses. We all understand that undertakings or agreements or acknowledgments between the two Front Benches, or even the back benches, and between the two Houses are dealt with on that basis. Therefore, my first submission why it is not possible to proceed with the debate and why there should be a Motion to report Progress is that there has at any rate been a misunderstanding between the Front Bench and the rest of the Committee this morning as to what was the undertaking or the agreement or the acknowledgment last night.
The second reason becomes more serious in my opinion. The Solicitor-General's first claim was that the matter could be dealt with only by a Resolution of the House of Commons. Presumably that was not an argument which he thought up on the spur of the moment.
The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General indicated assent.
10.45 a.m.
Mr. Foot: My hon. and learned Friend acknowledges that. That was the Government's understanding, apparently. I am glad to have the Solicitor-General's acknowledgment, because I think that it greatly reinforces my
400
point. A decision was apparently taken by the Government following our debate yesterday that, when the proceedings were renewed today, it would be announced from the Government Front Bench that the matter would be dealt with by a Resolution of the House of Commons. The Solicitor-General assents to that proposition.
The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has interpreted a nod of mine as an assent to a proposition. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. At the end of yesterday's proceedings it was my understanding that, if the document were to be laid, it would require a Resolution of the House of Commons. That was my understanding then. It is my understanding now. My assent does not go beyond that.
Mr. Foot: I understand that. It was the Solicitor-General's understanding following our proceedings yesterday that the matter should be dealt with by a Resolution of the House of Commons. My hon. and learned Friend did not necessarily discuss this remarkable view of his with any of his hon. Friends, although he imagined that they would all concur in it. I accept entirely what my hon. and learned Friend says, but it is a very strange interpretation to put upon yesterday's events. In my experience in the House of Commons, I cannot recall an ocasion on which a question of having to send for documents had to be dealt with by a Resolution. There may have been such cases. I am not saying that there have not been. The rarity of such cases makes it all the more remarkable that the Solicitor-General should have reached this conclusion last night as the result of yesterday's debate and should not have confided it to anyone.
However, he has confided it to us this morning. In response to a question this morning, he told us that the proper way for this matter to be dealt with would be by a Resolution of the House of Commons. I submit as my second reason why we should not proceed with the debate that, if it is the Government's view—I am sure that the Solicitor-General is speaking for the Government —that the matter should be dealt with only by a Resolution of the House of Commons, then the Government should have first declared to the House of Commons how it could proceed to have a

401
Resolution, and secondly, should have made the facilities available for us so to proceed. If it is the Government's view that this question of attending the document can be dealt with only by this elaborate paraphernalia of a Resolution, the obligation is on the Government to explain when that Resolution will be presented to us and how it will be presented to us.
I come to the third reason, arising from the Solicitor-General's intervention, why it is improper for us to proceed with the debate now. I do not know what other hon. Gentlemen think about it. When the Resolution is before the House, the matter will be debated. My first thought on the matter is that it is doubtful even whether the House should accept the proposition that such matters as these must be dealt with by Resolutions. After all, particularly when it is tied up with what the Solicitor-General said later about a vote, the implication of what he said is that we should be able to get the documents only if the Resolution were carried. The implication is that the Government might use their majority to decide whether such a Resolution should be passed.
In that case, what the Government would be asking us to accept by such a procedure is that documents, particularly documents concerning the relationship between the two Houses, should be made available only if a majority in the House of Commons voted for them to be made available. That would be a deprivation of the rights of back benchers. It would be a novel doctrine. This is why I think it so remarkable that the Solicitor-General should have announced it so casually. If we were to accept it, the provision of documents for Members of the House of Commons would be partly dependent upon the whim of the Government and the automatic majority, in so far as it exists, of the Government.
We come to the next implication of what the Solicitor-General has said to us, which, in my opinion, is even more important and is a further reason why we can deal with this matter properly only in a debate on a Motion to report Progress. He has put his own construction, the Government's construction, on the vote which we had yesterday on the Motion to report Progress, a construction which most of us, I think, find extremely far-fetched. Perhaps
402
the Solicitor-General has powerful arguments in support of his view, but for him to say that he can put an interpretation on that vote which decides which form of documents are to be available to us and what is the meaning of what the Committee decided, is not, I submit, an approach which we can accept.
When the Committee decided yesterday not to report Progress and to continue the debate, there may have been many reasons for that decision. The Government may just have thought that they wanted to get on with the business. That is always possible. Some hon. Members may have thought that our arguments were not persuasive. But it is absurd for the Solicitor-General to say that the conclusion on that Motion meant that we had abandoned the demand to secure this document from the House of Lords.
The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will bear in mind that he himself cogently argued that the matter of the document was best dealt with in a debate on a Motion to report Progress. His words appear at col. 254 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS the matter was later dealt with in a debate on such a Motion, is he right to deny any significance to the Division at the end of the debate?
Mr. Foot: I am again grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention, for he is confirming what I said. True, I claimed that the matter of the document—I argued this on the points of order originally—would best be dealt with if we had a debate on a Motion to report Progress—
The Solicitor-General: And there was such a debate.
Mr. Foot: Yes, we got it. Not merely did we have the debate but, as a result of it, we secured what most of us thought was a concession, so to call it. I do not state that in any derogatory sense because I think that Governments should make concessions in these matters. Indeed, they would get themselves out of a lot of difficulties if they made more concessions. What we secured as a result of that debate was, so to call it, a partial accommodation to the views of those who wanted the document. Thus our oratory was not so dissuasive as might have been thought. We produced at least part of the result.

403
My hon. and learned Friend may ask why, in that circumstance, we proceeded, why did we not withdraw the Motion if that is what we wanted, why did we proceed to a vote? If my hon. and learned Friend will do me the courtesy of reading the rest of my speech, he will see that I, like others, adduced additional arguments showing why the debate should be postponed altogether. There were references in my speech to the fact that Amendments were not being called, to the question of a Report stage, and many other arguments.
What my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General cannot escape from is the concluding words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that a peroration is sometimes not the most important part of a speech, but his peroration in this case was the conclusion of the whole matter, the climax to which he had been leading. In order to pacify the Committee—perhaps he got the vote by it; who can tell?—my right hon. Friend said that he would seek to secure the document from the House of Lords.
Now, in his last intervention, the Solicitor-General tells us that all that is wiped out by the vote, that because the vote went against those who were arguing that they wanted the document, that because it went against them on another a more embracing matter, the whole question is to be pushed on one side.
My submission is that it is not a proper course for a Committee of the House to go ahead with a discussion on Amendments standing on the Paper because, as was the case in the difficulties which we encountered yesterday, the Amendment next to be taken is one concerning matters in the document. That is so according to the statement of the Minister himself. Whether or not he considers that it should be published, whether he thinks that it is publishable or unpublishable, no one has denied that the matters in the document are relevant to the question of attendance at the House of Lords, and that is the subject of the next Amendment to be taken.
I submit, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, that a new situation has been created by the three interventions of the Solicitor-General. First, the Government have put upon themselves the obligation to tell us
404
how we should proceed to a Resolution, when we are to have the Resolution, whether the Resolution is to be presented by the Government or by other hon. Members, when facilities are to be provided for that Resolution. We have had a firm statement from the Government that this is the only way by which we can obtain the satisfaction which we thought we had obtained by other means following our discussions yesterday.
I hope very much, therefore, that you will accede to our proposal, Mr. Gourlay, that we should move to report Progress. The Government will not gain otherwise. I realise that whether the Government gain or lose is not a matter for you. You are concerned solely with the orderly conduct of the Committee's business, and you are entitled in your discretion, as you did yesterday, to decide whether it is possible for the Committee to report Progress. There are some occasions on which it is done because substantial progress has been made, but there are many other occasions in the history of the House—this is exactly why that provision is available—on which it has been done in order to enable the House to escape in an orderly manner from a hopeless tangle.
No one who has listened to our proceedings this morning can deny that we are moving into a greater and greater tangle. The more we proceed in that tangle, the more interventions we have from the Government, the more does the question become enlarged, the more does the question of a Resolution enter into the matter, the more must we consider the question of which documents are to be the subject of such Resolutions, and so on. The stone has been thrown into the pool, and the circles are growing larger and larger. The only way in which our proceedings can be restored to a semblance of order, I submit, is by having a Motion before the Committee which will allow a wider discussion than points of order can properly permit.
I seriously urge, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, that that is the proper way for us to proceed. This is the reason why the instrument of a Motion to report Progress has been made so flexible. It is one of the glories of the House and its Committees that our procedure can be stretched to accommodate difficult

405
situations. It is the way in which we try to ensure that, instead of clashes resulting in ill temper and misunderstanding, we so arrange matters that, when there happens to be a blockage, we can say, "Very well. Let us hold up the proceedings for a while and see whether we can untangle the tangle". That is what I suggest we should do now, in proper order, on a Motion to report Progress.
Several Hon. Members rose—
11.0 a.m.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. Having noted the progress of the Committee this morning, and having very carefully considered the numerous and lengthy points of order, I cannot accept a Motion to report Progress at this stage. Whatever decisions on the matter of the document are taken, the duty of the Chair and the Committee, I suggest, is now to proceed with Amendment No. 121.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order. The Committee finds itself in a painful, if not intolerable, situation. Both the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary of State has cast a slur on the reputation for integrity of the Secretary of State for Social Services. They, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman if he were here, would repudiate that slur immediately. The Solicitor-General gave two quotations from what the Secretary of State said, but he did not give the third. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"I have suggested to the Committee that, if it is the Committee's wish,"
—and it plainly was—
"this information, instead of being made available on a confidential basis, should be made available to the Committee as a whole."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 256.]
That is not a conditional or indicative; it is almost an imperative. It is the plainest possible undertaking. The Under-Secretary, who has left, said that it was a suggestion, but it was a suggestion that this undertaking by the Secretary of State should satisfy the Committee. It was not a suggestion that this was what would happen. It was a suggestion incorporating a definite undertaking.
The Solicitor-General says, in effect, that the undertaking was washed out by the vote. By analogy, this would reduce every Government statement to a nullity. If the Government give an undertaking
406
during the wind-up of a Second Reading debate on a problem which has troubled the Opposition, and then win their vote, according to the extraordinary doctrine put forward by the Solicitor-General that undertaking would be washed out by the Government's victory in the Division Lobby. That means that any Government undertaking during the proceedings on the Bill will be a nullity, which is not a way in which the Committee can proceed. With the greatest respect to what you said, Mr. Gourlay, it cannot do so until it has clarification from the Government on whether anything said by Government spokesmen is an undertaking or a suggestion or will be washed out by a subsequent vote.
Surely, these matters must be cleared up on a Motion to report Progress before we can have any meaningful discussion?
The Deputy Chairman: Order. This is an intervention similar to many which we have already had. I have already given my Ruling on those points of order, and I suggest that we proceed to discuss the Amendment.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. When I left here yesterday afternoon, I thought that the situation was completely clear in my mind. Undertakings were given, and there is no question that we face a breach of faith between the Government and the Committee. When I raised the matter yesterday afternoon, I doubted whether any document could be given on a confidential basis to the Library of the House of Commons. Certainly, the Library should not have received a confidential document which was not available to hon. Members.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already been addressed on similar points of order. I indicated that this is not a matter for the Chair, and I suggest that we proceed with the Amendment.
Mr. Pannell: May I be allowed to continue on one other point?
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am standing. I have ruled that the point which he is raising has already been dealt with.
Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. I should like to address my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General

407
through you, Mr. Gourlay. I understand that he is under the impression that a Resolution of the House should have been moved. This is a completely different point. You and the Clerk will know, Mr. Gourlay, that by no stretch of Standing Orders could that have been done. Therefore, if I am compelled to resume my seat, I hope that the Solicitor-General, who is a man of honour, will look carefully at his words. I am sure that inadvertently he has misled the Committee. There is no question but that a Resolution could not have been moved during our proceedings. I notice that the Clerk is in attendance on you, Mr. Gourlay. This matter will not finish here. The question of the orderliness of the document will be raised in the House at 3.30 p.m.
I hope that we can make progress, not in the procedural sense but in the practical sense. The Committee has been badly dealt with. No one can suggest that we could have had a Resolution during our proceedings to implement what was a definite pledge from the Government Front Bench yesterday afternoon. That is my point. If I say nothing more about it, it is not because I do not feel strongly, but because I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: Further to that point of order. I have not troubled you this morning, Mr. Gourlay, but I must advance a new point on why we cannot proceed further without resolving the matter under discussion.
The only person who can interpret what the Secretary of State for Social Services meant by what he said yesterday is the Secretary of State. He is not present. I make no complaint about that. We all know the problems of Sitings at this hour and senior Ministers' difficulties in attending them. This point was advanced by some of us when the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, thought that morning sittings were a good idea. It is impossible, as has been proved this morning, for another Government spokesman to seek to interpret what one of his right hon. Friends meant when he made observations.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The interpretation of Minister's speeches is not a matter for the Chair. I have already
408
given a Ruling on the points of order raised, and the right hon. Gentleman's point of order is similar to others. I suggest that we proceed with the Amendment.
Mr. Deedes: With respect, I must press a further point. The Committee is by no means satisfied that the interpretation given to us this morning honours the obligation which it is clear the Secretary of State for Social Services wished to offer yesterday. As long as that doubt remains, there is a doubt as to the honourable intentions of the Secretary of State, which I am sure is a most unfair doubt to be entertained. It would be unfair to him to leave matters in the present state of doubt and to proceed as you suggest, Mr. Gourlay. He must attend the proceedings before we can sensibly continue our discussions.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair has no power to compel Ministers to attend the Committee.
Mr. John Lee: On a point of order. A point was raised earlier on which no Ruling has yet been given. About half an hour ago the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) sought your guidance, Mr. Gourlay, as to the way in which the doctrine of obtaining a document by Resolution should be implemented. If this is accepted—and it appears that what seemed to me a novel and bizarre procedural doctrine has now become part of the law of the House—there must be some way in which Members may be guided by the Chair as to the way in which the Motion should be put.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not for the Chairman of this Committee to give procedural guidance on matters of that kind.
Mr. Lee: In that case, will you accept an oral Motion from me that the document be sent for?
The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not within the competence of the Chair to accept such a Motion.
Mr. Hastings: During the past half-hour, Mr. Gourlay, you have assured us more than once that you have answered the points of order put to you in the past hour or so. Our difficulty, perhaps,

409
is that some of us feel that you are not in a position to answer certain of them, particularly that raised by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It seems to some of us that nothing short of a new doctrine has been brought to the Committee by the Solicitor-General. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, every intervention by the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to get us into greater trouble.
The kernel of that proposition seems to be the doctrine that if we wish to obtain from our Library documents which, according to the general consensus of the Committee, are relevant to our discussions, there must be a Resolution before the House. This is the cornerstone of the difficulty. If it is impossible for the Chair to explain to us how we are to bring such a Resolution forward— and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said nothing to indicate how it should be done, or where the doctrine came from in the first place, which would be of considerable interest—we are in great difficulty. We are on a point of order which is concerned with a point of doctrine in respect of our Rules and procedure.
If it is impossible for the Chair to rule on the way in which we can obtain the document in question on the basis of a Resolution, should not we adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), namely, that the Committee should give way to the whole House? This seems to be the only answer. The position seems to be that the Chair, through no fault of the occupant, is in no position to advise us how we should go forward.
[Mr. Sydney Irving in the Chair.]
Mr. Ridley: Since I was the Member who originally brought this matter up, I should like to press it a little further. I believe that Erskine May would turn in his grave if he had been alive—[Laughter.]—
The Chairman: Unfortunately Erskine May is not in the Chair. I am not sure that the hon. Member is on a point of order.
Mr. Ridley: I meant no reflection on your occupation of the Chair, Mr. Irving,
410
when I referred to Erskine May in that sense. I apologise for my mixed metaphor. The point is that we have established the position that the only way in which this document can be produced is by Resolution of the House. Your predecessor quite correctly ruled that this is not the House—this is a Committee— and that we cannot obtain the document by moving a Resolution in Committee. Although the Committee clearly wishes to transform itself into a House it appears that it has no power to do so. That is why I referred to Erskine May. We have arrived at the extraordinary position in which, simply by going into Committee, we disfranchise ourselves from obtaining the document necessary to carry on our discussions in Committee.
The Chairman: We are getting into the extraordinary position of conducting a debate on points of order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member. Indeed I gave way to him without replying to the "point of order" from which this discussion arose—but that was not a point of order either.
Mr. Ridley: My point of order is that an undertaking has been given. If you had been here earlier, Mr. Irving, you would have heard the point established that the undertaking had been given by the Secretary of State that this document would be made available. Since then we have been told that this can be done only by Resolution of the House. Now we are told that because the House is in Committee we cannot move a Resolution.
The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot debate that matter. It is not a matter for the Chairman in Committee.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I want to raise a fresh point of order affecting your position in the Chair. Mr. Irving. Every hon. Member knows that the Chairman acts quite impartially and pays no more attention to hon. Members on one side of the Committee than to those on the other side. On occasion the Chairman has to decide whether he should accept a Motion to report Progress. He decides that completely in his own right, on the basis whether there has been a sufficient opportunity—
11.15 a.m.
The Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his opening

411
remarks and for the fact that he feels that I am doing my best to interpret Standing Orders in the spirit in which they are intended to be operated, but that Motion has been rejected in the recent past, and it is not the practice of the Committee or the House to allow a submission without some progress having been made in the intervening period. Unless the hon. Member intends to put a fresh point of order, I must rule his remarks out of order.
Mr. Lewis: With respect, Mr. Irving, you had not listened to the point that I was about to put. [Interruption.] I wish that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department would not try to take on the Chairman's job. It is not his job to call me to order.
The Chairman: Order. I hope that we can get on.
Mr. Lewis: I was about to say that you had not yet heard my point of order, Mr. Irving, which is that, taking account of all the circumstances, the Chairman either accepts or refuses to accept a Motion to report Progress. I am not referring to any specific Motion at this stage.
If, as is now the case, in deciding whether he should accept a Motion to report Progress the Chairman takes into account a statement made in good faith both to the House and to the Chair that certain papers or documents necessary for progress to be made will be produced, does not that mean that the Chairman may have been inadvertently misled in accepting or rejecting a Motion to report Progress? Had the Chair known that the document which had been promised had, in fact, not been brought forward, might not the Chair then have said, as was said yesterday, "I will accept the Motion to report Progress" even though he had refused such a Motion a short time before?
The Chairman: Order. Unless the hon. Member is to refer to new matter, I must rule against him.
Mr. Lewis: About three-quarters of an hour ago, Mr. Irving, your predecessor said that at that stage he would not accept the Motion. That is exactly what he said yesterday when, after two hours' discussion, he refused to accept the Motion.
412
Then, after another two hours, he did accept it. After what has been said since your predecessor made that remark, would you not consider a new Motion to report Progress, in the new knowledge of the difficulty in which the Chair has been placed?
The Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot accept that submission.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Without disrespect to your predecessor, or to Erskine May, may I say that I am pleased to see you in the Chair, but it is important to inform you as to what has gone on—
The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot reiterate what has been said in the last hour.
Mr. Fraser: With great respect, one point has become obscured, namely, the fact that the document in question has been removed from the Library of the House of Commons. That is very serious.
The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the document is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member must find other means to proceed if he wishes to follow up this matter.
Mr. George Lawson: Is it not the case that there is a rule which applies even to point of order—the rule of tedious repetition? Is it not the case that if not merely one but many hon. Members insist upon tedious repetition it is the duty of the Chair to insist that such Members resume their seats and, if they refuse, to name them? Am I not entitled to ask—
The Chairman: Order. I understand that the hon. Member is trying to be helpful, but I hope that in the circumstances he will leave the conduct of the Chair to its occupant.
Mr. Lawson: Am I not entitled to ask that the Chair should give other hon. Members some protection? Is it not the case that this is just what we have not been getting on this Bill?
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is criticising the Chair.
Mr. Powell: Might I make a submission to you, Mr. Irving, on a point of order arising out of the advice which you gave to the Committee just now. That advice was that the Motion, That the

413
Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, was one which the Chair did not, or did not normally, accept until progress had been made. Perhaps I may be allowed to put two points to you on that advice.
The first point is that, in fact, this present sitting is one with the sitting which was suspended at about midnight yesterday. I respectfully point out that progress has been made since the last consideration of this Motion, in that an Amendment—indeed, a whole group of Amendments—was disposed of by the Committee.
Might I further mention to you, Mr. Irving, that it will be within your recollection that at the beginning of this Sitting —suspended and resumed—yesterday afternoon, the Committee found itself in a difficulty which, after two hours, we were able to resolve, although progress had not then been made, only by the opportunity to debate the Motion to which you are referring.
If I might trespass upon your patience just so far, it is to emphasise the very close similarity between our difficulty now and that of yesterday; namely, that we have—and this is not the fault of the Committee—been confronted with, I think it is now three Ministerial statements [Interruption.] I am told four— which we are unable to examine, and which yet, from the very fact that they have been made, are germane to the whole matter.
The Chairman: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman is covering ground that has been covered. To take the point that he made, which I think is one of substance, I did not say that as we had made progress yesterday we could not move to report Progress today. I said that the Motion had been refused quite recently and that the practice of the House was not to accept such a Motion again until some progress had been made.
Mr. Powell: May I put a different point of order, which, I think, calls for the assistance of the Chair. You will be aware, Mr. Irving, of the difficulty in which the House or a Committee finds itself when it has to resume a debate on the same subject in the morning after the debate had been adjourned late the previous night. One of the arrangements
414
which I imagine your predecessors in the Chair made to assist hon. Members in this difficulty is that, since we do not have HANSARD for that part of the Sitting which takes place after half-past ten o'clock, the HANSARD record shall be placed in the Library so that hon. Members can consult it before the debate is resumed.
After half-past ten last night there was a brief but important intervention by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department which it is very important for us to be able to see for the purpose of the questions which are still to be put to the Committee. This morning, there fore, I went to the Library in good time in order to consult what is available for our purposes—the OFFICIAL REPORT. I was told in the Library that HANSARD was—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Confidential.
Mr. Powell: Not confidential, no, but that it was not available—
The Chairman: Order. I think that I have the right hon. Gentleman's point, which is one of some relevance. Although I could not allow it to interrupt progress in the Committee this morning, it is a general question which may need looking into, and I shall be happy to look into it for the future. But I could not allow it to interfere with progress.
Mr. Powell rose—
The Chairman: I think that I have dealt with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Michael Foot: I refer to an entirely fresh matter, Mr. Irving, following from your most recent Ruling, when you said that you could not accept a progress Motion, on the grounds that it had been rejected fairly recently by the previous occupant of the Chair.
Bowing to that Ruling, might I submit that both you and the previous occupant of the Chair should take into account the obvious dissatisfaction which prevails in different parts of the House about the difficulties which we think we are in; and that, therefore, if we do proceed to the next Amendment you will be willing to consider, when the debate has proceeded for a reasonable distance, our being able then to propose such a

415
Motion? We should be able then to have that Motion considered by the Committee and by the House before reaching a decision on this Amendment, so that the whole of the debate on this Amendment should not be conducted in circumstances in which we are denied access to the document in question.
I submit that this is an entirely fresh point. I understand that you do not wish to accept the Motion now, but I hope that at a later stage it may be possible for us to suggest that this might be the best course.
The Chairman: It is, for two reasons, very difficult for me to answer the hon. Gentleman. The first is that I should be committing the Chair to taking responsibility on a matter which is not within the province of the Chair— namely, the provision of documents. The second is that the Chair never rules hypothetically. That being so, I cannot help the hon. Member.
Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. I thank you for the undertaking which you were good enough to give in reply to my previous submission that you would consider the difficulty. I ask you only to permit me to mention a further aggravation of that difficulty which occurred this morning, and about which I think you would wish to know if any thing is to be done to help the Committee in these circumstances. It is that the reason why the HANSARD report was not available to me in the Library was that it had been removed, quite properly and justifiably, for the use of an hon. Member, to whom I cannot properly refer as Mr. Gourlay but only as the previous occupant of the Chair—
The Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consult me privately, I shall be very glad to listen to him.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to the availability or non-availability of documents in the Library, I think I heard you say, Mr. Irving, that this was a general question which could be looked into. If it can be looked into with regard to that point, why can it not be looked into by the Chair with regard to the other document?
The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I made it quite clear that it was not the responsibility of the Chair but that, while I could not allow the matter to hinder progress, in order to be helpful to hon. Members I would see what I could do in this respect.
Mr. Lewis rose—
The Chairman: If what the hon. Gentleman wishes to say pertains to the point which he has made, I should be grateful if he, too, would consult me in private, when I shall be glad to devote some time to the matter.
Sir D. Glover: While I am sure that the House will be delighted, Mr. Irving, to know that you will have private conversations with the right hon. Gentleman—
The Chairman: Order. We have to include the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), too.
Mr. Sheldon: I, too, came especially early this morning in order to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT, because certain statements were made pertaining to the documents after the ordinary edition of the OFFICIAL REPORT was printed. This is quite relevant—
The Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, and I have undertaken to see whether I can alleviate that difficulty in future, but I cannot allow further discussion on the matter.
Mr. Sheldon: Unfortunately, the point on which I wished to refer to the OFFI CIAL REPORT had direct relevance, in my opinion, both to the points of order which have been raised this morning and, possibly, to the debate on the next Amendment—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is assuming that I accepted this as a responsibility of the Chair. I made it quite clear, I think, that I was acting in another capacity only in order to be helpful to the Committee and that I could not allow this matter to hold up progress in the Committee.
Mr. Sheldon: Yes, but on this very important point of order—
The Chairman: Unless the hon. Gentleman has something new to put to me, I cannot hear him on that point.
Mr. Sheldon: I have something new on this point. If HANSARD had been available, it might have changed the attitude of some hon. Members and of your predecessor in certain decisions.
11.30 a.m.
The Chairman: That is just the submission which the right hon Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was making, that it would help him in his deliberations this morning. I made it clear that it was not the responsibility of the Chair.
Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will allow the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) to move the Amendment. We could then make some progress.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. If I understand aright, the hon. Member is unable to move his Amendment, because he does not have HANSARD.
The Chairman: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will make up his own mind about whether to move the Amendment.
Mr. Sheldon: I beg to move Amendment No. 121, in page 4, line 18, after 'given', insert
'except on account of other public business when, if the House is sitting, it must be given before'.
The purpose of this Amendment, which at this stage I do not wish to give any status higher than that of a probing Amendment, is to determine in the broadest possible way what kind of responsibility peers should have to other persons or other bodies. We know that at present, as long as they satisfy the minimum attendance requirement, no obligation is placed upon them to attend for any particular time of the day, or even for any length of time during the day. There is no requirement that they need do more than just attend the House of Lords, be noticed by one or two officials, and immediately depart.
If that is so, we, as responsible for the payment of public money to peers, have
418
to make sure that there is some kind of responsibility attached to the position of voting peers. What we need to know and what we need to discuss is the kind of responsibility that we can inculcate in the peers as to the way in which they behave in the public service.
We all know, and in the past we have all been proud, of our reputation for pub-lice service, assuming that people were normally prepared to sacrifice themselves to a considerable extent in order to assist the public good. This has been a long and honourable tradition which has made our Parliamentary institutions among the finest in the world.
But when one creates a new constitution—and that is what we are doing—one must not assume that in a material age these attitudes will remain unaltered indefinitely. Once we offer the prospect not of public service but of reward, we must not assume that the attitude of considerations of duty, which were so important and, frequently, for which we must be grateful, of over-riding concern, will remain unaltered in the changing circumstances.
Because of this, we need to consider which kind of control, of checking, of minstering to the needs of the situation, we in the House of Commons should write into the provisions concerning attendance in the House of Lords. We are in the position of being the payers of peers for work which we consider needs to be done, and in our position of having to vote the moneys for the purpose we have the obligation as that which we have in every other kind of payment which we authorise. Not only do we have to make sure that the money goes to the people to whom we intend it to go; we have the more sophisticated requirement of having to make sure, having to convince ourselves in the most rigorous manner possible—be cause this has always been our attitude, and rightly so—that the money spent is spent on obtaining value and that, whether it be spent on any Ministry Vote or whether it be spent on payments to the House of Lords—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. This is an interesting speech and it deserves a bigger attendance. I therefore call a Count.
The Chairman: I cannot call a Count because we are in a suspended Sitting

419
and the new rules do not allow a count to be called after ten o'clock.
Mr. Sheldon: We have the same obligation in connection with the House of Lord-; that we have with moneys voted to any of the Departments of State. It is to make sure that the money is used for the purpose which Parliament intends. This is the oldest and the most important of the controls that we have devised and employed.
But we also have, increasingly as it has come about—and this applies more to the House of Lords—to demand that we obtain value for the money. If we are to vote many hundreds of thousands of pounds—or much more if we include the other facilities—we have to account to the electorate, to the people, for the way in which value for the money spent is obtained.
As you know, Mr. Irving, I should have preferred to have devised a different system. I should have liked it to be conducted with a far better investigation and far better methods of study, but we are discussing the method which we have and, rather than being able to compare this kind of Chamber with what it could be and the costs and so on, we have to think of the Chamber proposed in the Bill and the cost of operating that Chamber and the results which we shall obtain.
We must insist that, whatever the peers do and however they act, the arrangements concerning their attendance and the broad way in which they conduct their business are designed at least partly to prove to the country that the money being spent is being spent for value. If as the result of this legislation the House of Lords becomes a place which people use rather than serve, we shall have been shown to have produced a wrong kind of second House and one for which we ourselves would have the blame.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the absence of peers through illness or because of Parliamentary duties is counted towards the one-third attendance required. In this category, too, is the situation concerning public business. The peer can absent himself on the grounds of public business and this also counts towards the one-third attendance.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does this mean that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, who is receiving about £5,000 or £6,000 a year, could be absent all the time on public business and still receive his peer's salary?
Mr. Sheldon: If he were a voting peer, I am sure that could well come into the category of public business. Although I have selected a few interesting examples to draw to the attention of the Committee, the one mentioned by my hon. Friend is not one which I have considered, and I am grateful to him for introducing yet another kind of public business for which payment will be made.
I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary of State has made any examination of the days taken for public business, for Parliamentary business and for illness. I know that he has information as to the numbers who obtained leave of absence, but I am not sure that he has information on these three categories of absence for public business, Parliamentary business and illness. If he has not, then I may be able to be of assistance to him, because the survey which I carried out made a specific request for information concerning absences due to illness, public business and Parliamentary business.
The figures resulting from the survey need to be treated with some care since they represent only the recollections of peers, but this probably represents more information than the miserably inadequate information of the Under-Secretary of State on all these matters. This at least may be better than the information which he has, and is certainly different from that which he may have.
The survey shows that the absences of peers due to illness, public business or Parliamentary business averaged 22 per cent. We know that in the session 1967–68 there were 137 sitting days. If absences in these three categories amounted to 22 per cent., the one-third attendance requirement, which would have been 46 days, would be reduced by 22 per cent. So the 46 sitting days which would be the normal requirement for one-third attendance would be reduced to about 35 days and a member of the House of Lords could receive his Parliamentary salary of £2,000, or whatever it may be, for attending only on these 35 sitting days.

421
When one bears in mind that days of absence on public business might be more readily accepted by members of the House of Lords, the number might increase. The 35 does not represent the minimum; it represents the minimum attendance with the average reduction. The survey showed that there were people who had absented themselves more than 22 per cent. of the time. At the moment there is no attendance requirement and, if an attendance requirement were to be imposed, it would not be surprising if some peers might wish to absent themselves rather more. Faced with the minimum attendance rule, they could well decide to attend less frequently in the performance of their Parliamentary duties.
11.45 a.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I naturally accept the figures as correct. Am I to take it that for attendance on the 35 days, with the peer earning a minimum of £2,000 which has been suggested, a peer will get a salary representing on average around £20,000 per year—plus £6,000 a year if he has such a job?
The Chairman: Order. We are not discussing remuneration.
Mr. Sheldon: You are quite right, Mr. Irving, we are not discussing remuneration.
Mr. Lewis: It all comes in.
Mr. Sheldon: Obviously there will be resentment if the number of attendances is few and payment is made at the level which has been mooted. That would be a disgraceful situation. These considerations prompted Amendments earlier, and others which unfortunately have not been selected but which we hope to be able to discuss on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Parliamentary duties are easy to analyse. We know broadly what we mean when we talk of Parliamentary duties, and I will not say that all of them are onerous. There will be a number of mid-term Parliamentary delegations and so on which some of us feel are, for peers, of rather doubtful value.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Whips' trips !
Mr. Sheldon: The term used by my hon. Friend is hard to better. Whatever they may be, they are not the important work of the House of Lords, yet it would be difficult to exclude that kind of operation. Some may be of more value than others, but they have been a part of Parliamentary life for so long that it would be wrong to attempt to exclude them.
The Amendment does not deal with illness. This is a matter which it is difficult to prove or disprove, and one must rely on the good faith of the people concerned. In passing, we must record that many people are in humbler positions in whom we do not place this degree of trust for sums of money much less important. To have one law for those who have means, giving them even greater means, and another for those who have less means is invidious. Nevertheless, there are problems in bringing suitable arrangements to bear on this point.
When we come to public business, the distinction becomes less rigid and we need to examine it more carefully. The distinction between some kinds of public and private business is not always easy to maintain.
I should like to give one or two examples. The Chairman of a joint stock bank, who might be a voting peer, for example, may have to go to the Middle East to get a sheik's bank account, or whatever it may be, and there may be some work attached to that. Is it public or private business if he visits him as a peer? How do we draw the distinction between one and the other? It may be a visit lasting several weeks and may include up to a dozen of the 35 days—
The Chairman: Order. I am having difficulty in relating the hon. Member's remarks to the Amendment, the terms of which clearly distinguish between public and private business. The purpose of the Amendment is to treat them differently in terms of notice.
Mr. Sheldon: The point to which I wish to address myself is the question of making sure that public business is delineated clearly from other kinds of business. When the peer gives notice in advance it can then be made quite clear what the nature of the public business is, so that it can be distinguished more readily from other kinds of business

423
for which payment would not be made because it did not count towards the minimum level of attendances.
Another example of the confusion which might operate is the position of a voting peer who was the vice-chancellor of a university and who organised some jamboree somewhere in the world. Is that public business?
Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Sheldon: Is this public or private business? Who is to judge? If there are those who become almost professional at these matters and they are to get a sinecure of £2,000 a year, we must see that the people of this country—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is bringing in remuneration again.
Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman refers to vice-chancellors and absence on public business. Would this include being detained in their rooms by rebellious students?
The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue that point.
Mr. Sheldon rose—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
The Chairman: Order. I think we ought to have one intervention at a time. Mr. Sheldon.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was asking my hon. Friend to give way.
The Chairman: Order. I asked the hon. Member not to follow one intervention with another.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has given way.
The Chairman: Order. I was suggesting that it would be much more orderly and accord with the general practice of the Committee if we do not have two interventions together. Mr. Sheldon.
Mr. Sheldon: I should not like to follow the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) in that example. However, it shows the very blurred distinction between what, on the one hand, is private business, and what, on the other, is public business—when he receives payment and when he does not.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. I want to be helpful to him and to the Chair. I wish to quote an example which he might perhaps develop. Let us take the position of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He can be attending Ascot or the Grand National and be away for a week. That is probably a public job. Will he be getting his public salary, perhaps earning money backing horses, and also getting his £2,000 a year? Would this be public or private business? This is an example. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider it.
[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]
Mr. Sheldon: I am intrigued at the ingenuity of my hon. Friend in discovering yet fresh examples showing the blurred distinction between private and public business.
Mr. John Lee: What about the position of the Chairman of the Betting Levy Board, who might be a peer and be attending—
Mr. Sheldon: That was the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Examples are coming forward so quickly. Perhaps I might give one last example: an industrialist concerning himself with mergers, perhaps in connection with the I.R.C. or some other body, and travelling all over the world in pursuit of business and pursuing other activities where the distinction between public and private business is not very fine. All this would not matter very much if there were no question of the minimum attendance figure or the salary being paid. But once we are committed to paying salaries to these people we have to exercise the usual rights of the House of Commons in making sure that the public are satisfied that for the money they pay out value is received.
Mr. John Ryan: My hon. Friend has raised many interesting examples which have considerably assisted the Committee about the distinction between private and public business. Will my hon. Friend consider the further example of a peer such as our noble Friend, Lord Brockway, who recently visited Nigeria as part of an attempt to secure a ceasefire? Would that be considered private or

425
public business, in the sense that he was briefed by the Commonwealth Office before he went, and would he lose his salary while there? Some people would argue that that was a worth-while form of activity, as have been many of his activities. For example, I accompanied him to Paris to meet the N.L.F. in peace talks. Perhaps we can discuss that on another Amendment, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear that example in mind.
Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing into the debate a further difficulty concerning the distinction between public and private business.
The Amendment seeks to ensure that the leave of the House to attend on public business must be given in advance only when the House is sitting. This is naturally related to attendances. It should not be a difficult undertaking to make sure that, even at very short notice, a message could be sent describing in the broadest possible detail the nature of the business.
The important point is that we should get value for money. All people, whoever they may be and however exalted their positions, should have some body, organisation or institution surveying the work which they do. That applies to Members of Parliament. If we attempt to swing the lead this information is known to our electorate and may determine our future. This is a strong penalty which, in the last resort, can be used.
The Prime Minister has his responsibilities to this House. He has responsibilities to all sorts of organisations. He is not able to do exactly as he wishes.
The chairman of a public company, an exalted position, has responsibilities to the shareholders. Although we may feel that these responsibilities are not as ardous as we should wish, nevertheless they are used again and again and they do draw the attention of the Chairman of any company, however large or small, to the fact that there is another body of people or another organisation to which he is in some way responsible.
When we create this voting peer we say that as long as he attends one-third of the sittings he has no further responsibility. The system has worked well in the past, but now that we are to give peers £2,000 a year, there is a need for some control over this money.
12 noon.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not refer to the question of remuneration.
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine, I submit that it would be impossible to debate this Clause properly without considering remuneration. The Clause was put into the Bill when remuneration was part of the bargain. Salary has been withdrawn from the bargain. The Clause, too, should therefore have been withdrawn. I do not see how we can have a meaningful discussion of the Clause without mentioning remuneration in passing.
The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that we are debating the Amendment and not the Clause.
Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine, you cannot be conscious of what happened when you were not in the Chair, and you must rule as you see fit, but I have always understood that after an hon. Member has been warned, as my hon. Friend has been, about discussing remuneration he can use a figure in parenthesis to illustrate his argument. The argument cannot be conducted in vacuo. My hon. Friend is addressing himself to the question of responsibility, and responsibility arises out of the fact that public money is to be spent.
I understand the Chair saying that we must not go at length into how much money should be paid, or how it is arrived at, but the debate will be unintelligible —and nobody wants Parliament to be unintelligible—if my hon. Friend is not allowed to refer to remuneration, at least in parenthesis.
The Temporary Chairman: I was not present, but I understood that the Chairman had given a Ruling on this matter. I agree that remuneration can be referred to in parenthesis, but I hope that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will refer directly to the Amendment.
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine, how can we debate a Clause which lays down disciplines and conditions if there is no penalty for not complying with them? Remuneration

427
must be at the back of everybody's mind when discussing the Clause.
The Temporary Chairman: I hope that hon. Members will keep it at the back of their minds and will address their comments to the Amendment.
Mr. Orme: On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine, you say that we cannot discuss remuneration. We know that allowances are paid to peers. The Government brought forward a proposal for paying a salary, and then withdrew it, but there is no undertaking that it has been withdrawn for ever. I therefore submit that my hon. Friend has a right to refer to what may happen in future, because there is no categorical denial from the Government that they may not again alter their minds on this issue.
The Temporary Chairman: That does not arise on the Amendment. All that I am trying to do is to keep the Committee on the lines laid down by the Chairman when he was in the Chair.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. When this question arose originally the Chairman said that pro vided we referred to what was in the White Paper we should be in order. The White Paper refers to a salary of £2,000, but that figure is not in the Bill—
The Temporary Chairman: Order. That was not a statement by the Chairman of Ways and Means on this Amendment.
Mr. Sheldon: I accept your Ruling. I am sure that there is nothing between us on this matter, in that the question of money arises because of the need to ensure that peers attend to their duties properly. If there were no payment, there would be no Amendment.
The important aspect of this is to ensure that when public business engagements are undertaken a distinction is made between public and private business and it is notified in advance. Before the House of Commons votes money it is given a chance to make sure that value will be obtained for that money. We know that £2,000 may be paid for a certain number of attendances in the other place. If that number were fixed at 20 or 15 genuine days, and all that
428
was necessary was for a peer to put in an appearance in the other place on his way to his office, or on the way back from his office on the way home, or to drop in for a drink, we should be failing in our duty if we did not realise that some awkward questions would be asked by those whose incomes were very much more restricted and who could not understand why money of this sort was being paid to people who treated the other place as a club.
We know that the mystique of service is not what it was in former days, and if this mystique of great service goes we must examine the position very carefully. The cost of the House of Lords will be much more than it used to be. Under the old system of paying daily allowances, allowing for an average of 230 attendances, the sum paid out was about £170,000 a year. Paying a salary of £2,000 a year will almost treble that figure to about £460,000 a year. I therefore submit that if we spend so much more on salaries for peers we must make sure, not only that we are getting value for money, but that what we are doing is seen to be right.
Mr. John Lee: The Amendment deals with the notifying in advance of intended absence. If a peer gives notice of what he genuinely believes is absence on public business, and it later transpires that it is not public business, will the matter be reported to the Public Accounts Committee? Does my hon. Friend envisage a kind of surcharge, or a withdrawal of salary, related to the unauthorised absence?
Mr. Sheldon: Speaking as a member of the Public Accounts Committee in the presence of the Chairman of that Committee, I hesitate to commit myself at this stage.
Sir D. Glover: I think that the hon. Gentleman and the distinguished Chairman of the P.A.C. would want to be paid £2,000 a year if this were referred to us.
Mr. Sheldon: I am sure that the point has been well taken.
The important aspect of the Amendment is the necessity for some kind of supervision, just as there is supervision over all people who hold positions of importance. These peers are to get what for many people is a full-time salary, but

429
they are not to be held accountable in any way, except on the basis of a minimum attendance, which can be reduced if "public business" is widely interpreted. If we are to have a Report stage —and J hope that we shall have one— I expect the Government to try to find some way of making sure that there is some form of supervision which is acceptable to the House of Lords and also acceptable to this House which will be responsible for paying these considerable sums of money.
There will be a fair number of younger voting peers. Those younger voting peers, presumably, initially will be very full of enthusiasm. Presumably that is one of the reasons why they would be selected. Throughout one's life there are times when for some reason or other one is particularly busy. One has obligations and commitments which are perhaps greater than one would have chosen but which have been thrust upon one or have been accepted rather too readily in a spirit of over-great enthusiasm. The remedies for us are to work perhaps at an unwise speed and at a level of intensity rather greater than that at which we wish to work.
The voting peer could readily dispense with certain of the activities for which he was being paid £2,000 a year. If he had attended 60 per cent., he could run that down to 33 per cent., and if he found the burden too much he could readily make use of the provision about public business and find excuses to be away from the House of Lords, or use it as a club on the way home in the evening.
Mr. Russell Kerr: The old wangle.
Mr. Sheldon: That is one description, but there is another.
Mr. Ryan: If one accepts that it is the easiest thing in the world to justify one's behaviour to oneself, could not my hon. Friend envisage a situation in which these peers might identify themselves with charitable organisations in great numbers? We have not considered whether working for a charitable organisation would be defined as public business. Would it be possible for the peer to spend very little time on this business but to justify to himself that it is public business?
Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend has a point there. In periods of very great stress for the peer concerned there will be a temptation to extend the public business side of his activities so as to reduce his attendances. He might not regard that as a wangle. I accept that many who will find themselves peers if this wretched measure gets on to the Statute Book will be men of some distinction. I hesitate to think that there would be more than a very few who would undertake the kind of wangle referred to, but many, faced with the difficulty of keeping up attendances of one-third because of extreme commitments, might resort to using the public business provision to reduce their attendances further because the penalty for not doing so would be to be put out of the House for life. That is an appalling penalty for a man of 40 or 50 who is interested in Parliament and who perhaps for one year finds himself in the dilemma whether to plead public business when it is not public business or to find himself disfranchised from the House of Lords and no longer a voting peer. That is an agonising decision for the peer concerned.
12.15 p.m.
That is a further illustration of some of the shoddy thinking behind the Bill. It has not been properly thought out. Although many of these peers will attend very well, the results of the survey which I outlined yesterday seem to suggest that nevertheless there is a need for flexibility. We do not attend in this place in the same proportion year in and year out. There are times when we have great difficulties of one kind and another and there are times when we are able, due to good fortune and everything going well, to be heavily engaged in this place. There are times when we see faces here that we have not seen for a very long time and when we find some hon. Members again taking their places day after day. We assume that that will not happen in another place, but if it happens and there are periods when these peers do not attend, they may resort to the temptation of the wangle.
Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Member agree that there are some faces which appear here when it would be to the benefit of the House if they did not appear quite so often?
Mr. Sheldon: I accept that.
Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to a peer whose attendance requirement would not be fulfilled as thereby forfeiting his voting membership for life. I wonder whether he is quite correct. I wonder whether it would not be for the remainder of that Parliament that he would suffer forfeiture. I agree with the general argument which the hon. Member is evolving, but perhaps on consideration, after looking at Clause 3 and at subsections (1) and (4), he would find that he is mistaken.
The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will not look at Clause 3 but will relate his argument strictly to the Amendment.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), possibly unintentionally, may have misled the Committee on this complicated Bill. Surely it is in order for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to draw attention to other provisions of the Bill to indicate that the hon. Member may have inadvertently misled the Committee? Otherwise intelligent consideration of this Bill in Committee—I remind you, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, that we are in Committee—becomes impossible.
The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will relate his argument strictly to the Amendment.
Mr. Sheldon: Thank you, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine. I certainly intend to relate all my comments to the Amendment. The voting peer whose attendance record falls below that which he would normally wish to maintain will be placed in great difficulty through being excluded from some important matters which may be before the House of Lords.
A most important aspect of this matter deals with responsibilities and to whom they should be directed. We are creating a body which will be in receipt of moneys amounting to half-a-million pounds a year and we are stating that there should be no responsibility to anyone on any matter. This has gone too far. We need to make sure that some control of that
432
money, by some means not yet properly discussed, is considered by the Government and brought before the Committee.
Sir D. Glover: The whole Committee is greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), whose every speech on the Bill increases his stature in the House of Commons. Before our deliberations on the Bill are concluded, the hon. Gentleman will be one of the most experienced Parliamentarians of all time. If the hon. Gentleman continues in this way, by the time the Bill becomes law, if ever, he will be far too old to qualify for membership of the other place.
Many of the things the hon. Gentleman has said highlight even more clearly the absurdity of the Bill. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be wise, if the Lords is to work with reasonable efficiency, to have any dignity, or to be any parallel with the House of Commons. On the question of public service, for instance, will the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, when he is watching the Gold Cup at Cheltenham tomorrow, be absent on public business, or on private business? The hon. Gentleman, perhaps because he did not wish to weary the Committee, did not go at sufficient length into the question of who is to decide. Is there to be a committee of the House of Lords which will solemnly set out to decide whether the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is entitled to go to Cheltenham?
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has my hon. Friend never heard of the old system of exeats?
Sir D. Glover: I do not know anything about exeats. Most of these peers will be getting exits, not exeats. If a committee were to decide afterwards that the noble Lord was not absent on public business, would that disqualify him for the rest of that Parliament? Would the noble Lord have to get approval before he went, or afterwards? How do the Government visualise this system working in the reformed Chamber?
It cannot and will not work. The whole basis of the Clause of putting conditions on the peerage will turn the Lords into a Chamber that will not work. Remuneration has been much discussed.

433
It has been said that most of those who will be considered for these positions are men of considerable public stature, nor necessarily all wealthy. Many of them are already reasonably well-breeched. I do not think that they will accept these conditions. People will not volunteer for these positions. The Government may get it to work for the present House, after they have carefully gone into the matter on the mystical figure of 230. The Government have probably found that there are so many hereditary Tory peers and so many Tory peers of first creation; they have probably sounded them out and decided that, when and if the Bill ever becomes law, it will work. It probably would work for the first Session. In this important constitutional Bill we are trying to devise a system for a second Chamber which will exist, not for one Parliament, but perhaps for 50 or 100 years before it is amended. It will not work. Those already in the swim may continue, but once they have run out of steam others will not accept these conditions. The hon. Gentleman spoke about peers clocking in. If there is to be an attendance, there will have to be some form of clocking in.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that subsection (3) deals with the retrospective granting of permission to leave in two cases where a person could not have foreseen that he would be absent? The first is illness. The second is when he is called away suddenly on public business. It does not deal with anything beyond that. Permission would be given beforehand in other circumstances.
Sir D. Glover: But it does not say so.
Mr. Powell: It is not even in the Preamble.
Sir D. Glover: If it is not in the Preamble, it cannot be of great weight. If there are to be these conditions, a day must be defined. Is it to be two hours, or the length of one speech? A peer might be called away on urgent public business after he had already spent an hour in the House. Would he qualify in those circumstances for a day's attendance? He might merely have called to collect his mail. Must a peer be there for lunch? Must he dine in, as they do at the Inns of Court? Must he take so many dinners a year before he qualifies?
Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that at present all that has to happen is that a noble Lord has to be seen by the Clerk and his name is entered in the bock? A peer does not even have to stay in another place long enough to drink a gin and tonic to qualify for a whole day's attendance. Presumably the same system will apply when the Bill becomes law.
Sir D. Glover: I am grateful for that intervention. That is what happens today when there is only an attendance allowance. Implicit in all our deliberations is the fact that there is to be remuneration. I do not think that what happens now has a cat in hell's chance of being allowed to continue. There would be far too much opposition to paying people who are not responsible to the electorate a firm salary with no conditions. Once conditions are laid down, they will have to be fairly onerous. Because the conditions will have to be fairly onerous, eventually the whole Bill, if it became law, would crumble into dust, because it would not work.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke with great intelligence about the narrow gap between public and private occupations. I do not think that the case he cited of a banker going to the Middle East to open an account would qualify as public service. I will cite a much more valid case. If the party in opposition has a young peer, perhaps aged 35, who it thinks will be Ministerial material when it gets to power, and if that young peer out of his own money pays for a trip round the world to investigate problems in Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Mauritius, and even Anguilla, is that public service?
12.30 p.m.
I presume that, if there were a committee sitting on the matter, it might view such a question with kindness and be inclined to say that it was public service, but one of its members might well warn that one should be careful about it— "This noble Lord has some mining interests in Australia. When he goes to Australia, he will look after his mining interests, and he may be there for a month looking after them. We ought not to certify that it is public service".
The noble Lord is then absent from the House, he does not do his 33⅓ per cent.

435
of attendances, and he is disqualified from voting, probably only for that Parliament, but disqualified none the less. It would not be easy for the leader of his party to put things right in the next Parliament unless the party won a great victory and came in with more members in this House. His leader would then be able to add his name to the list of voting peers because the party was qualified for another half-dozen, but not otherwise.
Would that be a sensible way of building up an informed peerage, a sensible way of building up a body which, despite the criticisms, is widely respected not for its composition and hereditary basis but for the intelligence and wisdom collected within its walls which is expressed in its debates?
I take another example. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Butler has qualified this year or in the particular year in question, 1967–68, which seems to be the basis of all wisdom. On the other hand, perhaps not; the year 1967–68 may have been a time when he was not a particularly good attender. On a statistical basis, he would not be likely to become a voting peer. As the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, attendances in political life vary enormously.
There is something slightly indecent— I repeat the word "indecent" to the Under-Secretary of State, and I am sorry that he is the only Minister present—that we should be debating sanctions for attendance in another place at a time of day when we are not able to call a Count to find out how many Members of the House of Commons are sufficiently interested in the debate even to be on the premises. I doubt that we should have found 40 Members present if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) had been able to call a Count. Yet we have the impertinence and arrogance to debate a Bill which would put sanctions, clocking-in and the rest on their Lordships in another place.
I accept that we in this House are responsible to our constituents; they can put a good discipline on Members of Parliament, though I am reminded of a story about a distinguished Member of this House who, at the beginning of every Session, gave his secretary some Questions for Written Answer and then
436
went off to the South of France. For many years, his constituents thought that he was an assiduous and able Member, always "on the ball", and asking Questions in the House. It does not necessarily follow that Members' attendances are as reliable as might appear. However, there is a discipline which our electors exert upon us.
That discipline does not apply in the other place. So far, without pay but with an attendance allowance, there have been enough public-spirited people in the other place to produce the mystical figure of 230. Without discipline, without sanctions, the unreconstituted House of Lords with its hereditary principle and 400 Members not attending, is producing day by day and week by week the attendance which the Government want to produce under the Bill. The right way, therefore, is not to do what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested, instituting a sort of factory clocking-in system, but to trust the peers in the same way as they have been trusted for many years.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In his study of the matter has my hon. Friend established how many Member of the other place are members of the boards of nationalised industries and whether attendance at a board meeting would qualify as public service under the Clause?
Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend has made a valuable interjection. That also is a question which will exercise the leaders of the political parties. I assume that the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Robens, for example, will not be considered as voting peers because their leaders will say not that they are not valuable peers but that they cannot attend sufficiently often to vote.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They might be cross-benchers.
Sir D. Glover: That is another interesting point. Because of the difficulties, a tradition might develop that Lord Melchett and Lord Robens, for example, could become part of the so-called cross-bench or "C.B." peers. But the Members of the House of Commons would take a good deal of convincing that they had suddenly become men without political views. I think it only too likely that

437
the leaders of the political parties will strain their consciences to the point of appointing peers who are members of the boards of nationalised industries in the quota of cross-bench peers, and that will show how "phoney" the cross-bench peerage will become in a short time.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is breaking some important ground on the Amendment. I gather that the conclusion to which he is coming is that in their Lordships House there ought to be a register of public interests, that just as in this House we are drawing towards a register of private interests of Members of Parliament, so in the House of Lords there should be a register of public interests so that peers may declare in advance the business on which they would claim exemption from the attendance record, so that everyone would know what was fair and what was not when first setting down his list of interests.
Sir D. Glover; That is, perhaps, one of the most important points raised during the debate this morning.
I wish to make my position clear. I do not want the Bill to become law. The Bill will make the other place worse than it is. There are three solutions. The other place could be scrapped, left as it is, or turned into an elective Chamber. The Bill does none of those things. It is a nonsense, and if it produces a Chamber that will not work it may be necessary to have a register such as my hon. Friend suggests. But it would be a retrograde step, showing lack of interest and trust in the noble Lords, and putting them into the atmosphere of a schoolroom, which would not help their independence. But if that is the sort of Chamber that will exist, many of these disciplines may become part of the machinery of trying to make another place work.
Mr. Hastings: This is a substantial point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) suggested that a register of public interests might be necessary under the Amendment in rather the same way as it is suggested we should have registers of our interests outside this place. But, even if it were a good idea, it would be impossible under the Bill as it stands, because we do not know what the Government
438
consider a public interest to be. We should first have to have a comprehensive list of what the Government consider them to be before we could have any list of the public interests of peers.
Sir D. Glover: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I partially raised this earlier in my speech when I asked who decided what a public interest was. Is there to be a permanent Select Committee in the House of Lords to which a noble Lord will say, "I have got this job, this appointment. Is it a public interest? If I go to Cheltenham, will it be allowed?" I am appalled by the mental picture of that. How would it work? Will the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, go to the House of Lords and order that the Committee should sit immediately because he wants to go to Cheltenham, or does he have to write in a month before? Who will decide—the Prime Minister, or a group of Privy Councillors? Somebody will have to settle these matters. The general impression in the Committee is that this will not work.
I do not want to mislead the Committee. I think that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that the Amendment was a probing Amendment. We should be grateful to him for moving it, and for his very able speech. But if he pressed it to a Division I do not think that I would go into the Lobby with him at this stage. He is trying to make conditions that would make another place even less workable than it would be under the present proposals, if that is possible.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a sum of money, whether £2,000 or any other amount, should be paid to their prospective Lordships irrespective of their performance? Does he say that there should be no criterion that we could apply to their performance in another place?
Sir D. Glover: That is a very valid question. I would say, "Yes", and I would trust the noble Lords to justify the payment, although I admit that a powerful speech could be made against that.
Mr. Kerr: How can the hon. Gentleman justify that, not only to the Committee but to the public at large, since we are in effect responsible for their money?
12.45 p.m.
Sir D. Glover: I accept that criticism. This question does not arise on the Amendment, and we shall deal with it at greater length later. Without getting too far out of order, I would say, if asked for a snap decision, that I would trust the noble Lords. The hon. Gentleman and I could argue all night on the rights and wrongs of this, and I accept that when payment is made to a non-elective Chamber there is a powerful argument for having disciplines to ensure that it is deserved.
I gave the hon. Gentleman a snap judgment, but I am prepared to be convinced. I am not dogmatic about it because I see that there is a real danger. Judging by the hon. Gentleman's speech, I think that he probably will not press the Amendment to a Division, but if he did I probably would not vote for it at this stage. However, he has done the Committee a great service in raising the whole problem of the working of this crazy scheme, if it ever gets on the Statute Book and some poor benighted people in another place have to try to make it work. It will be a disastrous failure. The present House of Lords, despite all its anomalies, is held in great affection by the public, and there is tremendous respect for it in the nation. It would be ruined by the Bill and ruined to no advantage to the nation.
Mr. John Lee: I share with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), many misgivings about the mechanics of the Amendment. I am not entirely convinced that it will help us get very far, but I join with the hon. Gentleman in expressing the Committee's gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for raising the matter. It is one of the characteristics of the long proceedings on the Bill that what seem to be quite small technical Amendments give rise to major matters and to problems of constitutional importance which might not otherwise have been drawn to hon. Members' attention.
The Amendment has certain advantages over the wording of the Bill. The Clause talks about leave of absence being given before, during or after the period for which it was given. That is an extraordinarily lax suggestion. How
440
casual this all is? We are dealing not only with public money but with public resources—the use of the facilities of the second Chamber and the amenities attached to it, and with a Member seeking to do something which, by the very nature of things, is supposed to be exceptional. For the first time in history, the criterion of membership of the other place will include the requirement of presence in the Chamber, or at least within the Palace of Westminster, whereas it has been the practice for many years that the great majority of Members of the other House were engaged elsewhere and put in only an occasional appearance. For the first time, we are giving them permission to be away, subject to the possibility of certain sanctions if they do not conform to requirements to be laid down, yet we make this provision the subject of the most casual and loose arrangement.
It is not clear from the Bill how long after the period permission can be given. I shall have to criticise the Amendment itself at some length later. Whilst it seeks to procure approval in advance, it does not deal with the question of how far in advance this may be required. But it is far more satisfactory than having a Member taking himself off on something which he presumes to be public business, but which may turn out not to have been so, and then later on making an application.
The words at the end of subsection (3) are:
"or after the end of the Session to which it relates."
How long after? What will the position be under the Bill if a peer seeks permission at the end of the final Session of Parliament? Would permission be forthcoming? Who would give it even if it were after the Proclamation of the Dissolution of Parliament at the end of the final Session? It is not clear. For that reason there is obviously a great deal to be said for making it obligatory upon the Member who seeks to be absent that he should make his application in advance of the time to which the application applies.
I regret that the Amendment does not make it entirely clear that a Member of the other place should seek permission in advance in any event, with the possible exception of certain cases where

441
there may be an extraordinary emergency session, or something of that kind. If a peer seeks to go on public business and does not seek permission in advance, who is to say that he ought to be at risk and that he may be sanctioned if he finds himself doing something of which the House does not approve?
Let me draw an analogy. There have been occasions—there have not been many recently—when Members of this House have fallen foul of the technicalities of the House of Commons disqualification provisions by the holding of certain offices of profit under the Crown. Before seeking election to this House they had been required to say that they were not disqualified. Yet instances have occurred when Members, quite bona fide, have allowed their names to go forward as validly nominated candidates for election to this House and when it has subsequently transpired that they were not freed of their disqualifying offices.
Members of rent tribunals provide one example. That House has had to deal with the question of the validity of their election and in every case indemnification Bills have been forthcoming. The House always deals kindly and leniently with any Member who, bona fide, makes a mistake as to his qualifications.
I use that argument by way of analogy, and I would have said that if a Member of the other place bona fide went on a trip which he believed to be a business trip and sought permission for it, and if it turned out that although it could reasonably be imagined that it was on public business it was really of a private character, because it came in one of the border-line categories to which reference has been made, I am sure that the situation could be put right y way of an indemnification Bill.
But that is quite different from saying, "It does not matter if you do this. Do not bother to apply now. You can apply during or after the Session, when the whole matter will be over." That is a far-too casual approach to public business. For that reason I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was right to bring forward the Amendment seeking to improve the situation.
Mr. R. B. Cant: My hon. Friend could have
442
reminded the House of the vivid contrast that exists between the essentially casual approach to the problem of attendance in relation to remuneration in the case of the House of Parliament and the very strict rules and regulations laid down for the gift of financial loss allowances to local councillors who, in order to get their £2 financial loss allowance, must attend for not a minute less than four hours or, if they want a day's financial loss, not a minute less than 8 hours—or whatever the time may be. If they go to a conference their financial loss is related not to the time when they leave home and get back home but to the time at which their train leaves and the time at which it gets back into their home town or city.
I do not suggest that this creates the sort of scene that might exist at a death bed, when the recipients of gifts inter vivos are trying to keep alive an old man so that they do not forfeit them, but it does produce a situation in local government—
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Interventions must be brief.
Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) for his analogy, which is an apt one. It is one of the curiosities of public life that we seem to demand of our local authorities a much more rigid standard of probity in financial matters than we demand in respect of matters that come within the purview of members of this House or the other House. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present during the earlier part of the debate, but we have already gone over some of the ground covered by the question of the extent to which we may be satisfied that a man is about public business, and the way in which the phrase "public business" is to be defined, and what is a bona fide attendance. It is extremely difficult to know, because it has never been laid down. It has always been accepted that people deal with these matters honestly and honourably. The Committee will agree that they do so, on the whole.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Ormskirk when he says that we like to leave these matters to trust. In public affairs there must always be a

443
considerable element of trust. No organisation of any size or calibre could be expected to function properly without a large measure of trust. Nevertheless it is clear for many reasons—not least from the way in which so much outside criticism of this House and Parliament in general has accumulated in recent years —that we have to be rather more strict about our own affairs and the affairs of the other place than we have been hitherto, in order to parry some of the criticisms levelled against us.
Although the Amendment lays down that the application should be made in advance in most cases it does not make it clear how far in advance it should be made. If an application is made only a matter of hours before the time limit, those to whom the application is made will be in some difficulty about investigation.
Again, what is the test of reasonableness? We do not know. It will depend largely on the type of business being undertaken. If it is in the form of a casual visit within this country which may take a Member of the other place away for a matter of hours, it may be that a few hours' notice would be adequate. Not many people would quarrel with that. But the business might involve visits abroad where what is indisputably public business is intermingled with indisputably private business—quite proper business— that the peer is proposing to undertake, and where there is also a shaded area in respect of which the work that he is doing may easily be construed either as public or private, and when only considerable investigation could satisfy an objective observer as to the category in which it should be placed. How far in advance should the application be made then? The Amendment does not make it clear. However much we are in my hon. Friend's debt, we cannot accept his Amendment without due examination and criticism of those parts which are not as precise as they should be.
Before the Committee can accept the Amendment, therefore, we must consider at what time in advance of the operative period the application should be made. We should also find out who is to do the investigating. Has the application to be made to the Lord Chancellor, or to the Lord Chancellor's office,
444
or is it to be referred to some auditors? In the latter case, who is to appoint the auditors? The Amendment is defective in clarity there. It says that the application is to be made in advance, but does not clearly state who is to be the examining authority. We must not be left in doubt about that.
1.0 p.m.
Again, it is germane to ask who is to do the investigating when the House is not sitting and a lot of those staff to whom reference might be made may not be available. Who will investigate applications during the Summer Recess, and satisfy the House that the application is bona fide in respect of leave of absence, and should be granted? One must bear in mind that if it is held that the business concerned is not public business, that the person concerned has not acted reasonably or has not fulfilled his proper quota of attendances the penalty could be severe. But, quite apart from any financial penalty it will be a matter of great moment if, as a result of his conduct, that person finds himself debarred for a long or a short period from active participation in the work of Parliament. There is no comparable penalty that I know that is applicable to this House.
What happens if, after investigation has been completed, it transpires that the authority concerned is not satisfied that the application was not proper? To whom is notification of that fact to be made? Is the channel of notification to be the House, or the Lord Chancellor, or an official notifying privately in writing? The Amendment does not make it clear whether or not the application should be made in writing, but I assume that it will be.
The definition of public duties presents the most vexed problem of all. We are in some doubt about what is covered by the phrase "public business". A peer may be a shareholder in a public company such as B.P. which is, itself, Government-controlled. B.P. is not regarded, in colloquial terms, at any rate, as a nationalised industry, but it is an industry over which the Government, if they choose to exercise their authority—and some would say that, unfortunately, they do not often choose to do that—have an effective measure of control.
If a peer wants to go abroad to investigate some of the activities of B.P.—going

445
not as a Government-appointed director, because that would obviously put him on the public side of the line, but as a shareholder—can it be said that his activities are merely those of a private citizen who has invested in an organisation in which the Government also have invested, though on a somewhat larger scale? Or is it reasonable to say that he is then performing a public service by carrying out a scrutiny of the activities of an organisation in which the Government— and, at one stage removed, the taxpayers —have a genuine interest? We do not know.
[Mr. Sydney Irving in the Chair.]
Even if we were to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and have a register of interests, what would we include? Is the instance I have given to be regarded as a public interest? Again, we do not know. Whether or not the Amendment is accepted, a peer might find himself in the greatest possible embarrassment merely because we do not know what the public interest is.
In addition to any penalty imposed by way of debarring a peer from operating as a member of his House because, for one reason or another, his application is either improper or has been rejected, are we to threaten him also with the pos sibility of having to refund his emoluments, or parts of his emoluments—
The Chairman: Order. Emoluments are not in the Bill. The hon. Member speaks out of order in referring to them.
Mr. Lee: With respect, Mr. Irving my remark relates to the Amendment to the extent of suggesting that it is relevant to whether or not the matter should be investigated in advance. Perhaps I may keep myself within the bounds of order if I say that one advantage in the Amendment, in addition to the advantages that have already been enumerated, is that if a Member of the other House were ever to find his remuneration or part of it at risk as a result of undertaking business which turned out not to be public, the more the matter could be investigated in advance the more likely a firm "yea" or "nay" could be given. Further, if application was made a reasonable time in advance and after prolonged
446
investigation the application was not considered reasonable, it would be a reason able answer for the person to say that he had made a bona fide application—
Mr. Powell: One appreciates the difficulty of referring to the possible financial consequences of a refusal, after the event, by the House to give the necessary leave of absence, but I take it that the hon. Gentleman has considered that since, under the terms of the Clause, leave can be given in a subsequent Session, the person concerned might actually in that subsequent Session have cast a vote, on which a decision might have turned, but is then found not to have been qualified to vote at the time he did vote. That provision is in the Bill.
Mr. Lee: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That adds still further to the curiosities that this situation provides. I take the argument a stage further: what is to be the position if a decision in another place is taken by one vote and it turns out that one of those on the majority side had acted in a way in which he should not have acted and which at any rate raised the possibility of his vote being a nullity? What would happen to the decision of the other place?
That is another reason why I believe that this Amendment has its limitations, but I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he ultimately replies to the debate, will at least give an undertaking that he will consider something of its kind. Clearly the Bill's wording as it stands is inadequate. It is too lax and too casual by far for matters of this kind. At the same time, I do concede that the wording of the Amendment may be insufficiently precise to be accepted in its entirety.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the House of Peers from giving leave of absence retrospectively when it was sought on account of public business. Subsection (2) defines the attendance requirements in any Session as attendance
"at the sittings of the House (or sittings of Committees of the House) on a number of days equal to not less than one-third of the total number of days on which the House meets during the Session (other than … for judicial business …"
From the calculation of the total number of days sat during each Session there will be deducted under subsection (2)(b) any

447
period during which a peer is absent, with the leave of the House, on account of ill health, or on Parliamentary or other public business.
The expression "public business" is not defined in the Bill and its interpretation would therefore have to be left to the House itself. It could cover periods of absence such as service as a chairman or member of a Royal Commission or Departmental Committee. Some difficult cases may arise which the House would have to judge on their merits, for example, absence at the Council of Europe, the United Nations Assembly, or an inquiry not directly sponsored by the Government. But no doubt there would develop suitable rules of practice in due course.
It has been put to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) that such a procedure would be extremely difficult to administer. The Committee should appreciate that the matter could be decided by the other place as a whole, but that in practice it is likely that this function would be delegated to a small Committee, similar to the Leave of Absence Committee which already exists. "Public business" would, therefore, be interpreted by the House or by this small Committee.
Mr. Hastings: This matter has formed the subject of a large part of our debate. As this is a Government Bill, what guidance is to be given to this Committee of another place by the Government as to the definition of public duty?
Mr. Morgan: I will deal with that. I am sure that hon. Members will accept that the House of Peers would properly be able to discharge this function either meeting as a whole, or through this small Committee.
1.15 p.m.
No better alternatives have been suggested by anyone. It is absurd to suggest that this arrangement would be entirely lax, or that leave should not be given retrospectively. Surely the House of Peers can be allowed to apply its own control in this matter. I am sure that hon. Members accept that it is an honourable House and that it would deal with genuine cases—and they are what the Bill involves—of leave sought for public business with a combination of sympathy and firmness.
Mr. Powell: The definition of "public business" has been a main point in the debate. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that in his view Royal Commissions and perhaps Departmental Committees would be included. Would he say whether in his opinion service on public boards, for example, would be included in the definition of "public business", or is that to be left unknown until it comes to be decided by some Committee of another place not yet existing? While he is doing that, would he also say whether in the advice which he receives the term "other" in the phrase "other business" is to be interpreted under the rule of ejusdem generis as meaning similar to Parliamentary?
Mr. Morgan: I do not think that the ejusdem generis rule would operate of necessity, or that "other" need of necessity mean business analogous to Parliamentary business. However, if there is a debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, it might be better for hon. Members then to be advised by one of the Law Officers. I think that it is obvious that it is not governed by the word "other" in that respect.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) mentioned the membership of public bodies. This is a matter for the other House to consider. About 20 minutes ago, I made an interjection in the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) when I said that the purpose of subsection (3) was to deal with cases in which a member of the other place had suffered a sudden illness, or had suddenly and without previous notice been called away on urgent public business. I have reflected upon that and although that is the purpose of the provision, I think that we should direct our minds to the wording of the subsection:
"Leave of absence for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section may be given either before, during or after the period for which it is given, and either before or after the end of the Session to which it relates."
Paragraph (b) relates to Parliamentary or other public business and it would be wrong for me to seek to put any restrictive gloss upon the interpretation of those words.

449
Under subsection (3), leave of absence may be given before, during or after the period for which it was sought and before or after the end of the Session to which it refers. This provision has been included with the intention that it should allow not only for sudden illness, but also for circumstances in which a peer might go abroad on Government business at short notice, for example, the visit of Lord Hunt to Biafra.
The need to apply for leave of absence might have been overlooked, but a voting peer who was absent from the House for such reasons should not be penalised merely because of his failure to make a formal application in advance. I respectfully put it to the House that that is all that this Amendment refers to, and that it is to that narrow issue that the Committee should direct its mind. I invite the Committee, for the reasons which I have put forward, to reject the Amendment.
Mr. Hastings rose—
The Chairman: Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to apply himself to the important constitutional point raised by my right hon. Friend: if a voting peer, for any one of the reasons which the Minister and others in the debate have described, is disqualified in a subsequent Session, could not this result in a vote, or perhaps more than one vote, of this peer being entirely invalid?
To develop this point one stage further, may it not be that the conclusion reached by another place would equally be in question as a result—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a rather long intervention.
Mr. Hastings: Mr. Irving, I respect fully submit—
The Chairman: Order. I am not being addressed on a point of order at the moment.
Mr. Powell: With respect, Mr. Irving, I distinctly heard you call my hon. Friend. I recognise that he prefaced his remarks with the expression, "Before the hon. Gentleman sits down", but the
450
House is in Committee and I would submit to you that an hon. Member who is called by you and speaks, irrespective of the phraseology which he may use at the beginning of his remarks, has the Floor in Committee.
The Chairman: I must make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that I called the hon. Member, on the Minister sitting down, for an intervention and not to make a speech. Unless the right hon. Gentleman has a further point of order, I should like to proceed.
Mr. Powell: On a point of order. I put to you the question whether it is within the power of the Chair in Committee to call an hon. Member conditionally and only to intervene, even after the previous speaker has resumed his seat?
The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to pursue a point of order. It is done quite frequently.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Further to that point of order. Mr. Irving, as I understood it—
The Chairman: I hope that the Minister will not pursue the point of order which I have ruled not to be relevant to the debate.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I wish only to explain that I was in the act of resuming my seat when the hon. Gentleman asked me to give way.
The Chairman: Order. I cannot allow anyone to debate a point of order.
Mr. Hastings: Further to that point of order—
The Chairman: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to speak. I have disposed of the point of order. I have ruled, and the hon. Gentleman must submit.
Mr. Hastings rose—
The Chairman: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to complete his intervention. I hope that he will be brief.
Mr. Hastings: If I may return to the matter, it seems to me to be as potentially important to the Committee as anything that has been debated on the Amendment, or perhaps anything that has been discussed since the beginning of our debate

451
yesterday. It raises the possibility of a conclusion of a vote in the House of Lords at some future date being completely invalidated post facto. What sort of position will Parliament be in—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise a debate on an intervention. He must conclude it.
Mr. Hastings: Surely it is possible under the provisions of the Bill for a voting peer to be disqualified in a Session of Parliament subsequent to the Session in which he voted perhaps once, twice or thrice, with the result that the decision of the other place will be invalidated. Will the Minister please apply himself to that possibility before he sits down?
Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is a complicated question on which I should not like to give a definite opinion without carefully studying the Rules of Order of the other House, but perhaps I could put this matter to the hon. Gentleman: this situation in theory could occur under the House of Commons Disqualification Act
1957, republished this year. This is a situation which could already exist in relation to the House of Commons, in that a person would be a Member up to the moment that it had been decided judicially that he was disqualified from taking his seat.
On the more general question, it is a matter which often occurs in commercial circles. It is known in company law as the rule in Royal British Bank v. Turquand, and the fact that a person casts a vote which might affect the issue but is later found to be disqualified from so acting, does not affect the vires of the decision which has been effectively taken.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put: —
The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 71.

Division No. 129.]

AYES

[1.26 p.m.

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Forrester, John

MacColl, James

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Fowler, Gerry

Macdonald, A. H.

Bence, Cyril

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Freeson, Reginald

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Binns, John

Gardner, Tony

Maclennan, Robert

Blackburn, F.

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Boston, Terence

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Boyden, James

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

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

Brooks, Edwin

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Marks, Kenneth

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

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

Hamling, William

Mayhew, Christopher

Buchan, Norman

Hannan, William

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

Harper, Joseph

Millan, Bruce

Cant, R. B.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Carmichael, Neil

Haseldine, Norman

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hazell, Bert

Moonman, Eric

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Henig, Stanley

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Coe, Denis

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Coleman, Donald

Hilton, W. S.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Concannon, J. D.

Hooley, Frank

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Moyle, Richard

Dalyell, Tam

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Murray, Albert

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Neal, Harold

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Hoy, James

Oswald, Thomas

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hunter, Adam

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

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Dell, Edmund

Janner, Sir Barnett

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Dempsey, James

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

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Dobson, Ray

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Doig, Peter

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Pentland, Norman

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Kelley, Richard

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Eadie, Alex

Lawson, George

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Ledger, Ron

Price, William (Rugby)

Ellis, John

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Probert, Arthur

Ennals, David

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Randall, Harry

Ensor, David

Lipton, Marcus

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Loughlin, Charles

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

Luard, Evan

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Fernyhough, E.

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Finch, Harold

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

Ford, Ben

McCann, John

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Tinn, James

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Urwin, T. W.

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Varley, Eric G.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Rowlands, E.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Silverman, Julius

Whitlock, William

Woof, Robert

Small, William

Wilkins, W. A.

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Taverne, Dick

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Sir Gerald Nabarro and

Thornton, Ernest

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Mr. Ronald Bell.

NOES

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Bell, Ronald

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Pounder, Rafton

Booth, Albert

Hastings, Stephen

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hay, John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Chichester-Clark, R.

Heffer, Eric S.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Clark, Henry

Iremonger, T. L.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Cooke, Robert

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

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

Corfield, F. V.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sheldon, Robert

Crowder, F. P.

Lee, John (Reading)

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Speed, Keith

Dean, Paul

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Drayson, G. B.

Maude, Angus

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

Mawby, Ray

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

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Temple, John M.

Eyre, Reginald

Mikardo, Ian

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Waddington, David

Fortescue, Tim

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wall, Patrick

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

Montgomery, Fergus

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Glover, Sir Douglas

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Younger, Hn. George

Goodhew, Victor

Murton, Oscar

Gower, Raymond

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grant, Anthony

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Mr Alan Fitch and

Griffiths Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Mr. Neil McBride.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made: —
The Committee divided: Ayes, 26, Noes 150.

Division No. 130.]

AYES

[1.34 p.m.

Brinton, Sir Tatton

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Scott-Hopkins, James

Clark, Henry

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Davideon, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Mawby, Ray

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Goodhew, Victor

Montgomery, Fergus

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

Gower, Raymond

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Wall, Patrick

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Murton, Oscar

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hastings, Stephen

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Mr. Alan Fitch and

Iremonger, T. L.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Mr. Neil McBride.

NOES

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bence, Cyril

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Binns, John

Dell, Edmund

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Blackburn, F.

Dempsey, James

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Boston, Terence

Dobson, Ray

Hamling, William

Boyden, James

Doig, Peter

Hannan, William

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dunnett, Jack

Harper, Joseph

Brooks, Edwin

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Eadie, Alex

Haseldine, Norman

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

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hazell, Bert

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

Ellis, John

Henig, Stanley

Buchan, Norman

Ennals, David

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

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

Ensor, David

Hilton, W. S.

Cant, R. B.

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Hooley, Frank

Carmichael, Neil

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

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fernyhough, E.

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Finch, Harold

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Coe, Denis

Forrester, John

Hunter, Adam

Coleman, Donald

Fowler, Gerry

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Concannon, J. D.

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Freeson, Reginald

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

Dalyell, Tam

Gardner, Tony

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Small, William

Kelley, Richard

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Lawson, George

Moyle, Roland

Spriggs, Leslie

Ledger, Ron

Murray, Albert

Taverne, Dick

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Neal, Harold

Thornton, Ernest

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Oswald, Thomas

Tinn, James

Lipton, Marcus

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

Urwin, T. W.

Loughlin, Charles

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Varley, Eric G.

Luard, Evan

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Waddington, David

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Maben, Dr. J. Dickson

Pentland, Norman

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

McCann, John

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Wellbeloved, James

Macdonald, A. H.

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Whitlock, William

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Price, William (Rugby)

Wilkins, W. A.

Maclennan, Robert

Probert, Arthur

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Randall, Harry

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

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

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Marks, Kenneth

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Mayhew, Christopher

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

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Milian, Bruce

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Woof, Robert

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Rowlands, E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Moonman, Eric

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Mr. Russell Kerr and

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Silverman, Julius

Mr. Michael Foot.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): The other evening my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made a suggestion about how we might obtain a document which has aroused controversy. I still believe—and I think that this was confirmed by the speech of the Solicitor-General—that no assurance was given, but I think that hon. Members might like me to take some action for the convenience of the Committee.
I believe that it is the desire of many hon. Members to have this information if possible. This involves another place, and I should like to contact the Leader of the House in another place to make arrangements so that we can have this document presented for the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. In view of that assurance, which is to help hon. Members—and I mean that—I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Powell: I rise simply because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—[Interruption.]—has, in so far as it lay with him, put right what many of us felt was done wrong this morning—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Powell: I do not have to sit down. I wish to thank the right hon.
Gentleman the Leader of the House for having sought to help the Committee.
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order.
The Chairman: Order. I think that the whole Committee is anxious to go to lunch. I hope that the Committee will help the Chairman.
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Irving, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) as a Nazi. Would you ask the hon. Member to withdraw that opprobrious epithet?
The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue this matter. The Chair did not hear it. I should like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to proceed.
Mr. Powell: I have no wish to detain the Committee, and no doubt a great deal will be said on the Question which you have just put to the Committee. Nevertheless, I feel, and I believe that those who have been in the Committee this morning share this feeling, that a word of thanks should be addressed to the Leader of the House for what he said.
Mr. James Hamilton: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) of calling the

457
right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) a Nazi. The hon. Gentleman's allegation is totally untrue—[Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. I thought that I tactfully prevented the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) from proceeding on that line. I hope that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) will allow me to do the same with him.
Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order. The Committee having spent most of this morning, and most of yesterday, on points of order which were quite farcical, I protested at the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) rising to speak on what he called a matter of courtesy, but which some of us felt was completely discourteous. I wanted to say that, and I have now done so—[Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue it.
Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order.
The Chairman: I have ruled that it is not a point of order.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

PARLIAMENT No. 2 BILL

  ADJOURNMENT
  The Business having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Two o'clock p. m.

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SUPERANNUATION, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Superannuation etc.), presented by Mr. William Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 121.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AVIATION

    V/STOL Aircraft Services
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the high cost of construction, and high cost of operation and maintenance of major airports, unless used to capacity, if, in conjunction with the inquiry on the Third London Airport, he will institute a survey on the rôle of feeder line, and city centre to city centre short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing, air services in order to give advice to local authorities wishing to develop air transport facilities.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to enourage the establishment of commercial vertical take-off and landing or short take-off and landing air services from city centre to city centre in this country.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): The Board of Trade is associated in a great deal of work on the problems of developing acceptable VTOL and STOL aircraft.
    460
    But, as it is likely to be a decade before services with such aircraft can make a significant contribution, it is too soon to contemplate a survey from which helpful advice could emerge.
    Mr. Osborn: Any guidance that can be given to a city such as Sheffield will be greatly appreciated. What evidence will the Minister give in connection with the needs of major towns and cities to the study of European VTOL studies now being carried out for the Ministry of Technology by Brian Colquhoun and Partners? What part is the Ministry taking in this study?
    Mr. Rodgers: Our concern is with the operational possibilities of these aircraft. Very real difficulties have to be overcome, particularly in respect of noise. To the best of our knowledge, there are no scheduled helicopter services operating economically anywhere in the world. We are anxious to see the services developed and we shall give as much advice as we can.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many do not agree with him that it will be a decade before these services will be practicable? Does he know that a heliport is to be built in Dublin Docks before the end of this year? Will he encourage other cities with large dock sites, such as Liverpool, to establish heliports in their areas?
    Mr. Rodgers: I hope these heliports will be developed more rapidly. We are considering not only helicopters but also more sophisticated forms of VTOL aircraft. We shall give help, but it must be borne in mind that helicopters have not generally proved economical.
    Mr. Corfield: Is not the hon. Gentleman showing a rather curious sense of priorities in starting a study of European VTOL sites without looking at British VTOL sites, indeed without any apparent financial support for an advanced study of fixed-wing VTOL aircraft?
    Mr. Rodgers: The Ministry of Technology is concerned with the development of aircraft. Questions should be addressed to that Ministry. We are not dragging our feet. This is a practical technical problem. We want to get the aircraft as soon as possible, but obviously the most suitable sites will depend on the operational characteristics of the aircraft.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will something be done to improve rail access to existing airports, such as Heathrow, where there is a goods development?
    Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend mentions something which is very much in our minds.

    Gatwick Airport Disaster (Report)
    Mr. G. Johnson Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the report of the inquiry into the Gatwick Airport disaster of 5th January, 1969.
    Mr. William Rodgers: The Chief Inspector of Accidents will let us have his report as soon as possible and it will be published without delay. We shall, of course, be ready to act meanwhile on any information that comes to light with safety implications.
    Mr. Johnson Smith: That is not very satisfactory. When is "as soon as possible"? When the Minister considers the report, will he also consider reinstating precision approach radar equipment or a modified version of it so that these facilities are in use as they are at London Airport; and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Rodgers: In everybody's interests it is most important that this investigation should be thorough. It is proceeding just as fast as possible. As I have said previously, our review of the relative advantages of precision approach radar and I.L.S. must be without prejudice to the inspector's findings.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: When the report is published, will the hon. Gentleman consider receiving a deputation from Members of Parliament whose constituencies are in the neighbourhood of Gatwick and representatives of associations and residents who have been deeply concerned at the risks which they incur in the kind of circumstances which existed when this accident happened?
    Mr. Rodgers: Yes. When the accident report is available I shall be very happy to discuss it with as many Members as wish to see me.
    Mr. Onslow: In view of what the Minister said in his reply about safety factors, can he assure the House that he is pressing on with the maximum speed
    462
    with his review of precision approach radar and not waiting for action until he reads the report on the accident?
    Mr. Rodgers: Certainly. This review is going on now. We should not wait for the accident report. I informed the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) yesterday that we are making some changes as regards the operation of foreign aircraft. These will again be without prejudice to the outcome of the inquiry.

    Concorde Aircraft (Suitable Airports)
    Mr. Brooksasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will indicate which British civil airports are intended to handle the Concorde; and which airports are unsuitable for supersonic transport owing to noise level, at take-off.
    Mr. William Rodgers: It is not yet known which British airports other than Heathrow the operators of the Concorde will wish to serve. It has always been a design aim of Concorde that it should be no noisier than current large jets.
    Mr. Brooks: In view of the mischievous allegations which were recently published in the Washington Post and which are claimed to have originated in the F.A.A., can my hon. Friend indicate how soon we shall know the noise levels of Concorde and, which is perhaps equally to the point, how soon we shall know the noise levels of the Boeing SST?
    Mr. Rodgers: I cannot give an answer to the second part, because we do not even know that there is to be one. I entirely agree that there has been a certain amount of mischievous comment which I think reflects a debate going on within the United States on the whole question of SST. The Concorde will be test-flown over a considerable period. We shall not know exactly what the noise levels will be until it has taken off in normal operating conditions.
    Mr. Fortescue: Does the Minister of State agree that airports whose approach is over water would be eminently suitable for the operation of Concorde and that, therefore, for its destination in the Northwest of England Liverpool would be the best place?
    Mr. Rodgers: Liverpool has many admirable qualities to recommend it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's views would be entirely shared by those who might be under the flight path.
    Mr. Ellis: In an effort to discount these rumours, will my hon. Friend say what talks he has had with the Americans as to what their attitude is likely to be? If he has had no such talks, will he forthwith get into consultation with the Americans so that we can find out something about what their attitude is likely to be and know a little more about it?
    Mr. Rodgers: We need to know exactly what the noise levels are before discussions begin. Hypothetical exchanges would not help the situation. We shall be in the closest consultations with the Americans about the problems of SST noise, just as we are pressing ahead and taking a lead in dealing with aircraft noise from conventional aircraft.

    Jumbo Jets (Suitable Airports)
    Mr. Brooksasked the President of the Board of Trade which British civil airports are intended to handle jumbo jets during the next decade; and what facilities will be provided at each of those airports to facilitate the movement of their passengers.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Operators of these aircraft are unlikely to use airports other than Heathrow, Prestwick and probably Manchester for some time to come. In consultation with the airlines concerned, the authorities owning these aerodromes are making the necessary consequent arrangements.
    Mr. Brooks: What work is being done in Britain comparable to that which was recently disclosed by Air France? Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of using Liverpool as well as Manchester for this purpose and perhaps permitting some of the Customs formalities to be carried out on the fast train services to London?
    Mr. Rodgers: There are two factors governing whether jumbo jets operate from one airport rather than from another. The first is the question of passenger handling, whether the terminal facilities are adequate. Second, there is the question of length of runway and whether it
    464
    is suited to take the weight of aircraft involved. Many discussions have taken place about these matters. The B.A.A., in particular, and also, I think, Manchester Airport have put in a good deal of investment to deal with the arrival of jumbo jets.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: If it is possible that Manchester will eventually be used for the handling of these giant aircraft, will my hon. Friend have consultations with the Manchester airport authorities on the question of the deplorable access roads to that airport? It is a most difficult airport even to find.
    Mr. Rodgers: We cannot usurp the proper authority of municipal airports. A decision has been made that they should be able to assume responsibility. This is very much a matter for them, but I am sure they will note what my hon. Friend has said.

    Edwards Committee (Report)
    Mr. Onslowasked the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to publish the report of the Edwards Committee.
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the Edwards Committee Report.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): About the end of April.
    Mr. Onslow: How soon thereafter will the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper? Will it be available before the Bill to extend B.E.A. borrowing powers comes before the House? Second, how long is it likely to be before legislation to implement other recommendations of the Edwards Committee can be brought in?
    Mr. Crosland: I hope to issue a White Paper after reasonable time has elapsed for consultations on the part of the Government and general discussion in the aviation Press and elsewhere. As to the timing of the White Paper, I prefer to leave that at this stage because none of us yet knows how complicated or controversial the recommendations of the Edwards Committee will be. I should prefer not to answer off the cuff about the relationship between the timing of any White Paper and the Bill to which

    465
    the hon. Gentleman referred. Perhaps I may write to him about it.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if, as we hope, the Committee proposes a positive licensing system, such a system, if adopted, would lead to the encouragement of British air transport not only by the corporations but by independent operators also?
    Mr. Crosland: That is an interesting reflection, but I should prefer not to comment on what the report might or might not say until it has been produced.

    Domestic Air Services
    Mr. Onslowasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to stimulate the development of domestic air services.
    Mr. William Rodgers: The initiative for developing services rests primarily with the operators, but we shall be reviewing our policy in the light of the Edwards Committee report.
    Mr. Onslow: Is it not true that the one major barrier to the development of domestic air services is the absence of any co-ordinated airports policy?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not think that that is the fundamental reason. The principal difficulty is the volume of traffic and the cost of operations. Routes in this country are short, and most are not profitable. Obviously, this is an obstacle to their development.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the monopoly services of B.E.A. between London and Manchester? This route is the Cinderella for equipment, bad time-keeping and the way in which passengers receive little consideration. Another service could operate, and then there would be really efficient service—and there is the traffic.
    Mr. Rodgers: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, without necessarily accepting it. Decisions about dual designation depend on much larger factors, including whether there can be economic operation for more than one airline.

    National Airports Plan
    Mr. Fortescueasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made towards the establishment of a national airports plan.
    Mr. William Rodgers: We are considering how best to formulate future policy for airport development, but we must take account of the report of the Edwards Committee before final decisions.
    Mr. Fortescue: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is an essential part of his duty not only to discourage airports in some places but actively to encourage them in others?
    Mr. Rodgers: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for planning.

    Prestwick Airport (North Atlantic Services)
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that British Overseas Airways Corporation have adequately filled the gap in North Atlantic services created by his action in limiting Scandinavian Airline System flights through Prestwick; what consultations he has had with the Governments of Sweden, Norway and Denmark on the matter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Rodgers: It is by its own commercial choice that Scandinavian Airlines System operates fewer North Atlantic services through Prestwick than it is permitted to. B.O.A.C. has increased its North American services at Prestwick in recent years and United States and Canadian airline services have also increased.
    Since an understanding was reached in December, 1965, I have neither received nor made any request for consultations on this topic with the Governments concerned.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that, at the moment, something like 80 international services are using Prestwick airport? If my hon. Friend and Prestwick want to increase that number, why does not he try to get S.A.S. to resume the services it discarded rather than direct

    467
    medium-haul services making for Glasgow Airport into Prestwick?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am familiar with my hon. Friend's powerful advocacy of the cause of Glasgow, which we have de bated on several occasions. [Interruption.] I am sure we would—
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, will you restrain this crowd of hooligans here so that I can hear what is being said?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that S.A.S. has found it not worth operating as many flights as it intended because it faced a great deal of competition, including the excellent services provided by B.O.A.C.

    Glasgow Airport (European Services)
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the consultations he has had with the Corporation of Glasgow and British European Airways with a view to promoting direct air services between Glasgow Airport and the Continent of Europe.
    Mr. William Rodgers: We have had no such consultations.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend, then, try to get Glasgow Corporation's view of his action last week in directing medium-haul services between Glasgow and Italy into Prestwick, in view of the fact that Prestwick is supposed to be the international and not the medium-haul airport for Scotland?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that Glasgow Corporation is capable of expressing its views without being asked for them by me, but I should be glad to hear any representations which it may choose to make.

    Airports (Noise Control)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that it is the policy of the British Airports Authority that there will be no significant improvement in the noise level at major airports in the next 15 years, if he will dismiss the Chairman of the Authority.
    Mr. Crosland: I know of no such policy on the part of the British Airports Authority, in whose Chairman I may say that I have complete confidence. Indeed, there could be no such policy since under Section 14 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965, the control of noise at the Authority's airports rests with the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his confidence is misplaced, and that in his evidence to the Roskill Commission the Chairman of the British Airports Authority specifically said that there would be no improvement in aircraft noise at Heathrow in the next 15 years? If this proves to be the case, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision, and ask himself whether such complacency on the subject of aircraft noise is not sufficient reason to raise the question whether the Chairman is fit to hold his position?
    Mr. Crosland: I must take exception to what my hon. Friend has said. I know the Chairman of the British Airports Authority extremely well, as do many hon. Members on both sides. He is a most capable and dedicated public servant. He is allowed, as far as I am concerned, to express any personal views that he wishes on the question of aircraft noise, or any other subject under the sun. But I reiterate that, at the end of the day, policy on aircraft noise, as opposed to anyone's prophecies, is a matter for the Government, not for anyone else.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is not it most regrettable that a question like this should appear on the Order Paper against a chairman of an independent authority who has rendered enormous service to this country for the last 25 years? I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will refute the allegation in the question.
    Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is a very independent Member of this House, and he has the right to put down any Question on any subject which he chooses. My duty is simply to make it perfectly clear that I disagree with the implication of his Question and have full confidence in Mr. Masefield.
    Mr. Jenkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  BOARD OF TRADE

    Mergers
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the guiding criteria and reasons which have brought about a decision to refer Unilever/Allied Breweries and Rank/De La Rue to the Monopolies Commission, and not refer the Cadbury/Schweppes merger; and what steps he will now take to clarify and explain these criteria to industry.
    Mr. Barnettasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his decision to refer the proposed mergers of Unilever/Allied Breweries and Rank/De La Rue to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Crosland: The 1965 Act lays upon me no obligation to give or explain such criteria, or to make statements on particular merger references. Nevertheless I am considering whether I can give some general guidance on the way our decisions are reached, though it would not, I think, be desirable to give the reasons why a particular merger has or has not been referred to the Commission.
    Mr. Osborn: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for confirming Press reports that he is doing this, and for his categorical statement. When does he expect to be in a position to give these guides? What form will they take? Will they be in a White Paper?
    Mr. Crosland: I prefer not to commit myself on any of those points. This is a very intricate question. None of this is laid down in the 1965 Act. It is something on which, I judge from outside debate, there is no clear consensus of view at the moment. I would prefer not to commit myself to a particular timetable.
    Mr. Barnett: Will my right hon. Friend give a definition of "conglomerate"? Would he agree that not all conglomerates are necessarily bad, particularly when executives of the companies concerned have proved to be good? Is it the intention in the case of all proposed conglomerate-type mergers to refer them
    470
    to the Monopolies Commission when they are over £5 million?
    Mr. Crosland: On the first part of that question, I would prefer not to give an exact definition of "conglomerate". My hon. Friend is as capable as I am of giving a definition. On the second part, I do not think all conglomerates are necessarily bad, but the conglomerate merger movement raises questions of interest to all parties and all sections of public opinion. On the third part, I do not intend to refer automatically all conglomerate mergers.

    Textile Industry (White Paper)
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a White Paper when he has considered the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study and the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Further Rationalisation in the Textile Industry and further considered the Monopolies Commission Report on Cellulosic Fibres.
    Mr. Crosland: I will consider this suggestion when I have had the opportunity to examine the results of these three inquiries as a whole.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: In view of the importance and the far-reaching nature of the decisions which are to be taken by the Government, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his proposals should be published and the basis on which they are reached given before they are implemented by administrative action?
    Mr. Crosland: I would certainly think that in principle. I do not think that we could possibly take a major decision affecting the future of the textile industry without discussion in the House. It was only on the precise form of some publication that I was guarding myself.
    Mr. Mapp: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to make available immediately on printing the Report of the Study of the Textile Council? Will he undertake to make copies available to hon. Members, at least to those from the Lancashire area?
    Mr. Crosland: Publication of the Report of the Textile Council Productivity and Efficiency Study is strictly a matter

    471
    for the Textile Council and not for the Government. I understand that publication is to be next month and that copies will be made available free in the Library of the House for the convenience of hon. Members.

    Banks and Discount Companies (Disclosure of Reserves)
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, arising out of his examination of the full accounts of the banks, he proposes to withdraw the exemptions they enjoy as to the disclosure of their full reserves.
    Mr. Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has completed his examination of the full accounts of banking and discount companies; and whether he will now require full disclosure of reserves and profit and loss accounts.
    Mr. Barnettasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will use his powers to ensure that banks should now publish their accounts.
    Mr. Crosland: My examination of the full accounts of the banks has not yet reached the point at which I can decide whether or not to continue the present exemptions.
    Mr. Baker: This exercise has taken a rather long time. As this year the joint stock banks produced profit increases all within 1 or 2 per cent. of each other, it strains the credulity of the investor, and, as the banks themselves favour fuller disclosure, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept the proposal made by the National Board for Prices and Incomes?
    Mr. Crosland: I am conscious of all the arguments that the hon. Gentleman advances, but in an Answer I gave about 14 months ago I gave a pledge to the banks that I would examine their full accounts over a period before reaching a decision. I now have the full accounts of the banks for 1967, and hope to complete my examination of those accounts in the next few weeks. I have the accounts of some banks for 1968 and hope to complete that examination shortly afterwards. As soon as possible thereafter I hope to reach a decision.
    Mr. Lipton: With the inadequate cooperation that the Government are getting from our banking system, is it not time
    472
    to ensure that these annual accounts are no longer utterly incomplete and positively misleading? When will my right hon. Friend get tough and let the people know the truth about our banks?
    Mr. Crosland: I take the points which my hon. Friend mentions. I am strongly in favour, wherever possible, of letting people know the truth. This is an extremely complex subject. I must have time to examine the banks' accounts properly. As soon as possible after that I shall come to a view.
    Sir K. Joseph: I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity to tell the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that this Government are getting much more support from the banks than they deserve. Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that a number of assurances given by him and by the Minister of State about timing have proved to be a little optimistic? I am thinking particularly of the decision on the report on cellulosic fibres, among others. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to commit himself to any time by which he thinks he will have made a decision?
    Mr. Crosland: I would not accept the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks on the distribution of blame for any friction that may or may not have occurred between the Government and the banking system. On the substance of the point the right hon. Gentleman raises, I would prefer not to commit myself to a date, but I am very much aware of the strong feelings that are held in parts at any rate of both sides of the House on this question and I certainly do not intend to allow this question to drag on indefinitely.
    Mr. Barnett: Why need my right hon. Friend wait for the 1968 accounts? For the purpose of his exercise, are not the previous year's accounts sufficient, and will he agree that the old arguments against publishing the accounts no longer apply? Second, in view of the recent Government Measures which have helped to put substantially more money in the pockets of the banks, is it not right that we should at least know what that amount of money is?
    Mr. Crosland: As to whether an examination of the 1968 accounts will or will not be necessary, I prefer to wait to see

    473
    what the results are of our examination of the 1967 accounts. It may be possible to come to a view on the basis of that one year alone. As to the more general questions which my hon. Friend raises, I am well aware of the view which he holds on the matter, and I am not out of sympathy with it.

    Mergers and Take-overs
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on his policy towards mergers and take-overs.
    Mr. Crosland: My policy continues to be based on the principles of the 1965 Act. But, as I said in a recent speech at Manchester, of which copies have been placed in the Library, I am considering whether I can give more information about the way in which we use the discretion which the law confers upon us.
    Mr. Davidson: In that excellent speech, my right hon. Friend meditated on the dangers of merger fever. Have those meditations now been translated into positive proposals to deal with the situation?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I think that meditation is in itself a positively desirable state of mind, and, as far as I am concerned, it is for the moment still continuing.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if his meditation leads him to the important conclusion that too much in the nature of activities of a meddlesome Mattie—a meddlesome Mattie—a meddlesome Mattie—by his Department would be wholly injurious to British industry, he would be well advised to meditate at greater length and stay out of the arena?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to repeat a metaphor.
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman's language was a little mystifying. As regards the substance of what he said, he should recall that his party—I believe that he was in the House at the time— did not vote against the 1965 Act which lays down the broad principles of monopolies and mergers policy, which we are still continuing.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Has not the President of the Board of Trade noted the almost universal expression of view in the debate on Friday, 7th March, about the ridiculous situation in which the biggest merger which has taken place in this country in recent months—the G.E.C.-etc. merger—never reached the Monopolies Commission but was dealt with by an entirely different and, in the view of many, entirely unsatisfactory procedure?
    Mr. Crosland: I read that debate with great interest and was sorry that, being then in Latin America, I could not take it. I read with particular interest the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have always held the view that that merger was in a different category from other mergers which we have referred, first, because it was strongly supported not only by the I.R.C. but by the bulk of independent opinion, and, second, because there were circumstances in terms of the buyers of the goods produced by the merged firm which appeared to me and to my colleagues to give sufficient guarantees against any excessive monopoly power.

    Amusement Machines
    Mr. Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade what further action he now proposes to take to cut the imports of coin-operated gramophones, record players and amusement machines, now amounting to more than £5 million a year for 1967 and 1968.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): As I explained in Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 4th December, these products are covered by the import deposit scheme. I do not think that additional special restriction on imports of particular classes of products would be justified.—[Vol. 774, c. 482.]
    Mr. Lipton: In our sticky balance of payments position, is it not crazy that we waste a lot of hard currency in this way? Does my hon. Friend recall—he was not in the House at the time—the memorable statement that the language of priorities is the religion of Socialism? When will he put that into effect?
    Mr. Dell: I recall that memorable statement, even though I was not in the

    475
    House at the time. My hon. Friend will realise that the problem of inessential imports leads one also to consider the problem of exports from this country which other countries might consider inessential and on which they might place restrictions if we placed restrictions on theirs.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: That reply and the one given to me previously are quite unsatisfactory. Is my hon. Friend aware that these imports are growing each year? Is it not a terrible waste of time and money to have "one-armed bandits" coming in when we could import things which are really necessary at home?
    Mr. Dell: I agree that these imports are growing. On the other hand, the exports to which I referred, which other countries might regard as inessential, are fortunately growing, too.

    Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 6) Order, 1968
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now introduce legislation to amend the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 6) Order, 1968 in order to meet the criticisms made by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
    Mr. Dell: An order to this effect was made on 11th March (S.I., 1969, No. 315).
    Mr. Blaker: Will the Minister take it that that development will be welcomed?

    South Africa (Tourist Advertisements)
    Mr. Winnickasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state the result of the further inquiries which his Department has made into the position of the South African holiday advertisements and the Trade Descriptions Act.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Inquiries have confirmed that the body which sponsored the advertisement to which my hon. Friend referred on 11th February did not make that statement in the course of a trade or business, and therefore could not have offended against the Trade Descriptions Act. If my hon. Friend has reason to
    476
    think that any other person has committed an offence, this can be brought to the attention of the appropriate local weights and measures authority for due consideration.
    Mr. Winnick: Are not these South African holiday advertisements quite dishonest? Non-whites are barred from taking their holidays in South Africa. In view of that, surely there is a clear infringement of the Trade Descriptions Act?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We have looked at the terms of the Act very carefully. Whether any advertising agency or newspaper involved in the publication of this statement may have committed an offence against the Act is a rather different question which it would be right for the local authority to consider in the first instance. If my hon. Friend wishes, I will draw it to its attention.

    Rumanian Oil
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade why he refuses to allow the import of oil from Rumania.
    Mr. Dell: The question of taking Rumanian oil cannot be separated from an acceptable settlement of outstanding British claims against the Rumanian Government, including claims by British oil companies.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister saying, therefore, that we do not trade with countries that have expropriated British assets without compensation? Is not it in the interests of our trading position that discussions should now be initiated with Rumania to see whether an arrangement cannot be made after all these years?
    Mr. Dell: I am certainly not saying the first thing the hon. Gentleman suggested. I would very much welcome discussions which would lead to the settlement of the claims. That would be beneficial to the trade of both countries.
    Mr. Brooks: As the Government are exporting, for example, the B.A.C. 111 to Rumania, and no doubt wish to expand their trade with Rumania, is it not completely illogical to exclude from

    477
    trade one of the obvious commodities the Rumanians can sell to get hard currency?
    Mr. Dell: The claims in question are very large. We judge that it is right, in an attempt to get the settlement of these justified claims, to take this attitude in respect of the import of Rumanian oil.

    National Exhibition Centre
    Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade when the report of the Committee to examine the possibilities of a National Exhibition Centre can be expected; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Crosland: The Committee referred to is an advisory body which is not required to present a formal report. At this stage I cannot usefully add to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend in the Adjournment debate on 12th February.—[Vol. 777; c. 1491–1500.]
    Mr. Milne: My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly aware of the importance of an exhibition centre of this type. Is he aware that the present exhibition centres being provided are inadequate to our export needs? Can he speed things up so that we get a National Exhibition Centre as soon as possible?
    Mr. Crosland: Like my hon. Friend, I am strongly aware of the importance of getting the National Exhibition Centre. There are genuine difficulties in terms of its location, the finance and the type of organisation to run it, but, again, I suspect like my hon. Friend, I am becoming very impatient at the delay in achieving this, and I entirely share his views about the need for haste.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the Minister bear in mind that if we are to have a National Exhibition Centre it should be in the centre of London, or somewhere like that? It would be quite useless to put it 15 or 16 miles out—for example, Northolt is suggested—because it is important to business men and other visitors coming to London.
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I do not think the experience of exhibition centres in other countries, many of which I have
    478
    visited, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, supports the view that they should be or can in practice conceivably be in the centre of large cities. The site at Northolt, which is now the favoured site, and which I hope will be the final one, is just about the right distance and the right size to allow us to produce a centre that is big enough.
    Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a Question down tomorrow that will give the interesting possibility of the establishment of an exhibition site at the old Avro factory at Yeadon in Yorkshire?
    Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I like to consider all interesting possibilities, but this has come into this picture at a rather late stage.
    Mr. Corfield: Do we take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that the intention is to close Northolt Airport?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.

    Advertising (Economic Effects)
    Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the independent research commissioned by his Department into aspects of the economic effects of advertising and a list of the firms involved.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is hoped to commission the first study, which will be into the effects of advertising on the structure of industries, within the next few months.
    Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not fast enough progress? While we thank her for that reply, we ask for a more speedy effect on the advertising industry by the introduction of the report at the earliest possible moment.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We all want to see the report cover a very wide field. It is essential that we should get the terms of reference right. It will take about 18 months to complete after it has been commissioned
    Sir K. Joseph: How much is the report going to cost?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Since it has not yet been decided who will report, it is rather difficult to tell the right hon. Gentleman the exact figure.

    Import Substitution
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade what import substitution results have been achieved since the Prime Minister's statement in January 1968, especially in agriculture; and what further measures he proposes for obtaining imports substitution including antidumping orders.
    Mr. Dell: It is not possible to put a figure to the import saving which has taken place over the whole range of imports since the Prime Minister's statement. As regards agriculture, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 26th February. As far as further measures are concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him in answer to a similar Question on 11th December last.—[Vol. 778; c. 1705–6; Vol. 775, c. 143.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Board of Trade Ministers try to understand the genuine concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House seeking to aid balance of payments matters by establishing what progress is being made in import-substitution? Where can we get the figures, if not from the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Dell: I understand the concern in all sections of the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the House on 26th February that the increase in home food consumption has been met to a large extent by the additional production of products which we can grow. There are many other examples known to the House of assistance given to import substitution. One major example recently considered by the House was the aluminium smelter.
    Mr. Lipton: In import substitution, is the Board of Trade doing anything to encourage British manufacturers of juke boxes so that they can be substituted for the American products?
    Mr. Dell: That is a very interesting question. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to write to him.

    Unit Trusts
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade how many unit trusts have been approved by his Department; and whether he will publish particulars in the Board of Trade Gazette, together with the aggregate sums, cumulatively, vested in Board of Trade-authorised unit trusts.
    Mr. Dell: There are 207 authorised unit trusts. The names of the trusts, the management companies and the trustees are published annually in Particulars of Dealers in Securities and of Unit Trusts. The total of the funds of the authorised unit trusts is published monthly in Financial Statistics.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman realise that unit trusts in the aggregation were responsible in 1968 for nine times as much, in terms of sums invested and remaining invested, as National Savings? Would not it be appropriate, now that unit trusts are the major instrument for collecting small savings, to publish the outcome monthly, not annually, so that the progress may be watched by everybody interested in savings of all descriptions?
    Mr. Dell: I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman misheard. The Answer was that the names of authorised trusts are published annually but the financial aspect in which he is interested is published monthly in Financial Statistics.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Having regard to the importance of unit trusts, to which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has rightly drawn attention, will my hon. Friend pay further attention to the matter I have raised with him in correspondence concerning the contributions made by companies in which the unit trusts invest to the funds of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Dell: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject. As I have pointed out to him, one of the consequences of the 1967 Companies Act is that we now know which companies make political contributions.

    Outdated Factories (Rebuilding)
    Mr. Costainasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant industrial development certificates

    481
    in London, the Midlands and the South East of England for the rebuilding of existing outdated factories in order to increase efficiency where no increase in employment is involved.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Board of Trade is normally prepared to grant industrial development certificates in such cases.
    Mr. Costain: Is the hon. Lady aware that that reply will be received with some satisfaction? Will she give some publicity to the fact?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I should be delighted to give publicity to the fact that the Board of Trade is anxious to do anything which will assist the modernisation and equipment of industry. It is not this side of the House that seeks to misrepresent i.d.c. policy.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this is really the question of the allocation of resources, which are very unevenly distributed at present? Will she, therefore, offer the owners of these outdated factories development certificates for new factories in South Wales, Scotland and the North of England?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall be delighted to see as many industrialists as possible who are looking for modern factories moving into them—and, of course, in the development areas if we can so encourage them. It is a source of great pleasure to me that we now have only one empty advance factory in the whole of Wales.
    Sir K. Joseph: Does the hon. Lady think that she has said anything new this afternoon? The positive emphasis she gave in that Answer is very encouraging. Is it a new development in any way, or is she relying perhaps excessively on a verbal definition of "outdated"? Are we to understand in answer to my hon. Friend's Question that factories which require rebuilding to accept modernised plants are given i.d.c.s for that purpose?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am not enunciating any new policy, and I am grateful for the chance to make this clear. The Board of Trade has always said that where modernisation plans could be brought forward that did not include an increase in employment—and this is one of the
    482
    vital points—we should obviously be prepared to issue industrial development certificates in those circumstances. But there is a completely schizoid approach to this matter among hon. Members opposite. Those who come from development areas say that we should be doing more, while those from the Midlands, particularly the West Midlands, and the South-East say that we are doing all we can to hold up the modernisation of industry, which is simply not so.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: However satisfied or dissatisfied development areas might be about the allocation of certificates, is the hon. Lady aware that the new towns, particularly those based upon the old conurbations, feel that they are not having their proper priority?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not accept that. When development areas have continuingly high unemployment figures, it is extremely difficult to provide enough movement in industry always to be able to match up exactly the amount of employment and the houses available in the new towns. The hon. Gentleman should speak to some of his friends in the conurbations and get them to move to new towns. We should be pleased to see that happen.

    Exports
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake a study of the extent to which the export of British goods depends on the amount of imports of agricultural products from foreign countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The likely effect on United Kingdom exports is taken into account in formualting the Government's agricultural policy. We shall be considering in the context of the recent recommendations of the Select Committee on Agriculture, the practicability of making a more precise study of this matter.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that to most people the quality and delivery of our exports is much more relevant than the amount of imports we take from other countries when these matters are being decided upon by foreign countries?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: This is a vital point. There is no doubt that delivery dates are of enormous importance.

    Industrial Development (West Midlands)
    Mr. William Priceasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied with the permitted rate of industrial development in the West Mid lands; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As I told my hon. Friend on 12th February, the approval of i.d.cs for 11·5 million sq. ft. of industrial space in the West Midlands in 1968 combined with a level of unemployment below the national average does not in any way suggest that industrial growth in the West Midlands is being unduly restricted—[Vol. 777, c. 305–6.]
    Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the less honourable Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "With draw."]—are trying to create the impression that the Government have stopped industrial development in the West Midlands? Is that not odd in view of the fact that—
    Mr. Corfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that any other hon. Members is not honourable or is dishonourable?
    Mr. Speaker: It would be out of order to suggest that one hon. Member is not honourable but charges may be levelled against a group.
    Mr. Price: Is this allegation not odd in view of the fact that, despite the Government's regional policies, which we in the West Midlands support, more industrial development certificates are going to that area now than ever went there under the Tories?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful for those remarks. I am fascinated by the schizoid attitude of hon. Members opposite towards this matter. They suggest one thing in the West Midlands and elsewhere and something totally different in the development areas.

    Investment Grants
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the amount of the investment grants paid
    484
    during the most recent period in respect of the printing of posters and circulars and of the blending of butter, respectively.
    Mr. Dell: Information about the payment of grants is not available in this detail.
    Mr. Blaker: What is the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the contribution of these two industries to exporting or import saving? Does he really think that they are more deserving of investment grants than other industries which do not get them, such as the scrap metal and waste paper recovery industries?
    Mr. Dell: I cannot give that figure without notice. The dividing line in the Industrial Development Act is in respect of manufacturing industry. These are manufacturing processes in respect of which, therefore, the grants are given.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the opinion of some of us on this side of the House, the indiscriminate use of investment grants represents the biggest hole in the economic bucket? Speaking for myself, I strongly urge the Government to take the closest look into the way these grants are being grossly misused by large sections of industry.
    Mr. Dell: I am aware of my hon. Friend's opinions in this matter. I do not agree with him. The evidence is—and we heard it on 4th February, when he took a brief part in the debate—that investment grants are a major incentive to investment in manufacturing industries. But we are conducting an inquiry, as I said on that occasion, which will attempt to assess the effectiveness of this investment incentive.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: While many of us would agree with the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), will the Minister of State recognise that schizophrenia is not confined to one side of the House?
    Mr. Dell: I think the danger is when schizophrenia appears in an individual rather than in a group.

    Exports (Hungary)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the President of the Board of Trade what advice he is issuing to British industry about exporting to Hungary in view of the

    485
    economic reorganisation introduced there last year.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Exports to Hungary have risen encouragingly in recent years. They should continue to do well, provided British suppliers remain competitive.
    Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that opportunities for selling to Hungary have greatly increased with the increase in the number of organisations in Hungary now allowed to buy direct from foreign countries? Will she see that this information is given to British firms so that they can increase our exports to Hungary even further?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We are well aware of the opportunities and are delighted to note that the economic reforms will begin to take effect over a period of years. We hope that British industry will be encouraged by the opportunities and will benefit from them.

    Leather Industry
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend the scope of the industrial development grant available to the leather industry for effluent cleansing processes to allow it to be transferred to the appropriate local authority so that the processing of domestic and industrial effluent might be undertaken in the most economic manner.
    Mr. Dell: No, Sir. Evidence has not been produced which would, in my view, justify the radical amendment to the Industrial Development Act which this would require.
    Mr. Howarth: Is it not illogical to offer to an employer grants towards the installation of cleansing plant which, if it could be transferred to a local authority, would be able to be used as a district plant, making it much more economic?
    Mr. Dell: Under the Industrial Development Act payments must be made to persons who both provide the eligible assets and use them in the course of their business. There might be an argument for reviewing this in this case if evidence were produced that this rule has led to uneconomic investment in effluent plant by the leather industry. I have no
    486
    such evidence, and pending that I will certainly stick to the original Answer.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Is the Minister aware that the leather industry has been encouraged to set up its own individual plant for disposal of trade effluent so that it gets the grant? Does he not agree that it could be much more economically achieved by the local authority if it had the plant?
    Mr. Dell: It is evidence of that particular proposition that I should like to see. We have asked for such evidence but it has not been provided.

    Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
    Mr. Emeryasked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the investment in manufacturing industry since 1966 which has arisen directly from the introduction of investment grants.
    Mr. Dell: The influence cannot be separately measured.
    Mr Emery: Does the Minister realise that the capital expenditure between 1966–67 decreased in manufacturing industry, and decreased again between 1967–68? How does the Minister hold to the statements he made earlier today, that investment grants are a major incentive to increasing investments in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Dell: The decline in manufacturing investment during that particular cycle was a great deal less than in the previous cycle. This is very probably attributable to the 5 per cent. supplement allowed in 1967–68. It is interesting that the C.B.I. for example, although it has made it clear that it does not support the investment grant system, nevertheless asked for a continuation of the supplement to encourage investment.
    Mr. James Davidson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how many investment schemes have been initiated under the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968, by competent authorities—or incompetent authorities?
    Mr. Dell: This is an entirely different question. Speaking from memory, I think that there are two, one in respect of the computer industry and one in respect of the aluminium smelter industry.

    Trade Effluent (Disposal Plants)
    Mr. Wallasked the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance has been given to industry during each of the last five years for the construction of plants for the disposal of trade effluent.
    Mr. Dell: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that in many of these cases it has been far more economical to have joint schemes between industry and the local authority? Why is it that industrial schemes attract a grant but local authority joint schemes do not?
    Mr. Dell: The justification lies solely in the law. It would be possible for the Board of Trade to make a grant in such circumstances, but it is unfortunately impossible under the existing law for local authorities to enter into partnership in these schemes with private enterprise.

    South Africa
    Mr. Wallasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Anglo-South African trade.
    Mr. Crosland: Our exports to South Africa were £261 million in 1968, slightly more than in 1967 although South Africa's total imports were slightly down. Our imports from South Africa were £271 million.
    Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence to show that Her Majesty's Government's policy of not supplying defence arms to South Africa is having an adverse effect on our trade? What is being done positively to ensure participation of British firms in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries of South Africa, which are entirely new and important developments?
    Mr. Crosland: I take it that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question refers to the fact that this Government, like other Governments, is acceding to a United Nations decision on the prohibition of arms to South Africa. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, the facts of the matter are completely
    488
    in contradiction to what he said. As my Answer made clear, last year Britain actually increased her share of total South African imports. On the third part of his question, a great many measures are being taken both by B.N.E.C. Africa and by the Government to encourage the kind of trade that he has in mind.
    Mr. McNamara: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is right and proper for the Government to pursue their policy of not supplying arms of any kind to the South African régime at the moment and that, contrary to the expectations of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Government have not suffered as a result of that policy?
    Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have no doubt that the policy is right and in line with United Nations policy. He is also right in saying, as the Answer which I gave demonstrates with figures, that this country has suffered nothing from this policy.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that none of the exports to which this Question refers do find their way into Rhodesia?
    Mr. Crosland: The Question refers not to exports but to the general question of Anglo-South African trade. The answer I gave shows clearly that in 1968, as against 1967, contrary to what has been constantly prophesied by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the British share of South African imports actually increased.

    Inertia Selling
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the existing law provides adequate protection for the public from the effects of inertia selling; and if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that persons cannot be required to pay for goods sent through the post which the recipients have not ordered and do not want.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As the law already stands, people cannot be required to pay for unsolicited goods which they do not choose to accept, and this should be clearly understood.
    Mr. Davidson: Why should the public be put to trouble, expense, and ordeal by solicitor's letter in respect of these goods which they have not ordered? Is it not time that the onus was put very firmly on the firms which choose to operate in this way, just within the law? If they choose to send out goods in this fashion, ought they not to do so at their own risk and cost?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. The difficulty is in framing legal safeguards of the sort that he has suggested. I would be happy to look at this again.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not the real need for publicity to explain to members of the public that they have no obligations in this matter, and that they need not pay any attention to demands for payment, when they have taken no steps to indicate a desire for the goods?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We believe that if people knew their rights even more clearly in this matter they would be protected. We have deliberately put a reference to this type of selling in our latest publicity leaflet on the Trade Descriptions Act, and I hope that people will firmly refuse to have anything to do with goods sent to them in this manner.

    Knitwear Exports (Australian Restrictions)
    Mr. David Steelasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations have been made to the Government of Australia about their import restrictions on United Kingdom knitwear;
    (2) to what extent exports of high quality knitwear to Australia have been adversely affected by the quantity restrictions introduced by that Government in December, 1967.
    Mr. Dell: There was some recovery in the sterling value of our exports of high quality knitwear to Australia between 1967 and 1968. No Government-to-Government representations have been made since the quota restrictions were introduced in December, 1967, but it remains our hope that if the Australian Tariff Board decides that continued protection is necessary, this can be so devised
    490
    as to bear more lightly on high-quality supplies.
    Mr. Steel: Would it not be useful to make Government-to-Government representations on this matter, and suggest to the Australians that their objectives could be met if they exempted from their quota restrictions the import of pure wool knitwear, which is above the value of 15 Australian dollars per 1b. weight?
    Mr. Dell: As I indicated to the hon. Member, we are bringing to the attention of the Australian authorities, through the Tariff Board, that such a method of discrimination, in favour of high quality knitwear, should be used. These representations are open to be made by the British industry because the Tariff Board is an independent authority. I hope that the Government will be able to find some means of making informal representations.
    Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that ahead of us we have two Private Notice Questions, three important Statements, a Motion of Censure, the Air Force Estimates and two Bills. Conciseness in debate and questions will help us today.

ELECTRICITY POWER FAILURE (WHITBY)
Mr. Michael Shaw Mr. Michael Shaw (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement about the electricity power failure in the Whitby district, Yorkshire.
The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): Blizzards have led to local power failures in a number of places in the North of England in the past few days. In most cases supplies have been restored within a few hours, but Whitby has now been without power since Monday evening. The North Eastern Electricity Board tells me that it has restored limited supplies to half the consumers affected; restoration of supplies to the remainder is being made as quickly as possible, but there is still considerable repair work to be done in atrocious weather before full supplies can be restored.
Mr. Shaw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Will he add

491
my tribute to the staff of the electricity authority who have been working in almost impossible conditions to get the supply going again. None the less, is he not aware that it is a serious position that about 20,000 people living in that area should have been cut off, in many cases from their only source of power, and that there is a need in such exposed areas to have a much more adequate source of emergency supply?
Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the Electricity Board's linesmen, who have been working in arctic and atrocious conditions on the moors. Nine thousand people were affected. Five thousand people have already had limited supplies of electricity restored to them, and the Board hopes to be able to restore supplies to the remainder as quickly as possible.

LIBRARY DOCUMENTS (AVAILABILITY TO MEMBERS)
Mr. Sheldonasked Mr. Speaker whether he will direct that a document placed in the Library, recording Peers' attendances, is made available to Members.
Mr. Speaker: In view of the Ruling that I am about to give, I should first say how much the House appreciates the courteous, devoted and skilled service that the Librarian and his staff give to hon. Members at all times.
The question raised by the hon. Member is clearly one of importance to the House. Upon receiving the Question, which I have decided to allow him to ask by Private Notice, I made inquiries from the Library of the House about the document for which he asks, and I have now received the following information:
"The document was loaned to us by the House of Lords Journal Office in order to provide a short cut to figures on the attendance of Peers in Session 1966–67. The original document, which is marked confidential, was produced for their own office purposes by the House of Lords Journal Office, and consists of an alphabetical list of Peers enumerating their individual attendances during the Session.
The document was provided on the understanding that, while it might be freely used by the Library for statistical purposes, details
492
of individual attendances of Peers should not be disclosed, nor should the document itself be passed on to a Member."
I am sure the House will agree with me that the Library has in this instance done everything possible within the limits of its authority to meet the needs of Members. I think, however, that nothing which reaches the Library should be withheld from Members seeking information. Consequently, if information comes into the possession of the Library, the restriction that the document is confidential, while it should apply to members of the public seeking information, should not apply in the case of hon. Members.
In future, therefore, I am directing the Library to make available to Members all documents which relate to their work in the House, whether marked confidential or not.
Mr. Sheldon: While thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for that reply, might I point out that this whole matter was raised on the advice of a right hon. Member, whose judgment in these matters I deeply respect, as providing a possible solution to the impasse which we reached in the debate on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill last night, and in the resumed debate this morning—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not discuss with Mr. Speaker anything which happens in Committee, of which he has no official knowledge.
Mr. Sheldon: I was just thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for making it clear that a solution is possible, and I was pointing out that the unfortunate happening that led to this can now be readily solved. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if he will add to this to find the complete and final solution to this problem.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I do not wish to add anything in the way which my hon. Friend mentioned, but I made a statement earlier on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and I will communicate with the Leader of another place to try to make arrangements for the document to be made available.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that we can now move on.
Mr. Hastings: I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, would help us with another matter which was raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General in the same context. He produced this morning what seemed to many of us to be a new doctrine with regard to the document in the Library, which was that we could seek to secure the document, or any other document which was being withheld, only by a Resolution of the House. This seemed to us to be a new method; will you advise us on this?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker must not take up bit by bit points that were made in debates in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman has a serious point to put to me, he must let me know and I will look at it.

ANGUILLA
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Anguilla.
I must ask the indulgence of the House for its length, but I think that the House will wish to know not only the action we have taken but some of the background and the reasons for it.
I have to inform the House that this morning Her Majesty's Commissioner was installed on Anguilla. A small military force, accompanied by British police officers, landed on the island. The military force is acting in support of the civil power, and I am glad to say that the operation, which took place a few hours ago, has proceeded peacefully, for which great credit is due to those who took part in it.
Independent Commonwealth Governments in the Caribbean were informed of our intention before action was taken and are in general agreement with our objectives. Governments of the Associated States in the Caribbean area have also been kept fully informed and also agree.
St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, which had been administered as a unified territory since 1882, became an associated State on 27th February, 1967,
494
following the usual processes of constitutional advancement. In May of that year, the inhabitants of Anguilla ejected the small detachment of State police from the island, and subsequently purported to declare themselves independent. Since then, there has been no lawful Government on the island. Many attempts have been made to reach a satisfactory settlement in the dispute between the Anguillans and the Central Government. A conference was held in Barbados in July, 1967, attended by Ministers from the independent Commonwealth Caribbean Governments— namely, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, also Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the St. Kitts Government and leaders of the Anguillans.
A further attempt to provide an interim settlement was made in December, 1967, and January, 1968, when an agreement between Her Majesty's Government, the St. Kitts Government and the Anguillan leaders was negotiated by my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). This arrangement, or interim settlement as it came to be known, provided for the introduction of a senior British official, Mr. Tony Lee, to advise on the administration on Anguilla for a period of twelve months during which it was agreed that efforts would be made to negotiate a lasting settlement on lines acceptable to both parties, who undertook to refrain from hostile action during this period.
Before the expiry of the twelve month period, a determined effort was made to establish whether common ground existed. Talks were held in London last October under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, attended by the Premier of St. Kitts and the Anguillan leader, Mr. Webster. At these talks, the possibility of a lasting settlement was discussed, and the possibility of extending by agreement the interim settlement. No final agreement was however reached. The Anguillan leader notified me on 30th December that the interim settlement was at an end. Mr. Lee was then withdrawn from the island, but we arranged for him to pay periodic visits to Anguilla. On 9th January, for the second time

495
Mr. Webster declared the island independent of St. Kitts and announced that all legal ties with the Crown had been severed.
Now I come to recent events. In the course of his recent visit to the Eastern Caribbean, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary had discussions in St. Kitts with the State Government. He found that they recognised the strength of feeling in Anguilla against the restoration of control over the island by the State Government. My hon. Friend visited Anguilla on 11th March to put forward our proposals.
He made clear to the islanders when he arrived that the British Government wanted to restore lawful government in Anguilla and then work out a long-term solution of the island's problems acceptable to all concerned, especially the inhabitants of the island itself. For this purpose, Mr. Lee was to be established in Anguilla as Her Majesty's Commissioner.
These proposals received an enthusiastic response at the airport from which it was evident that the Anguillans as a whole would have welcomed them. After this reception, an armed minority decided that the proposals must not be further discussed with the people of the island. My hon. Friend was confronted with a group of armed men who demanded his withdrawal from the island. After shots had been fired, he decided to leave the island to avoid possible bloodshed.—[Interruption.] I think that any hon. Member, had he been in that position and aware of how much the whole future would have been damaged if there had been any loss of life or injury, would have taken the action that my hon. Friend took. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Our concern all along has been for the people of Anguilla. We want them to enjoy good government, and to enjoy it unintimidated and in freedom. As I told the House yesterday, it is not our purpose to see the Anguillans living under an administration that they do not want.
We have, however, a responsibility under the West Indies Act. We took action because conditions in Anguilla were such that it was impossible for us
496
to discharge our constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs. We have, therefore, installed in Anguilla a Commissioner in whom certain powers have been vested by an Order in Council made yesterday.
The whole Caribbean area needs stability in order to make progress. It is an area which is particularly susceptible to exploitation. There is also among these small islands the danger of fragmentation. The countries of the Commonwealth in the Caribbean attach great importance to the rule of law and to acting in accordance with constitutions rather than flouting them. A meeting of Heads of Government of Caribbean states last month expressed concern at the situation on Anguilla and called upon Her Majesty's Government to take all the necessary steps, in collaboration with the Government of the State, to confirm the territorial integrity of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla.
As regards the future, Her Majesty's Commissioner will remain on the island until a lasting settlement can be negotiated which will pay full regard to the wishes and interests of all concerned, in particular to those of the inhabitants of the island, who can then go ahead with the development of the possibilities and amenities of their island.
Mr. Maudling: I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House are glad to know that this operation took place without bloodshed. At a later date, probably we shall wish to raise the question why the Government have been so long in facing up to this situation, which has developed over a long period.
I want to ask some serious question about the status of this operation. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a dispute between the Anguillans and the Central Government; in other words, an internal dispute within the islands. As I understand it, we are reimposing a form of direct rule and, under the West Indies Act, 1967, we can do this either if our obligations in matters of defence and foreign affairs are made impossible to carry out or, alternatively, at the request and with the consent of the St. Kitts Government.
Do Her Majesty's Government really maintain that their action has been part

497
of defending Anguilla against external aggression? Secondly, how can they remain there for the long time envisaged by the Foreign Secretary on that basis unless they have the request and consent of the St. Kitts Government? In those circumstances, can they expect the people of Anguilla to be confident that their wishes will be regarded as paramount?
Mr. Stewart: On the first point, I described the steps which had been taken, ever since this dispute arose, to reach agreement. But we have to remember that, although there has been this recent dispute, it is only a modern form of a profound difference which has existed for a number of decades. We felt it right, therefore, when the dispute arose in its present form, to expend a good deal of time and patience in trying to get agreement. It was not a question of our doing nothing about this. I described to the House the many steps taken to reach agreement. I think that it was right to expend time and patience on that.
On the second point, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we are responsible both for the defence and the external relations of an Associated State. The position here is that in this part of the Associated State there was a danger that somewhat disreputable characters from outside the State and possessing arms were exercising influence on those who purported to be its Government.
That was one point. There was also the fact that if, as a result of the absence of any lawful government or good order in the island, any injury were done to the personal property of a national of any other country, we, by virtue of our responsibility for external relations, would have been held responsible. Therefore, the situation was that we could not fully discharge our responsibilities for external relations unless we took action about the situation in Anguilla. That is why the strict legal basis for what we have done rests on an Order in Council made under Section 7(2) of the Act, which refers to external relations. But, in fact, what we have done has also been done with the full agreement of the St. Kitts Government.
As to the future, I am sure that the right course now is for Her Majesty's Commissioner to have an opportunity to do his work, to see that the island is well governed and developed, for everyone
498
to have a breathing space, and for everyone concerned, including the Anguillans, to have time for reflection and then judge where their real interests in the future lie.
Mr. Henig: Now that the House has heard the facts from my right hon. Friend, many people will feel that the British Government have acted with complete honour. Will my right hon. Friend draw from this the lesson that, as this affair proceeds, absolute frankness will be the best policy? Will he in due course, since there has been some controversy over this matter, give the House further details of the alleged Mafia and gangster activities which have been going on in Anguilla?
Mr. Stewart: I hope that the House will not accuse me of any lack of frankness in this matter. At certain times I have been obliged to tell the House that there was some information I could not yet give—particularly information about the exact timing and nature of a military operation. So far as is humanly possible, I have given the House a correct picture of what has been happening.
On the use of the word "Mafia", I think that is an exaggerated term, I drew my hon. Friend's attention to the phrase that I used, "disreputable characters"— but they were disreputable characters who had arms.
Mr. Marten: Is it now a principle of government that the Government can intervene where there are disreputable characters in other places? Can the Foreign Secretary say what are the legal powers of Her Majesty's Commissioner and with whom in Anguilla the High Commissioner will deal?
Mr. Stewart: I think that I explained the legal position in answer to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). A situation developed in Anguilla which was making it impossible for us to discharge our duties as we are responsible for external relations. That is why we took action. Her Majesty's Commissioner will act, of course, in accordance with directives given by Her Majesty. He is Her Majesty's Commissioner. I say emphatically that any Anguillans—and I believe this is the overwhelming majority— who wish and are willing to help the Commissioner to do his job of providing the island with good government and enabling it to think carefully and wisely what it wants in future, will be

499
regarded as our friends, and Her Majesty's Commissioner will work with them.
Mr. Albu: Does my right hon. Friend mean that in future, whenever we disapprove of the kind of people who are trying to sell their services to a Government in an Associated State, we shall be entitled to intervene? Also, may I ask what are the British interests involved?
Mr. Stewart: I think that my hon. Friend is stretching this beyond all reason. Let us stick to the facts of the case. This was part of an Associated State for whose external relations we were responsible. Events had so developed that it was going to be impossible for us to carry out that responsibility until good government was restored in Anguilla, and, above all, the Anguillans were given a chance to express their real wishes free from intimidation.
As to British interests, it was here even more a question of the clear legal responsibility of this Government to carry out their responsibilities for the external relations of this Associated State. Beyond that Britain has a very great interest in the stability and progress of the whole Caribbean area.
Mr. Turton: If, as the Foreign Secretary says, the Government of St. Kitts agreed to this, surely force was quite unnecessary? The right hon. Gentleman could have proceeded under Section 9 of the West Indies Act and made that change of status without this quite unnecessary invasion. Does not this demonstrate the weakness of the whole system of associated status, and will the right hon. Gentleman seek to amend the West Indies Act?
Mr. Stewart: I think that we would all accept that the concept of associated status has difficulties, but I am not prepared to say that we must regard them at this stage as irretrievable weaknesses. Nor do I wish to talk about amendment of the Act.
On the other part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State went to the island with these proposals. We believed that it was right, though conscious of certain risks, that he should go there without
500
any show of force whatever so that the Anguillans should have the opportunity, without anyone being able to accuse us of duress, of saying what they really wanted.
The evidence from that visit clearly was that the great majority of Anguillans wanted these proposals, but they were being frustrated by a small armed minority. I believe that it was our duty, in those circumstances, to make quite clear that the armed minority was not going to have its way. For that reason, it was necessary, and I believe right, to send a force which, though by no means gigantic, would be of sufficient size to make quite sure that the armed minority would not have its way and that the people of Anguilla would come into their own.
Mr. George Brown: Two things occur to me. I make no objection to the timing of the statement, but I think that the House will want time to read it in full. However, there are two things which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend—
Hon. Members: Question.
Mr. Brown: I want to put these things to my right hon. Friend. There is a question.
The first point that I should like to put to my right hon. Friend in the form of a question—I do not know how else to put it—is: are there not some contradictions in the statement that he has made? How can we assure the Anguillans that it is no part of our purpose, as my hon. Friend said yesterday, to arrange that they should be under an administration that they do not want to be under if at the same time he says, in the same statement, that we have done this at the request, and with the support, of the St. Kitts Government, the administration that they do not want to be under? May I ask how we can persuade anybody that one half of that statement does not contradict the other?
My second question, to me much the more important, is: on the basis of the arguments that it seemed to me my right hon. Friend was using in his statement today, how, at the United Nations, whether in the Anti-Colonial Committee, the Committee of Twenty-four or in the Assembly itself, are we going to answer

501
those who demand that we should do exactly the same on exactly the same grounds elsewhere? Are we to say that we can do it where there is only a rusty gun, but we cannot do it elsewhere, and our principles are decided by our estimate of the strength required?
Mr. Stewart: On the first point, it is quite true that I stated it is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration that they do not want. I also stated that what we have done is with the agreement of the Government of St. Kitts. But we made clear to the Government of St. Kitts that in going there they must understand that it was no part of our purpose to make the Anguillans live under a régime that they do not want. The part of my statement which I think my right hon. Friend did not notice and which provides the answer is where I pointed out that the Government of St. Kitts realise the strength of feeling in Anguilla against its connection with St. Kitts. So in effect— and this is understood by us, by St. Kitts and by Anguilla—we are in a situation where everyone realises that the Anguillans do not like being part of this Associated State.
However, I am not prepared to say what the situation will be after a number of years when the Administrator has done his work. I should make it clear to the House that while the military presence there will be very brief, it is the case—and this is also understood by the Government of St. Kitts—that the administrator, Her Majesty's Commissioner, will be there for some time. It is his job to work out, if it can possibly be done, an agreement that will satisfy all parties, including the Anguillans. What the exact nature of that settlement will be I do not think I or anyone else can predict. What we are all agreed on is that what is needed now is this breathing space.
I think that the second part of my right hon. Friend's question, put in plain terms, is "If you send a small force to Anguilla, why do you not try to solve the Rhodesian question by force?". I believe that when one considers the use of armed force it is right to consider what the results of using it would be, what the destruction of life and wealth would be. I believe that an attempt to solve the Rhodesian
502
question by force would have resulted in such a destruction of life and wealth, and such embitterment throughout Africa, that the thing we surely all want in Rhodesia, a just régime for men of all colours of skin, would have been indefinitely postponed. Whatever one may say about the law, and the morality of it, in effect the result would have been disastrous. It seems to me that one can properly reach that decision, and still say that it is sensible to send a moderate force to enable the people of Anguilla to express their views freely and not be intimidated by a handful of people.
Mr. Heath: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman's statement aright, the Government have imposed direct rule on this island by force. The grounds on which the Government justify this action are that it was necessary for the external defence of the island. This will, I think, to say the least, require careful consideration, but the questions which I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman are concerned with the future.
The right hon. Gentleman has constantly emphasised, quite rightly, that it is not the Government's purpose to see the Anguillans living under an administration they do not want. What steps are the Government going to take at the earliest possible moment to enable the Anguillans to choose the administration under which they want to live?
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a period of several years of direct rule. If the Anguillans do not want to live under the direct rule of the British Government in Whitehall, why does this situation have to continue for several years? Surely the Government should devote their attention to the means of ascertaining the wishes of the islanders, whatever those wishes may be?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that this form of Associated State must remain as it is, or can the Anguillans have a real choice as to the form of administration under which they want to live?
Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman said that we had imposed direct rule by force. I do not quarrel with the phrase "direct rule", but when one uses the phrase "by force" one must take into account the fact—and this is quite clear—that we have not done this

503
against the wishes of the great majority of Anguillans. The force was necessary only because the wishes of the great majority were being frustrated by a few. I have no doubt at all that both what has happened to date and what will happen in the future will demonstrate that that is so.
As to the future, in the first instance it will be the task of Her Majesty's Commissioner to assemble for himself an advisory council from Anguillans, and to proceed as soon as possible to get this on an elected basis.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember what I said in my statement about the attempts which have been made to reach an agreement acceptable to all the parties. I think that we shall have to try again to see whether that can be achieved, but I am sure that I am right in not trying to predict to the House now the final outcome of this, because the one thing on which I think we are all agreed—St. Kitts, the Anguillans, Her Majesty's Government, and the Caribbean states—is that the right step for the present is that Her Majesty's Commissioner should do the job with the increasing participation of the Anguillans, and we may be able to judge better in a calmer and more peaceful atmosphere what is the right solution for the future.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Commissioner on Anguilla be subject to the right hon. Gentleman's directions or to directions from the St. Kitts Government? Can the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the political future which must follow a military initiative? Will he take the precedent of the Central African Federation and consider a commission on Monckton lines, and then leave the people of Anguilla to determine whether they find any proposed solution acceptable?
Mr. Stewart: Her Majesty's Commissioner will be subject to directions from London. That is understood all round.
On the second point, I think we should hesitate to try to draw an analogy between this part of the world and Central Africa, or indeed many other parts. I think that Her Majesty's Commissioner must be given a chance to get on with his job before we start being too dogmatic about the future.
Mr. George Brown: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not quite clear to him on reflection that I did not argue for the use of force in Rhodesia? What I asked was, having defended ourselves for not using force there on moral principles, how we could now defend ourselves, when all we are arguing now is that the opposition to overcome was small, whereas in the other case it was big.
Mr. Stewart: I do not believe that my answer is in any way disreputable or unprincipled. Whenever one decides or thinks of using force one must ask what the objections are, and how much misery and distress will be caused in the using of it. It is clear, fortunately, on this occasion that no misery or distress has been caused, and that I believe justifies the step which we have taken. To use it in Rhodesia would, for the reasons I gave earlier, be a completely different operation.
Mr. Crawshaw: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many hon. Members on this side of the House appreciate the action that is being taken and pay tribute to him, but may I ask whether he would have settled the problem out there had he started by saying that under no circumstances would we ever use force, as we did in Rhodesia? Whatever we think in this House, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people throughout the world think that we have double standards, depending on whether it is black or white that we are dealing with?
Mr. Stewart: I know that that argument is used. As I understand it, my hon. Friend is quoting it as an argument that is used by others, and it is not one that he himself advances. I say to my hon. Friend, and to anyone who advances that argument, "If you weigh up the costs, the results, the actual effect of attempting to solve the Rhodesian question by force, you will reach one answer. If you are then asked whether it was right to make this very modest display of force in order to give the 6,000 inhabitants of this island the opportunity to express their real wishes, I believe that the answer must be yes".
Mr. Birch: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the congratulations of the House on at last taking on somebody of his own size?
Mr. Stewart: As to size, I think that that question illustrates the contrast between the greatness of the issues involved here and the littleness of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Woodburn: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is an analogy in Africa from the fact that Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, when they were faced with armed insurrection inside their own countries, requested us to send troops there and that we did that without any of the objection which has been offered today?
Mr. Stewart: That is so. It seems to me that the decision of a Government to use, or even to consider the use of, armed force is one of the gravest decisions that a Government can take. If one is always so terrified of the results, one always answers "No". One may have to put up with the growth of disorder and danger throughout the world. If one uses it recklessly, one may cause misery and loss of life for no adequate return. I tried to judge in this issue what degree of force it was necessary to prepare to use. I rejoice greatly that it went no further than preparation.
Mr. Tapsell: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us who know this area and the personalities involved fairly well will feel that, after the events of last week, the actions which the Government have taken have been absolutely right and inevitable? But would he also re-emphasise the Government's policy of consulting the Anguillan people at an early date about their future and not assuming that a mere passage of time and change of personalities will change the feelings between Anguilla and St. Kitts?
Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the first part of his question. I fully accept and understand the rest of what he said.
Mr. Whitaker: While the House is convinced of the necessity and right of removing a disreputable armed minority in Rhodesia and allowing the people there self-determination, are we fully satisfied that our movements in Anguilla are in accordance with the principles of the United Nations, and has that organisation been consulted?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, I think that there is no doubt that what we have done here is in accord with the United Nations Charter and our legal responsibilities.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that your myopia has now become so acute and so partisan—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone far enough—
Mr. Faulds: I had not finished.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to criticise the Chair, he can do so by putting a Motion down on the Order Paper. He must not insult the Chair in the way that he has done. I must ask him to withdraw what he has said.
Mr. Faulds: Will you explain to me, Mr. Speaker, how I can withdraw a remark which happens to be—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to accept an explanation. I am instructing him to withdraw what he said.
Mr. Faulds: You have me across a barrel, Mr. Speaker. I have no choice but to withdraw, which I do under protest. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has withdrawn, even if under protest.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY DISPUTE (SETTLEMENT)
4.13 p.m.
The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Ford dispute.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Ford strike is now over.
When I last reported to the House, on 12th March, talks had broken down at

507
my Department following the rejection by the trade union side of the Ford N.J.N.C. of the company's proposals for a resumption of work and their insistence on a prior commitment by the company that the pay increases in the package deal would be improved. In an effort to resolve this deadlock, I invited company representatives, Mr. Jones of the Transport and General Workers Union and Mr. Scanlon of the A.E.F.—the two major unions in dispute with the company—and Mr. Cannon of the E.E.T.U., one of the unions which had supported the February package deal, to discuss the situation with me last weekend.
As a result of these discussions, joint talks were resumed on 15th March, and on Saturday night the following formula was agreed for recommendation to the full trade union side of the N.J.N.C. the following day:

1. Normal working will be resumed on the basis of the increased rates in the agreement which commenced on 1st March, 1969.

2. Additional holiday benefit and lay-off benefit and their qualifying clauses shall be held in abeyance pending re-negotiation but alternatives have been agreed in principle which will ensure continuity of production and payments not less than those proposed in the agreement referred to above.

3. The company has agreed that it withdraws its requirement of 21 days' strike notice.

At the outset of the discussions on Sunday, 16th March, however, a difference arose between the company on the one side and Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Jones on the other on a central point in the alternative arrangements for financing the layoff benefit and holiday bonus which it was believed had been agreed in principle: the unions insisting that the holiday bonus of £25 which the firm had offered should be paid in full to all employees irrespective of whether they had engaged in unconstitutional industrial action or whether the payments by the company into the fund, which were themselves dependent on freedom from unconstitutional action, were sufficient for the purpose.
After two days of intensive discussions on this and related points, an outline
508
holiday bonus and lay-off benefit scheme to replace the corresponding provisions of the February package deal was agreed. The scheme is in two parts: first, the company has undertaken to set up a fund on a company-wide basis into which it will pay 4s. per employee per week in order to finance lay-off benefit. In any week in which unconstitutional action takes place in any plant, no payment will be made into the fund in respect of any employee in that plant. This sum of 4s. per employee per week should in all normal circumstances be more than sufficient to meet the outgoings and the surplus will be available to improve the benefits in the second part of the scheme.
Under this, a second fund will be created on a plant basis for the payment of a holiday bonus. This will be financed by weekly contributions by the company of 10s. per employee, which, in the same way, will not be payable in the event of any unconstitutional action in the plant. Subject to a guaranteed minimum of £15, the size of the holiday bonus payable to employees will, therefore, vary according to the extent to which plants have been affected by, and individual employees have taken part in, unconstitutional industrial action.
This outline scheme and the basis for a resumption of work agreed on 15th March were accepted yesterday by the executive of the A.E.F., the trade union side of the N.J.N.C. and by a Transport and General Workers Union delegate conference. The unions agreed to recommend a return to work today, with the exception of the Transport and General Workers Union, which, by resolution of the union's delegate conference, recommended a full return tomorrow in order to allow union officials to explain the settlement at meetings of strikers today.
I understand that production in Ford plants has restarted this morning. The House will be relieved that this protracted and damaging dispute, which has resulted in a loss of between £30 and £40 million of production, half of it for export, and nearly £3½ million loss of wages for Ford employees, is at an end, and I hope that there will be a speedy and complete return to work.
Mr. Maudling: The House is, of course, relieved indeed to know that there has been an end to this appalling strike.

509
But, just because of the consequences, not only economic but also in terms of general industrial relations, we shall clearly wish to assess the basis on which it has been settled. May I ask the right hon. Lady about two points of Government responsibility, to neither of which she referred in her statement? The first is the incomes policy. The right hon. Lady assured the House in the previous stage of this dispute that proposals had been costed and fell within the Government's incomes policy. Can she give a similar assurance that these proposals are entirely within the ambit of that policy? Second, what action do the Government intend to take to prevent this happening again in future?
Mrs. Castle: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that the February package deal—which, as I told the House, was costed and approved under the incomes policy—stands, except for the dropping of the 21 days' notice of strike after the procedure has been exhausted and the replacement of what were then called the penal clauses by a new financial arrangement of lay-off benefit and holiday bonus.
The company has assured me that the new scheme gives an equivalent expectation of continuity of production. This is an important element in the savings in that the productivity clauses of the deal, which still stand, give us an equivalent assurance that the saving will exceed the costing.
Mr. Maudling: Would the right hon. Lady now answer my second question; what action does she propose to take in the light of this experience to minimise the danger of a similar experience occurring in future?
Mrs. Castle: I am glad to tell the House that an important part of this matter is a greatly improved and speedier disputes procedure. This is one of the lessons that must be learned from this strike. I understand that the unions are, among themselves, considering a reform of the trade union side of the National Joint Negotiating Committee. This action will, I think, be of help, together with the incentives, now incorporated in the scheme, against taking unconstitutional action. There are now to be both collective and individual incentives to talk instead of to strike.
Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the workers and trade unions in this dispute have been much maligned and that little criticism has been directed against the Ford management? Is she also aware that the Ford management has hidden behind the incomes criteria and that many people feel that these criteria, put forward by her Department, have delayed a settlement of this dispute; that they have promulgated it when it could have been resolved more easily?
Mrs. Castle: I do not believe that my hon. Friend is being fair about this. During the course of these discussions, I have avoided making attacks on either side. The key factor in this dispute has not been the level of wage claims but the inclusion of what the unions insisted on calling penal clauses, which were part of the quid pro quo for the layoff benefit, and holiday bonus, which they wanted.
The argument during the past few days has been intensively over those principles. The firm, on its own judgment, laid great store on them because it is anxious to get production up—that is the only way to get wages up—and because it can do that only if the resort to unconstitutional action is reduced.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Lady rightly said that while this dispute was continuing she refrained from commenting on it in the interests of getting a settlement. Would she agree that this has been one of the most damaging disputes with an individual firm that this country has suffered in the last 25 years?
As she has made a few comments, as she just said, would she and her Department now do an analysis of the causes of the dispute and the conclusions which she has reached as a result of it? The right hon. Lady said that the House would naturally be relieved to hear that the dispute was at an end. Perhaps we have all too often passed a heavy sigh of relief, sat back and moved on to the next business.
Is she aware that an analysis of the matter, along with her conclusions, in a White Paper would greatly help progress in industrial relations generally? If she feels unable to do this, will she set up an independent authority to do it for her?
Mrs. Castle: I, of course, agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this has been an extremely damaging dispute; damaging to all concerned. The Ford workers have lost a great deal, as has the country as well as the firm.
As for making an analysis of the causes, one has only to live through the negotiations which have taken place over a dispute of this kind to get a good running day-to-day analysis of the causes and difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] Of course I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I will see whether a White Paper would be helpful in this situation.
However, I really think that I must take into consideration in this matter the views of both sides in this dispute. They are anxious to heal their industrial relations. The firm is hopeful that it can get on to a basis in which this kind of dispute cannot recur, and it would be wrong of us to ignore its advice and views in this situation.
Mr. James Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the reports we read about Ford workers being the lowest paid in the car industry?
As for the activities of the negotiating committee, will they in future be endorsed by the unions at national level to ensure that any agreements arrived at are on a basis which will enable them to be honoured by both sides?
Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend should not jump to the conclusion that the rates here are the lowest in the car industry. I know that certain figures have been published, but they have tended to compare Ford rates, which are uniform rates, with the highest rates in other companies, which may have a range of rates going very much lower. Taking that factor and other fringe benefits into account, the task of making a comparison is not a simple and straightforward one.
To answer my hon. Friend's question about the reform of the negotiating committee, I said that one of the lessons to be learned from this dispute was that the N.J.N.C. situation needed reforming to give better representation to the larger unions. As far as I know, no union is contesting this. It seems that this is a matter for the union side to put straight
512
and I believe that that side is anxious, just as we all are, to avoid a repetition of the unfortunate events of the past few weeks.
Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Lady lose no opportunity of underlining the grave damage which this dispute has done to our economy, since there may be many workers who engage in unconstitutional action of this kind who do not see the consequences of their action in one industry to the national economy as a whole?
Reverting to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, and since the right hon. Lady mentioned that the disputes procedure was thought to be ineffective and that some revision of the machinery of the N.J.N.C. was being contemplated, will she at least make a fuller statement on these two matters?
Mrs. Castle: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I have lost no opportunity, in the Press and on television, to stress the economic implications of this matter. I believe that all those involved are well aware of them.
I will certainly consider, to answer the second part, if there is an opportunity for me to convey to the House the progress that has been made under those two headings.
Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of her hon. Friends congratulate her on the part she has played in mediating in this dispute?
Will she consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the details of both the original agreement, about which the negotiations broke down, and the recent agreement so that hon. Members and the public generally may judge whether or not a somewhat Pyrrhic victory has been obtained?
Mrs. Castle: To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have set out quite fully in my statement the details of the final agreement. I appreciate that these details are difficult to absorb on first hearing, but they are on the record for study.
To answer the first part, I will certainly consider whether it is possible to make a comparison with the original package deal.

513
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the kind things he said about me.
Mr. John Page: Does the right hon. Lady realise that in her statement she said that the expectation of continuity of production had been added to the other criteria against which wage increases should be judged? If this is the case, can that be applied to other wage increase propositions that are put to her?
Mrs. Castle: The saving from the point of view of continuity of production always forms part of the costing of a package deal, just as it forms part of this one. All that I would add on this question is that I must consider all settlements on their merits; and I certainly will do so.
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it is now quite clear that workers will not accept penal clauses in this or an other industry, and will she, therefore, resist the siren voices from this side and the other side asking her to bring in the proposals contained in the White Paper at the earliest possible moment? Is it not clear that her efforts on this occasion, which have been mainly conciliatory, have been far more sensible and have helped to solve this dispute rather than any suggestion of the future imposition of clauses which would not be acceptable to the trade union movement?
Mrs. Castle: I believe, generally, that the use of emotive words has been one of the contributory causes of this strike. By labelling these arrangements for financing lay-off bonus and holiday bonus as "penal clauses" feeling has been aroused quite unjustifiably. The firm calls them "bonus clauses", and we still have bonus clauses in the agreement. It is true that they are different in incidence to a certain extent, but the fact still remains that there can be both a collective and an individual loss of benefit under these proposals. One may call them what one likes, but the fact is that, after having stirred up a lot of feeling about the so-called "penal clauses", the unions have, in some cases
514
unanimously, accepted this scheme, which has similar provisions in it.
I would say to my hon. Friend that the lesson as far as the legislation I am proposing is concerned is exactly the same. A lot of misunderstanding has been aroused against it by the use of emotive words, and I hope that the lesson of this strike is that people will look behind the slogans to the reality and the merits of the case. I am confident that when that happens the trade union movement will come to accept my legislation as a whole.
Mr. Crouch: May I put to the right hon. Lady that she does have the advantage over other hon. Members of the House and over members of the public in having been very close to this dispute? I am sure all hon. Members are grateful to her for the part she has played in bringing this dispute to a final conclusion; but I would support the contention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that this House and the public would greatly benefit by the publication of the details such as she herself has seen, since they are greatly bewildered by what has been going on to the great distress and disaster of the country.
Mrs. Castle: I appreciate that this was a very serious, major dispute, which had some new and interesting aspects to it. I will consider whether there is any way in which an analysis can be published, but I repeat that I must bear in mind the industrial relations factor here, and not jeopardise them.
Mr. Horner: Would my right hon. Friend accept from me a warning, wholly deficient, I hope, in emotive words, that she should draw no hard conclusions about the outcome of the Ford strike in relation to the attitude of the trade union movement to her White Paper?
Mrs. Castle: I am still having difficulty in convincing my hon. Friend of the merits of that White Paper and of the legislation which will be based upon it. I still have not given up hope of converting him.

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL PRICE REVIEW)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about this year's Annual Farm Price Review, details of which are in a White Paper which is available in the Vote Office. As a result of the bad harvest weather in many parts of the country cereals production has fallen. This has been one of the main causes of the fall-back last year both of net output and net income. Costs are up by £40 million, and the gain normally expected from greater productivity was not realised in full. But with average conditions this year, output, productivity and income are expected to improve.
The Government have made it clear that they wish a selective expansion of agriculture to continue on the basis of rising productivity. Beef and pigs, wheat and barley are the commodities where expansion is wanted. We need more acres in cereals, more livestock on a smaller grassland acreage, and more pigs both for pork and bacon.
The Government have considered this year's Review against this agricultural background, and against the difficult economic situation with which the country is faced. I now turn to the determinations.
On beef, the dairy herd is increasing fast enough to meet our objective, but the rate of expansion of the beef herd is slowing down. We are, therefore, making a substantial increase of 15s. per cwt. on the price, and increasing the beef cow and hill cow subsidy each by £1, while making a neutral determination on milk. This will avoid stimulating too rapid an expansion of milk production, while dairy farmers will, of course, get the benefit of higher prices for their calves. Moreover, as I have already announced, we are giving greater stability to the milk products market through the agreement on voluntary restraint on cheese imports reached with our major suppliers.
Pig production is increasing, and to maintain this trend we are raising the guaranteed price for pigs by 6d. a score and increasing by 400,000 the number of
516
pigs to which this higher price will apply. As I have said, we want more wheat and barley. So we are raising the guaranteed price for wheat by 1s. 7d. to 29s. per cwt., and barley by 10d. to 26s. per cwt. We are also abolishing the standard quantity for barley. These changes come on top of the large increases made on these commodities last year.
For the remainder, we are putting 1½d. per 1b. on sheep which, with last year's increase, will assist the industry to secure our objective of maintaining production. We are also leaving the wool price unchanged. Our aim of self-sufficiency for main crop potatoes is being secured, but because of the cost increase on such a labour intensive crop, we are putting 5s. a ton on the price. In accordance with our announced policy of phasing out the subsidy over five years, we are making the maximum cut on eggs. Oats and sugar beet, where we are not seeking expansion, will still be unchanged. To contain rising expenditure, the fertiliser subsidy rate will be reduced by £3 million, but expenditure will still be over £30 million a year.
The increase that we are putting on the four commodities where expansion is wanted, namely beef and pigs, wheat and barley is about £37 million, so giving a significant injection of capital and an incentive on top of costs for these commodities. This is a positive review giving the necessary encouragement where it is needed. The net effect is to increase the value of the guarantees by £34 million.
Mr. Godber: It will obviously be necessary to debate this hopelessly inadequate award. At this stage, therefore, I content myself by asking two or three short questions. First, will the Minister confirm that the leaders of the industry have refused in any way to agree to or condone this award? Secondly, in view of the heavy fall in farmers' incomes this year, does he really believe that the award he has just announced is going to match the objectives of the expansion plan which he announced in this House on 12th November last? And if he does think that, will he please explain to the House now, clearly and simply, where the financial resources for expansion are to come from? If he cannot do that, will he now resign?
Mr. Hughes: It is correct to say that the Farmers' Unions have not agreed the Review, but the right hon. Gentleman

517
knows from his experience that he had two disagreed Reviews when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. Of course, it is important that this Review should match up to the statement I made in November. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does not."] This is precisely what it is doing. On the three major commodities beef, cereals and pigs, there is recoupment of cost plus an injection of capital. This should be adequate to get movement going. This is the best award for beef for 20 years, and certainly better than anything the Opposition did. On the question of resignation, in view of the profound disagreement of the farmers with the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has been enunciating over the last few months, he should have left the Opposition Front Bench a long time ago.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am not anxious that he should resign from hispost? Will he say how this Review matches the unanimous and specific conclusions of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which reported recently?
Mr. Hughes: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The Select Committee, of which he was Chairman, did valuable work. I think he will agree on reading the White Paper that, as to import substitution, our determinations on the priority commodities match very well the recommendations of the Committee over which he presided.
Mr. Thorpe: Since the Price Review starts by under-recouping farmers' costs by £6 million and, in view of rising costs, is not likely to produce any net overall income increase, can the Minister say how he regards this as a contribution to saving £160 million imports by 1972–73? Can he assure us that this is a Review which will restore confidence for expansion in the industry, and provide it with adequate resources to do it? Will he be surprised to know that very few take that view?
Mr. Hughes: What I announced was that this is an expansion programme. The right hon. Gentleman will realise when he talks to farmers in his constituency that they have read the White Paper more carefully than he will have done and that they will have listened far more carefully to the statement I made on the major commodities of beef, wheat and pigs.
518
This is a very good award indeed, a positive award which will get the desired movement. I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing the industry no service by being so gloomy about the future.
Mr. Hazell: While personally regretting that the Government have not found it possible to concede greater financial support for the industry, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reported efforts in this direction? Have the Government taken into account the recommendation of the Select Committee on Agriculture that the outflow of workers from the industry should be reduced?
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The outflow of workers from the industry is, of course, a matter which we are watching very carefully. The decisions which have been made in the Review, especially for cereals, beef and pigs, should benefit the whole industry. We should recognise the outstanding record of agricultural workers whom my hon. Friend represents so ably. The broad trend in labour productivity in the agriculture industry is for continued growth at the rate of 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. a year, which is about twice that in the rest of the economy. This the House should know.
Mr. John Wells: Paragraph 63 gives the proposed rate of the fertiliser subsidy. We were told on Monday that the Agricultural Training Board is probably to be financed in future out of the fertiliser subsidy. Does that indicate a further cut in the subsidy not yet announced? In paragraph 19 we see the decline in farm income. Can the Minister say what is the departmental overhead per farm today?
Mr. Hughes: I cannot answer that, but the underlying trend of farm income is, of course, upwards. On the question of fertiliser subsidy diminution, there is nothing different. Successive Governments and Ministers have kept the fertiliser subsidy under control. It remains high and is today £30 million a year.
Mr. Maclennan: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, at least in Scotland, this Price Review will be regarded by farmers as helpful for the livestock sector, and that it compares extremely favourably with Price Reviews under right hon. Gentlemen opposite in that respect?

519
Nonetheless, the agricultural industry's expectations have been considerably raised by my right hon. Friend's statement in November, and we shall hope and expect that he will continue to make available resources for a major expansion of this vitally important import-saving industry.
Mr. Hughes: I am quite sure that, as a result of this Review, the major priority commodities will move on course and there will be an advance. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about the Scottish farmer. I certainly agree that the Scottish farmer will appreciate the award, particularly on beef and sheep.
Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Governors of the North of Scotland College said that 40 per cent. of all farm accounts costed by his Department, many of which must be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), earned last year less than a farm worker's wage, making no allowance at all for return on capital? Will he explain, in view of that, how by under-recouping the industry he will get further production from them?
Mr. Hughes: I have not read the report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I am sure it is an important one, but the hon. Member must look at the individual commodities mentioned in the White Paper and the way in which they are dealt with. He referred to global totals, but he must look at what is being done for beef, cereals, sheep and pigs. If he reads that carefully he will come to the conclusion that this is very good
Mr. Ensor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an extremely good Review. As usual, there have been tears of blood from hon. Members opposite. In spite of the fact that I agree that this is an excellent award, may I ask how the Review will affect farmers in hills and uplands?
Mr. Hughes: I think this will be regarded as a positive and helpful Review by the farmers in the hills and uplands of Scotland, England and Wales, particularly the emphasis on beef, the hill cow subsidy and the beef cow subsidy, which will be welcome for them.
Sir A. V. Harvey: To what extent has the Minister taken into account high interest rates on borrowed money, bearing in mind that Bank Rate went up only a week ago and what he said about the dairy industry, which will leave the farmers of Cheshire in utter despair?
Mr. Hughes: I think the intelligent farmers of Cheshire will appreciate what I have done in relation to milk and will give a particular welcome to the fact that we have at last reached agreement on voluntary restraint on cheese. So far as the interest rate is a factor, it is taken into account.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Allowing for increased costs and efficiency, can my right hon. Friend say how the determinations for 1964–1969 inclusive compare in value with those for the previous five years?
Mr. Hughes: I think I can give the figure—[Interruption.]—I think I can reply to that question without referring to any paper. It is well known that, apart from my right hon. Friend's Review of 1967 and the pre-election Review of 1964, this is the best Review for 20 years. It is better than any of the 12 Reviews of the party opposite leading up to the 1964 Review.
Mr. Henry Clark: How much will it cost to pay the increased subsidy on beef to Southern Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement? What steps has the Minister taken to make sure that the increased payments reach the Southern Irish farmer and do not create a subsidy for Southern Ireland meat factories?
Mr. Hughes: I apologise for the fact that I cannot give the answer to the first part of that question without notice, but the hon. Member will know that I am in close consultation on this issue with the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and the Southern Irish Government.
Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for a Review which is clearly not without substantial benefits for Wales. What effect does he expect the Review to have on the cost of food?
Mr. Hughes: I much appreciate the question, because I am glad to have the opportunity to say that this imposes no cost whatsoever on the consumer or on the housewife.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does not the Minister realise that the great difference between this and previous Reviews is that this Review follows great undertakings by him that agriculture would be allowed to expand? As he has not given that expansion and as he has not been able to fulfil his personal promises, will he confirm that his own hopes have been thwarted by the Treasury?
Mr. Hughes: I have answered this question once or twice before. If the hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to read the White Paper and my statement again tomorrow, he will find that for beef this is the best award for 20 years. Therefore, surely we will see an advance on beef. It is a most important factor in the Review. For cereals, we have an award which comprises recoupment of costs and incentive. For pigs, we are raising the top and lower ends of the middle band by 400,000, and 6d. a score, together with the stabiliser, and the new bacon market sharing understanding should put the pig industry on a firmer foundation than it has ever had before.
Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, to achieve the selective expansion programme, we need, not only to increase investment in the industry, but also significantly to improve the wages of agricultural workers? Does my right hon. Friend think that this Review will enable the industry to do this?
Mr. Hughes: The award to agricultural workers was recently approved. It was very important that it should have been. I am constantly watching the position of agricultural workers. In this context, the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board is important. Having said that, however, I fully appreciate that the position of workers in the industry must be kept under constant review, as must the contribution they make. The way to give
522
them new status is, not only through education, but by ensuring that the industry itself is more efficient and makes a profit.
Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned average weather conditions this year. Does he consider that in the cereal-growing areas we are likely to have anything like average conditions in view of the bad start we have already had this year? Why cannot we expand the sugar beet industry? With imports of about 50,000 tons of refined foreign, non-Commonwealth sugar, is there not a place for the expansion of the home sugar beet industry?
Mr. Hughes: I agree that the sugar beet industry is important. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recently renewed Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is important to keep the balance between home production and what we import under that Agreement.
Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend's statement contained no reference to his thinking about the system of agricultural financing. Has he any proposals to modify or change the system of agricultural financing?
Mr. Hughes: I have no immediate intention of changing the structure of agricultural financing. It is important that the way in which the support system for the industry works should be examined. I am presently discussing the means of streamlining and rationalising the present system of grants and subsidies with a view to increasing efficiency, to reducing administrative costs, and to lessening the burden of paper work on farmers—an important factor. I am also working on improvements in the flow of technical and economic information from research worker to farmer.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must move on.

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1959 (AMENDMENT)
Mrs. Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend sections 60 and 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1959.
Sections 60 and 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, are those which allow for persons suffering from mental disorders who have been convicted in the courts to be admitted to mental hospitals or placed under the guardianship of a local health authority. These are not the only Sections concerning this type of patient. Section 72 is also involved to a lesser extent, since it deals with the transfer to mental hospitals of persons undergoing a sentence of imprisonment. However, the main problem for mental hospitals concerns Sections 60 and 65, since under these Sections a person may be admitted straight from the courts— admittedly after a medical examination, but before any experience has been gained as to the likely behaviour of that person when placed under duress.
In recent years a much more enlightened policy towards mentally sick people has led to what is termed the open-door mental hospital. The days when wild-eyed lunatics with matted hair and unwashed bodies were penned behind bars unseen and forgotten by all except those whose fearsome duty it was to care for them are dead, gone, and un-lamented. A visitor to a mental hospital today will go through open entrance gates and see the patients walking about normally, mostly free to leave the hospital whenever they wish. In fact, it is often difficult to tell who are the patients and who are the visitors. This policy contributes enormously to the large numbers of cures effected.
When convicted criminals are placed in this environment, the law asks mental hospitals to turn back the clock, lock the doors again, and take measures to become in part little prisons. The case of the mentally ill schizophrenic convicted of minor larceny offences and then sent to a mental hospital may not be so obviously difficult, because if he walks out, although he may be a menace to local shopkeepers, he will not be a danger to the public. The trouble with him is that he will probably not remain in the hospital long enough to get the treatment
524
he needs for his condition. The case of the rapist or aggressive psychopath is quite another matter. If he gets out, he constitutes a real and terrible danger to innocent people outside. On the other hands, if he stays in, it might well be said that he constitutes a similar danger to the innocent patients inside.
The Medical Director of All Saints Hospital in Winson Green, Birmingham, Dr. Norman Imlah, is a man who is much respected and admired for his work and experience both in All Saints and other mental hospitals. He recently gave a most serious warning that potentially dangerous patients can easily get out of Britain's mental hospitals. He has been joined in this opinion by other distinguished doctors and psychiatrists who feel a similar concern about the situation. We ignore the warning of these men at our peril.
Originally it was felt with some justification that it would be quite feasible to expect every mental hospital to provide some sort of special security section within the hospital to contain these patients. At present the Ministry places this responsibility on regional hospital boards which, in their turn, exert pressures on individual hospitals. Many hospitals do retain locked wards for this purpose. Others, where the locked door policy has been abandoned, cope with this problem as best they can by recruiting special supervisory staff.
It is becoming increasingly clear that these arrangements cannot work much longer. Medical and nursing staff detest having to be jailers one minute and nurses the next. Further, the retention of special security accommodation in hospitals has a very bad effect on the other patients in the hospital. As Dr. Imlah says, "If we are running a hospital of which people can have no fear, and to which they will come when they are in need of help, we simply cannot provide maximum security".
There are only four State security institutions in the country—Broadmoor, Rampton, Moss Side and Carstairs in Scotland. They are all crammed, bursting at the seams. There is only a slender chance of having a potentially dangerous patient put into one of them. What happens? The court is told that the man before it is mentally ill but there is no

525
room for him in the State security institutions. If the mental hospital flatly refuses to have him, he will have to go to prison, for there is no other place. Prisons are not hospitals, and it is most unlikely that he can receive in prison the medical treatment which he so desperately needs, and it is treatment, which may one day enable him to be rehabilitated in society.
Clearly, a third category of establishment is needed, not a Broadmoor and not a mental hospital but somewhere to which criminally convicted persons who are suffering from mental disorder may be sent and treated and yet be kept secure. Two consultant forensic psychiatrists holding appointments under the Home Office and the National Health Service, Dr. Westbury of Newcastle and Dr. Bluglass of Birmingham, have suggested the setting up of 100-bed special security units purpose-built to deal with this grave problem. Dr. Donald West, assistant director of research at the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology, also takes the view that there is a crying need for this sort of third unit. He points out in a recent article that other countries which have set up such units claim considerable success from them.
Of course, the bugbear of cost raises its head. We live in a "bread-line" Britain. Nevertheless, the problem will have to be tackled, and tackled soon. If the Bill is given a chance to continue on its way, I shall seek to establish plans whereby we may consider the building of such units, and I shall even try to suggest where economies can be made to help pay for them. Today, I ask only that the House recognise the problem and agree to consider a cure.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. W. F. Deedes, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Tim Fortescue, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Donald Williams, Mr. Fergus Montgomery, and Mr. Keith Speed.

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1959 (AMENDMENT)
  MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1959 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend sections 60 and 65 of the Mental Health Act 1959, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th March and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

HOME OWNERSHIP
Mr. Speaker: Before the debate begins, I remind the House that it is a truncated debate—it is a half-day debate in any case—and brief speeches on both sides will be of great assistance to the House and the Chair.
I have selected the Amendment standing in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
Mr. James Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay matters, but are we to take it from your announcement that the debate must end at seven o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: No, I did not indicate that. The House will recall that the Leader of the House said "at about seven o'clock". We shall look at the word "about" with an elastic eye—if that is not too mixed a metaphor.
5.4 p.m.
Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the policies of Her Majesty's Government that have increased the cost of home ownership to record levels in direct contradiction to their election pledges.
The subject of today's debate is, naturally, one resulting from the announcement last week of an impending increase in the mortgage interest rate to 8½ per cent. This is a matter of immense concern to 3½ million families in this country who are involved in the repayment of mortgages, and it is a matter of immense concern also to thousands more who had hoped to be involved in the near future in the repayment of mortgages. There are countless thousands of young couples whose hopes of owning a home of their own must have been dashed by last Friday's announcement.
It would be easy to spend a lot of time reciting the thousands of pledges and promises on this topic made by the Labour Party. One could leave aside

527
the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) and the controversy about his promises. One could leave aside the promises of the Prime Minister made in the election manifesto, in his constituency and in marginal constituency after marginal constituency where he spoke, and in his eve of poll broadcast. In all those speeches, in his manifesto and in his broadcast he gave a clear pledge to the electors of Britain that there would be cheaper mortgages, cheaper land and, therefore, cheaper houses.
Few political observers would deny that of all the issues which brought the Labour Government to power, the promises of cheaper mortgages and cheaper land probably gained them more votes than any other. The election manifestos and addresses of virtually every hon. Gentleman opposite who is now a Member will have contained specific promises on the subject of mortgage and land prices. There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who would not be Members today had it not been for the promises on this issue which they made.
My concern, however, is not to expose the broken pledges—there will be time enough to do that in the constituencies concerned, and I am confident that it will be done—but to expose the complacency with which the Government view the hardship which they have created for those who wish to buy a home of their own. In both the Amendment to be moved later by the Government and the statements of the Chief Secretary earlier this week, there is displayed a remarkable complacency about the hardship which is caused. For example, when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) about whether he would at least guarantee that there would be no increase this year in the taxation of building societies, the Chief Secretary replied:
"All the evidence which the societies have brought to my attention indicates that young married couples with average incomes are anxious to enter into new mortgages."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 48.]
I am sure that that is correct. All the evidence available does show that young married couples with average incomes are anxious to enter into new mortgages.
528
But the reality of the new interest rates will mean that all those couples will be unable to enter into mortgages.
When the Labour Government came to power, the average price of a new house was £3,500. As a result of the rise in interest rates, Selective Employment Tax, import surcharges, higher taxes and devaluation—all Government measures—the average price of a new house today is £4,500. Thus, a young couple today, after four years of Labour Government, wishing to purchase the average price house on a 25-year mortgage and with an 80 per cent. advance— I take an 80 per cent. advance because the figures would be even worse if I used a higher percentage—would have to find £200 more for the deposit and thereafter £2 10s. a week more for their mortgage repayments.
In practice, that excludes thousands of people among the average earners in industry from embarking upon a mortgage at all. What this latest increase does, together with the other increases brought about during the period of this Government, is to exclude manual workers with average incomes from obtaining a mortgage for an average price house. The normal yardstick of a building society is that the monthly repayment must be not more than the average weekly earnings of the male member of the family. Some building societies even include the rates with the repayment figure. In 1964 the monthly repayment for the average-priced house on an 80 per cent. mortgage was £18 6s. 4d,. while average industrial male earnings were £18 2s. 2d. The two were almost the same, and the person with the average income could obtain an 80 per cent. mortgage for the average-price house.
Today, average earnings have increased to £23 but the combined result of the increased price of the average house and the increase in mortgage rates is that the mortgage repayment has risen to £29 8s. Average earnings have gone up by 27 per cent., while mortgage repayments for the average-price new house have risen by 60 per cent. All those people with average industrial earnings will now be excluded from obtaining a mortgage.
Where are they to go? As we all know from our experience in the constituencies, they will go first to the council and put their name down on the housing list. That

529
list is already very long in many areas, and many of us know how the young couple with one child have no chance of getting a council house in our own areas. They will be unable to get a mortgage, unable to get a council house and unable to get privately rented property, because much of it is barred to people with babies and young children. Therefore, unless the Government act, they will find as a result of their failures a whole new volume of people added to our housing lists, with all the frustration of not being able to get a house.
Added to that, there is the social problem created for those already with a mortgage. It is not quite as desperate a problem, but it is pretty terrifying. The Chief Secretary announced that he has obtained assurances that in cases of hardship the building societies will extend the period of the mortgage. And how! A person with a 20-year mortgage when Labour gained power, when the mortgage interest rate was 6 per cent., will have to extend in his mortgage to 32 years to continue to make the same payment. Therefore, having repaid the mortgage for four years of a Labour Government, he now has eight years more to pay it than when he started. That is the measure of what has happened as a result of the Labour Party's failure to fulfil its election pledges.
What about the man aged 45 who took out a 20-year mortgage then? Many men set up a new home at the age of 40 to 45, and plan their mortgage repayments to end when they retire. The man who started repaying a 20-year mortgage when Labour came to power will now find that he must continue repaying it until he is 77. Therefore, for most of his pensioned life he will have heavy mortgage repayments.
What excuse is given by the Government? First, there is the defence in the Amendment, to which I shall refer later. The primary excuse given yesterday by the Chief Secretary was that international interest rates are high. The interesting thing about the Labour Party is that its promises are always unqualified and its performance is always qualified. There is never any qualification about international interest rates when it makes a promise, but there is always a great deal of qualification when it fails to fulfil it.
For example, in his election address to the electors of Gloucester the Chief Secretary
530
put as number one of "Labour's 10-point programme":
"More houses at less cost—by halting the rise in the price of land and lowering interest charges on mortgages."
He did not say in brackets "subject to international interest rates". There was just the straightforward, simple promise.
The matter is even worse, because the Labour Party specifically said that it would do things in regard to housing irrespective of international interest rates. In its manifesto—we remember the title "Let's Go with Labour"—it stated as its policy on interest rates for housing:
"Labour will:
(1) Introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing. It is impossible to say now what changes will be required in the general interest rate structure of the market. But because of its great importance to the family housing should be treated as a separate case deserving specially favourable borrowing rates. This policy of specially favourable rates will apply both to intending owner-occupiers and to local authorities building houses to let"
It added that those with existing mortgages might not be able to come into the scheme immediately, but it stated categorically that all those—not just a few under a mortgage option scheme— applying for new mortgages would get specially favourable interest rates.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government will agree that the target of 500,000 new houses a year must be related to people's ability to obtain mortgages. The target was 250,000 owner-occupied houses and 250,000 houses to let, and it therefore depended on the Government's having an interest rate structure which would enable 250,000 people a year to purchase houses and obtain mortgages. The Prime Minister said in his speech at Bradford:
"It is a pledge. We shall achieve the 500,000 target,"—
and he added significantly—
"and we shall not allow any developments, any circumstances, however adverse, to deflect us from our aim."
The Prime Minister categorically stated that irrespective of the economic situation, and whatever the circumstances, this part of Labour's programme would not be adversely affected. Not only did the Labour Party fail to link its promises with any suggestion that international interest rates might affect them but, far

531
worse, it specifically said that it would exclude the adverse effects of international interest rates.
It ill becomes the Government to plead international interest rates as the reason when nothing has contributed more to the need to raise those rates than their maladministration. I must ask the Chief Secretary, as this is his plea, what the Government's position will be if they succeed with our economy. If they succeed eventually by a miracle, after all the years of promising a favourable balance of payments, and confidence in the British economy is restored, is the Chief Secretary saying that mortgage interest rates will still depend not on the success of our economy but on international interest rates? If that is his plea, there is no hope from the Government for the mortgage interest payer. His only hope is that other Governments will succeed in bringing down their Bank Rates. We know full well that the Government's failure in economic affairs has been the cause of the increase in mortgage interest payments.
The Chief Secretary's final plea was a remarkable defence. He complacently told the House that in the past those who paid the interest had the benefit of a bigger rise in the value of their house than the interest they paid. A few hon. Members opposite at least support that case. What the Labour Party must realise is that people do not buy a house to make a profit. They do so to make a home. They are not interested in the fact that the price of their house is rising. They are interested in the difficulty they are having in repaying the mortgage.
I turn now to the Government Amendment. It once again illustrates the remarkable complacency of the Government on this topic. Rather than in any way defend or deplore the fact that interest rates have risen, they recite as their defence three matters on which they consider they have taken action to help home ownership. The first deals with the rates, and they quote their various rate schemes.
What the Government must recognise is that domestic rates were allowed to rise by 25 per cent. before they took any action. Their various schemes to assist the ratepayers took place after the first two years of Labour Government, when the domestic rate had already risen 25
532
per cent. If they go into the constituencies saying that they have helped home ownership by keeping rates down, they will get a hollow laugh from the ratepayers.
Then the Government refer to the option mortgage scheme, which they quote as a method of assisting owner occupiers. I want first to expose the deceit to the electors in the scheme. I cannot do better than quote what the Prime Minister promised the electors of Huyton in the 1966 election. It is simple.
"Couples owing their own homes, or wishing to do so, will benefit from our exciting new scheme of Option Mortgages."
What he did not tell them was that the scheme would be so devised that it would be no use to 94 per cent. of the people repaying mortgages. Only 6 per cent. of those with mortgages have found the mortgage option scheme to be attractive to them.
The fact that once they join the scheme they can never again obtain a tax rebate on their interest results in the scheme being unattractive to almost every young couple. I give an undertaking that the Conservative Government will immediately revise the scheme so that people can opt out at certain stages.
Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has just made a far-reaching statement. Has he discussed it with the Building Societies Association? Has he its agreement to vary the scheme?
Mr. Walker: I have discussed it with the Association and I do not have to have its agreement to vary the scheme. If the Minister says that he cannot vary the scheme without the approval of the Association, I am surprised. Certainly I would discuss it with the Association, and it would be changed in such a way that the building societies could operate it. I am convinced from my conversations with the Association that the scheme could be operated in such a way, and this we will do.
Mr. Joel Burnett: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the scheme would be a genuine subsidy to mortgage payers, or would the party opposite give appropriate relief where they would not pay tax?
Mr. Walker: We would have a similar scheme, except that there would be certain opportunities to break away from

533
it and go to the position where the mortgage payer could obtain tax rebate. That is the main change we would bring about. The absurdity of the present scheme, which excludes 94 per cent of mortgage payers from taking part, is that couples know that if they enter the scheme they will be at a later stage at a great disadvantage compared with other people with mortgages. The fact that the scheme has been such a flop is indicated in the statistics. Of 3,400,000 people with mortgages, more than 3,200,000 have found the scheme to have no attractions. It is a bad scheme. The promises made about it during the election were a fraud upon the electors.
The remaining plea in the Amendment is that the Government built more houses last year than ever before. I am rather surprised that the Minister of Housing and Local Government allowed that claim to be included in the Amendment, because he knows that the only reason for that very high figure last year was that a large number of houses were started in the previous year in order to avoid paying the betterment levy. He has stated so himself. In giving his excuses for the drop in the number of starts last year, he provided the fact that, previously, the starts had increased in order to avoid the betterment levy.
Perhaps the only good that the Land Commission Act has done was to make a lot of people start building houses in order to avoid its workings. It is significant that the Amendment, in setting out the things the Government have done to help housing, completely omits any mention of the Land Commission. Is it because the Government have concluded that the Land Commission is not really a good body to boast about any longer? It has in fact failed completely, although it was sold to the electors on having the prime task of bringing down land prices. But under the Labour Government the prices of houses and land have gone up, and now mortgage interest rates have reached a record level.
But we see the Government apparently satisfied with the position and refusing to refer the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board. Some hon. Members opposite are critical of the Government for not doing so. I warn them that the Government did not refer the issue to
534
the Board because, its having been referred only two years ago, all the facts about the building societies and the prices of mortgages are already well known, so that if it were referred again the only new fact which could appear would be the economic failure of the Government during the past year. This is illustrated very clearly by the statistics.
Mr. Dickens: Silly.
Mr. Walker: If the hon. Member will be patient, we might be able to explain even to him. The statistics produced by the building societies for last year clearly illustrate the reason for the present difficulty. Last year, the amount of new savings increased by £75 million, mainly as a result of interest payments. But the amount of withdrawals from the building societies amounted to no less than £400 million. The reason for the crisis in the building societies and for the withdrawal of £400 million was the spending spree of 1968, with the complete lack of confidence in savings created by the Government's economic policy. It is because people decided last year to turn from saving to spending that the building societies had the absolute necessity of increasing their interest rates.
So we have the situation in which the building societies are having to put up their mortgage rates, and to aggravate it further the Government decided to reduce the amount of money available for local authority mortgages. What a record they have there! When they came to power, £175 million a year was being provided for local authority mortgages. Last year, it was £130 million. Now, this year, the year in which the mortgage position is worse than ever, they will reduce it to a miserable £13 million. When they came to power, 70,000 families were obtaining local authority mortgages in one year. This year, we shall be lucky if 10,000 families can avail themselves of them.
The fact is that Labour came into power on the cry of cheaper houses and cheaper mortgages. It will deserve to lose power on the cry of soaring house prices, land prices and the highest ever mortgage interest charges. In its mid-term manifesto it reached a situation where, so ashamed was it of its housing performance, that housing did not even receive a mention in the whole of the manifesto.

535
We have now reached the situation when action needs to be taken. We will certainly revise the mortgage option scheme; we will certainly return to local authorities the rights and freedom to provide mortgages to those who need them. We will certainly remove some of the extra charges put upon the building industry and on the building societies by taxes such as S.E.T. But what is far more fundamentally important, we will restore faith in the economy so that a property-owning democracy, instead of being a dream of the past, will become a reality of the future.
5.31 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recalling the help given by the present Government to home owners through the Option Mortgage Scheme, the Rates Rebate Scheme and the domestic element of the Rate Support Grant and the fact that more houses for owner occupation were built during the last year than in any other post-war year, approves the policies of Her Majesty's Government designed to increase home ownership in all sections of the community'.
We have just listened to an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), which was more noteworthy as a piece of dialectic than as a constructive contribution to housing policies. We have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite no indication of their policy, no indication as to how they would deal with rising world interest rates, no indication of how they would face the problem of competition for short-term money, no indication of how they would finance the high rate of house building that we need so badly, no indication of how they would protect those of our people whom they neglected in the past, and no indication of how the Opposition, if they became the Government, would finance the proposals with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his speech.
It is easy to be critical of any aspect of policy, but I can assure the House that there is no complacency on this bench about the housing situation. There are aspects of it I deeply regret. I am sorry that devaluation forced us to abandon the 500,000 target; I regret very much indeed the cut-back in local authority
536
home loans; I regret the high interest rates for home ownership. What I do strongly resent is the charge of lack of faith and deceit that the hon. Gentleman has levelled against us.
I want to go back, not to the manifesto from which the hon. Gentleman was quoting one part of his speech, which was the 1964 manifesto, but to the manifesto of the Labour Party in the last General Election, 1966. So that we can put these housing facts into their proper perspective, I would remind the House of what we said in the manifesto. We said:
"The desperate shortage of houses to let at modest moderate rents in our great conurbations can only be met by a large and speedy increase in council building. To make this financially possible, we have provided councils with the equivalent of 4 per cent. interest rates for house building. At present interest rates, the new Subsidy Bill increases the basic subsidy of £24, where the Tories left it, to well over £60 per house. Part of this very substantial increase will be used by councils to ensure that every new house is built to the improved standards laid down by the Government."
In fact we have done better than that, because instead of the subsidy simply being the £60 we referred to, in the case of the average three-bedroomed council house it is running at over £100 a year and there are flats in the London area where the subsidy is as much as £150–£160 a year.
We have to consider the totality of housing projects. We have kept to what we said in the manifesto. Local authorities know that they can now build at the guaranteed rate of 4 per cent. for new houses. The result has been that, whereas in the period between August, 1960 and the end of October 1964, 551,000 houses were completed in the public sector by the party opposite, in exactly the same period we have completed 790,000. In the private sector during that period the party opposite completed 780,000, whereas in our period of office the number is 899,000.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a property-owning democracy. There are far more people owning their houses in Britain today than there ever were when his party was in office. We have increased the number of private houses built during our period of office by 119,000 more than they built in the same period and increased the number of houses built in the public sector by

537
239,000. The total increase is 358,000 over the number built during the same period by a Conservative Government.
Although the hon. Gentleman may refer back to the fact that some houses were started to avoid the betterment levy, it is quite clear that those houses were finished not to avoid the betterment levy but because there was a market for them, and people who wanted to buy them were in a position to do so. We also said that we would improve the standards of houses, and from 1st January this year the Parker Morris standards in respect of space and heating are mandatory.
The second promise we made was to:
"… make a new approach to the problem of central areas in our cities. Slum clearance must of course go on. But there must be quicker and fairer compensation for those displaced. However, we shall not be content simply to demolish. Wherever possible, we shall renew and modernise existing buildings."
That is exactly what we are doing in the Housing Bill now before Parliament. We are making much more generous provision for improvement and conversion than ever before. Hundreds of thousands of people who are owner-occupiers will benefit from these grants. We are giving Governmental help for environmental improvement for the first time.
Here let me remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, those great friends of the owner-occupiers, that we are the first Government which has done justice to the owner-occupier whose house is demolished under a slum clearance scheme. Why it should have taken hon. Gentlemen opposite all these years to do this simple act of justice is something which I cannot understand, and which I believe the public cannot understand either. Why did they do nothing to help these people who have been the victims of gross injustice in the past? Incidentally, let me remind the House that last year and the year before we achieved record figures for slum clearance. In 1967 and in 1968 over 90,000 slums were cleared in each year. By the end of the year over 435,000 slums will have been cleared since we took office. That is 65,000 more than the Tories succeeded in doing during their period of office.
The third promise we made was that we would go ahead with a further programme of new and expanded towns.
538
There is quite an interesting point about our new and expanded towns, because we are the first Government which have set out to have 50 per cent. of owner-occupation in the new towns. We have gone ahead with the programme for new towns. We have designated the new town of Irving in Scotland, Newtown in Wales, Milton Keynes, the biggest of them all in England, Northampton, Peterborough, Warrington, and we have extended Dawley and made it into the new town of Telford. In all those new towns we are making provision for taking people from overcrowded conurbations and at the same time encouraging owner-occupation.
Our next promise was for a fair deal for council house tenants. We have also carried out that promise. We have protected them against unnecessary rent increases which in many cases Conservative councils were proposing to impose and, under the powers which have been conferred on my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and on myself by the Prices and Incomes Act, we have rejected one-third of the proposed rent increases. I say solemnly that I shall continue to reject any increases which cannot be proved to be absolutely necessary in the situation obtaining.
We have for the first time made rent rebate schemes a reality. Many of the rent rebate schemes which existed before we came into power were a complete sham. We have stepped up subsidies, so that council house tenants are helped by a much larger council house subsidy than has ever before been granted, in some areas a subsidy of £4 a week. We have stopped what I believe was the wicked and foolish sale of council houses in areas where there were large numbers of people on the waiting list.
I come now to the promises we made on the purchase of houses.
Mr. Reginald Eyre: I have here a telegram from the Bromford Housing Society of Birmingham which says that the rent charged by a cost-rent housing society will go up by 15s a week and the charge made by a co-ownership housing society will go up by 11s. a week, and it contains some severe words about hardship. Will the

539
Minister say how he will help these housing societies which are doing such an important job in the City of Birmingham and in other cities?
Mr. Greenwood: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman expects me to comment in public on an individual case without notice. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that members of a co-ownership scheme will derive advantage from the option mortgage scheme.
Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has paid council rents—[Interruption.]—or he is stopping any increase—[Interruption.] He has said that he is taking action with local authorities to prevent certain rent increases. Will he answer my hon. Friend and say what action he will now take to prevent further rent increases for housing societies?
Mr. Greenwood: No, it is not relevant; I cannot comment on an individual case. I am commenting on the policy that we have adopted in respect of unnecessary, harsh increases which local authorities were proposing to impose. I have always said that a freeze was impossible, but I have said that everything should be done to mitigate the effect upon tenants of council house rent increases.
On the subject of houses to buy, we said in our manifesto:
"In order to secure an adequate flow of finance for private housing we have persuaded the building societies and the builders to work closely with the Ministry of Housing in planning a steady continuous expansion of output up to their share of the programme.
In addition to a mortgage plan we are determined to protect the owner-occupier against the jerry-builder."
We said later in the manifesto, under the heading "The New Home Ownership Plan":
"Those who wish to buy their own homes also need relief from the State. Until now this mainly took the form of tax remissions on mortgage instalments. The higher the mortgagor's income bracket and the more expensive his house, the bigger his tax concession. This system is obviously unfair, particularly since the lower paid get nothing at all.
We have therefore announced a new Home Ownership Plan under which each mortgagor will have this choice: to retain his present right to tax concessions—or qualify for a new Government grant which brings down
540
the interest rate on his mortgage by 2½ per cent. (subject to a minimum of 4 per cent.)"
In case any hon. Gentleman is tempted to interrupt me, I will refer in a moment to the 2½ per cent.
We said that we would make sure that the quality of houses was good. We set our minds against legislation unless it was absolutely inevitable, but we have succeeded in making the National House Builders' Registration scheme infinitely more effective than it was before we took a part in it. This year over 90 per cent. of the houses which have been built for private purchasers will be carrying the 10-year guarantee of good workmanship given by the National House Builders' Registration Council. Once again, why hon. Gentlemen opposite could not do anything about the jerry-building during their period of office is something that I shall never understand.
Mr. Peter Mahon: In addition to building so many homes for private owners, have not the Government redeemed their most profound promise to build houses for people who could not afford them rather than for the people who could?
Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that contribution and, knowing the great part that he has played in the housing programme in Bootle, I pay great tribute to everything that he has achieved.
We said that we would maintain an adequate flow of finance for private housing. I have appreciated the presence of representatives of the building societies on my Housing Programme Working Party. The building societies have achieved a tremendous success. In 1967 there were 166,000 advances on new houses and 436,000 on old houses. In 1968 there were 174,000 advances on new houses and 410,000 on old houses, a total in the two years of 1,186,000 mortgage advances. In 1963, the last complete year of Conservative Government, £255 million was advanced on new houses and £586 million on old houses. In 1968, £508 million was advanced on new houses and £1,040 million on old houses, a total of £1,548 million, a record in the history of the building society movement. The contributions made by the building societies have resulted in the record post-war completions in the private sector of 222,000 houses last year.

541
I remind the House that between December 1964 and December 1968 the number of owner-occupied dwellings went up by exactly 1 million. That means that 1 million more families are living in homes of their own. The percentage of dwellings in owner-occupation has gone up from 46 per cent. to 49 per cent. It is a remarkable situation that almost exactly half of the people of this country are now living in their own houses. These are figures that hon. Gentleman opposite cannot laugh off.
Building societies, of course, must borrow if they are to have the money to lend. They cannot be insulated against competition. People have to be persuaded to lend them money and people have to be persuaded not to withdraw it once they have lent it. The figures for the last three months have been disturbing figures. The figures for the net intake, seasonally adjusted, that is to say for new investments less withdrawals, were, in November, £89 million; in December, £70 million; in January £63 million; in February £54 million, and I am sorry to say that the deterioration was more rapid in the second half of February. In that situation, the societies estimated that, if they were to keep private house building at about the 1968 level, they would need to be able to lend at least £1,600 million in 1969, and that would involve a net intake of at least £80 million a month. I have told the House how much below that figure of £80 million the intake had slumped.
If there was a serious continued drop in net receipts, there would be a serious drop in the completions of houses for sale. If the number of houses for sale were to fall, there would be distress to people who want to buy, and there would be the most serious uncertainty and disruption in the building industry itself.
I will not elaborate on the connection between mortgage rates and general interest levels at home and abroad, and any comments or suggestions which relate to the societies as financial institutions will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I will say only that the rates offered by building societies have to be competitive, and we could only accept their view that, if the rate of building was to be maintained, the net intake would have to be improved.
542
I want to remind the House that, when the announcement was made by the Chairman of the Building Societies Association, he made a statement in which he said:
"Individual societies will decide when to adjust the rate charged to existing borrowers and how many of those borrowers will need to increase their monthly payments in order to ensure a progressive reduction of mortgage debt. Building societies will do all in their power to avoid hardship in individual cases and, in any event, a substantial number of existing borrowers will, if they so wish, be able to continue their existing repayments over an extended period."
The second point that I want to make is that we did not refer this proposal to the National Board for Prices and Incomes because the figures showed no justification for doing that. Building society rates, like Government lending rates, have to follow the general market trends. But we do not preclude a later reference to the Board, and we shall look to the building societies to show equal promptitude in bringing down their rates when market trends begin to fall.
Mr. Peter Hordern: As it is the case that the rates offered now by the building societies are still not as competitive as those offered by Government gilt-edged securities, is it not very likely that there will not be a flow of money into the building societies? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, should the building society rate be raised again, he will not refer that increase to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?
Mr. Greenwood: I do not think that we have shown any animus against the building societies, and I have paid warm tribute to their real contribution to the solution of the housing problem, so far as it has gone. When my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had his discussion with representatives of the building societies last week, they were satisfied that the increase which they were suggesting would have the desired effect, and I think that all of us must have the greatest hope that that will turn out to be the case.
I think that I must make the point that we have also maintained Income Tax relief on mortgage payments. It is a great pity that so many newspapers, in giving figures to show the effects of the new interest rates, in most cases did

543
not show how much of the increase is cushioned by tax concessions. We have also introduced the option mortgage scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred in somewhat critical terms. I mentioned earlier the 2½ per cent. and the 2 per cent. subsidies. The 2½ per cent. subsidy referred to in the Manifesto was a 2½ per cent. annuity subsidy, which was what the Government first proposed when we announced the scheme in March, 1966. But when the option mortgage scheme was introduced in 1967, it provided for a 2 per cent. interest rate subsidy, which has much the same value over the life of the mortgage and is easier for the building societies to administer.
The hon. Gentleman has criticised the option mortgage scheme. I think that its success is shown by the fact that no less than 285,000 existing borrowers opted for the scheme. That was more than we had anticipated. In less than a year since the scheme started to operate, over 30,000 new borrowers had decided to take part in it.
With tremendous confidence, the hon. Gentleman was saying exactly what he would do about the option mortgage scheme if he was Minister for Housing and Local Government. He was pretty confident of his ability to order about the insurance companies and building societies. I can assure him that, if by some mischance he should at some stage occupy the office that I now occupy, he will find how important is the role of the building societies and that, when one relies upon them to operate a scheme, one cannot order them about in the way that he was suggesting.
I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he could get the building societies to make concessions about opting in and opting out of the scheme. Only today we have had a letter from the Building Societies Association saying that it has set its face against any suggestion of further complicating the scheme by allowing second options—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can fully understand its point of view. This is a complicated scheme. We are indebted to the building societies for operating it, and I think that we have to accept the wisdom of their advice on a matter of this kind.
544
The hon. Gentleman has been very free with his charges of bad faith on the part of my colleagues and myself. After the denial which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) made in the House the day before yesterday, I hope that the House has accepted that my right hon. Friend did not give the pledge—incidentally, in the 1964 election and not the last election—of which he has been so frequently accused.
The hon. Member for Worcester referred to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the last election. I have been looking at some of my right hon. Friend's speeches. He said at Stevenage, for example:
"We shall cheapen the costing of housing by our interest rate policy."
That is exactly what we did when we told local authorities that they could build new houses at a guaranteed rate of 4 per cent. In fact, we are giving them a subsidy. We are reducing the interest rate by over 3 per cent. There is no breach of faith on the part of my right hon. Friend.
He said at an election Press conference:
"We intend to make a substantial reduction for new owner-occupiers."
That is exactly what we did in the option mortgage scheme, under which many people are paying as much as 2 per cent. less than would otherwise have been the case.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will stop making these allegations about bad faith, which do no credit to this House and which do not help for a rational discussion of what are serious human problems. I hope that they will accept that we put forward our Manifesto at the last election and that we have carried out almost all of the housing objectives which I quoted earlier.
Finally, I want to comment briefly on the subject of rates. It is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to try and laugh off what we have done in the reform of rating. We are the first Government to have got the general escalation of rate levels under control. It took us two years to do it. The hon. Gentleman sneers at us because it took that time, but, at any rate, we have done it.
Comparing the figures for the current years 1968–69 with 1967–68, 36 per cent. of local authorities had increases of more

545
than 3d. in the domestic rate poundage, 16 per cent. had increases up to 3d., 15 per cent. had no change, 17 per cent. had decreases of up to 3d., and 16 per cent. had decreases of more than 3d. The increase over the whole country over those two years was minimal compared with the figures over the last eight or ten years.
The public must realise that in the coming financial year every domestic ratepayer is 1s. 3d. in the £ better off because of the Labour Government than he would have been under the previous Administration. The following year the figure will be 1s. 8d.
I will not go into rate rebates in detail, but the first year of rate rebates showed that about one million people were getting rate rebates, on average, of £15. How favourably that compares with the miserly, niggardly scheme that the Tories put forward. There again, we are producing real, solid benefits for the people that hon. Gentlemen opposite are making easy protestations about wanting to protect.
In housing, I believe that we have a solid record of constructive achievement. By the end of the current year about 2 million new houses will have been built, over 600,000 old houses will have been improved, and over 435,000 slum houses will have been cleared. That is a record for which no one on this side of the House will apologise.
It ill becomes the party, under which Rachmanism flourished and the level of council house building was low, to criticise Her Majesty's Government with a record of achievement to their credit which I confidently commend to the House.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Oscar Murton: We listened with great interest to the Minister of Housing and Local Government putting up a fine smoke cloud of a very good pink hue about the achievements of the Government since 1964. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this censure Motion, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends, refers to the cost of home ownership.
We have heard from the Minister of the remarkable, almost ornamental, edifices of achievement in many things— what I might describe as fringe benefits.
546
I do not deny that there is much solid achievement. There must always be solid achievements in any Administration in housing. It would be dreadful if there were not. On the other hand, I noticed that when the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to give a list of those things in the Labour manifesto of 1966 which had been carried out, he carefully moved over the one which says,
"We have announced—and we intend to achieve—a Government target of 500,000 houses by 1969–70."
Mr. Greenwood: I think it took me some little time to wake up the hon. Gentleman. In the first couple of minutes of my speech I referred to my regret that we had to abandon that pledge after the devaluation exercise.
Mr. Murton: I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was about to ask him why they had to do this. There is failure in the Administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has said, promises should not be made if they cannot be fulfilled. This is the worst possible thing for removing the confidence of the electorate from any particular party.
Time is short so I will quickly move on to the option mortgage scheme. This has not been the success which the Government would claim. The recent increase in the Bank Rate has completely obliterated the advantage of the 2 per cent. reduction in the standard mortgage interest rate which was part of this scheme. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has said, the 6 per cent. of people who opted for the scheme have been sorely disillusioned because they are unable to opt out of it.
The difficulty here was more in the wording of the pamphlet issued at the time the scheme was produced, but there is much good in the scheme. I can understand, because of the scheme's complications, that the building societies would find it difficult, as matters stand, to make it possible for someone to opt out. But surely these difficulties can be overcome by consultation and possibly by simplification.
I must tell the Minister—I know that he will take it in good part—that one irate constituent of mine, who came all the way down to see me, said, "It is an utter swindle. I am in and I cannot get

547
out. How can I take steps to sue the Minister for misrepresentation?" I told him that this was hardly the thing to do. However, I agreed that he was in a very difficult position. We all know that it was the question of the family allowances that caused that to happen. I hope that it may be possible at some stage, either during the short remaining life of the present Government or, I hope, the coming life of a Conservative Administration, to do something to resolve this problem and to put it right.
I want to deal chiefly with mortgage interest rates. The Chief Secretary, on 17th March, when I asked him,
"… how can any worker in an industrial job hope ever to achieve home ownership",
and I really meant it because I do not see how he ever can, said, I thought somewhat complacently,
"… there is a queue of borrowers anxious to pay the going rate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 45.]
I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can equate that rather complacent statement with something which the Chairman of the Building Societies Association said in an interview with the Daily Express on 15th March:
"I hope home loans will become freer after this, though it will not end mortgage rationing altogether."
My concern is that the small man, the young industrial worker with a growing family, will continue to be the victim of that rationing. It is no fault of the building societies. We know that it is the fault of the interest rate, and I suggest that it is up to the Treasury Ministers to do something about the effect it has on the building societies.
These industrial workers cannot afford to pay the going rate of 8½ per cent. They cannot afford to borrow £3,000 on a 25-year term and pay £244 7s. in interest alone before they begin to think of repayment of the capital. Through no fault of their own, these unfortunate people will not have an adequate wage to meet such a growing commitment. I do not doubt that others, more fortunate, will be able to pay this going rate and will be able to take their position in the queue that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned; but, even so, those more fortunate persons will be pressed pretty hard. As I said last Monday, a man
548
borrowing £5,000 over 25 years will have to have a minimum salary of £2,000 a year, and that is not an inconsiderable sum, particularly as he probably has a young family to bring up and to educate.
In my part of the country I have been told of people who are negotiating private mortgages at an interest rate of 15 per cent. This is an absolutely extortionate rate, but it is being taken on in desperation by people who are unable to obtain money any cheaper.
Half the houses in England and Wales are owner-occupied. If some of these owners cannot obtain mortgages, they will be unable to move house to change their jobs, or because their families are growing up and they need bigger houses, or because their families are leaving home and they need smaller houses. If this happens, there will be a chain reaction which will affect not only those who have a house which they are able to sell and buy a bigger one. It will have an effect right down the line. It will affect the small man setting up home for the first time, the man who has no money other than the deposit which he can lay down, and who knows the impossibility in the present circumstances of obtaining a mortgage.
That brings me to an even more serious point. Mobility of labour in this country is already somewhat restricted. If the present trend in mortgage rates continues, mobility of labour will become even more stagnant, and that can only affect the national economy very grievously.
Putting aside the question of the desperate situation of the small potential borrower, what about the existing borrower? There have been two increases in mortgage rates of particular severe consequence, last year, and now this year. The latest increase will mean that about 150,000 existing borrowers will not be able to extend the time for repayment. In many cases the existing monthly payment at the new interest rate of 8½ per cent. will not even cover the interest on the loan, let alone pay off any of the borrowed capital. For them the rate will go up. Whether they like it or not, they will have to pay it because the days of dormant loans are long since past.
People in the next category are more fortunate, if one can call them that.

549
They will be able to elongate their loans, but for how long? Will they be able to do so into retirement, or into infinity? If into infinity, will it mean that their poor widows will be left to face the ultimate problem of repayment? We are coming to that situation, and it is a very serious one.
The sheer tragedy of it all is that bricks and mortar—one's own home—are the one major secure and appreciating investment in this present insecure, unstable, and rapidly inflating economic climate. Whatever Ministers on the Treasury Bench may say, our present economic climate is due to the utter mess which the Government have made of the country's internal affairs. It is not only a question of international rates. If the country's internal affairs were properly organised by an adequate and competent Administration, we should not be in this frightful mess now, and house owners and those who cannot get mortgages would not be the helpless sufferers of this system.
It is not inappropriate to remind the House that this is the fourth time that mortgage rates have risen while a Labour Government have been in power since 1964. This is the fourth turn of the mortgage screw. The highest and biggest increase ever made at one time is the most recent one. The second largest was in February, 1965. Since we have had a Labour Administration there has been nothing but escalation in interest rates, and my personal fear is that all rates of interest will move inexorably upwards for some time to come.
If I am right—and I pray to heaven that I am not—the building societies will be faced with the same position again at the end of this year. What a travesty all this makes of the Labour Party's promise of cheaper houses and lower interest rates. Was there ever a more shameful breach of faith with the electorate of Britain? Whatever the Minister says, however sincere he is, I do not consider that his defence of his Administration at the Dispatch Box this afternoon will carry any conviction with the electors of this country, particularly with those who are unable to obtain mortgages.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I remind the House of the short time available for this debate, and I ask
550
hon. Members to be as brief as possible. Mr. James Dickens.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. James Dickens: I represent a constituency with a high and rising proportion of owner-occupiers. Many of my constituents are faced with the difficulty of having to meet the very high rate of 8½ per cent. which the Building Societies Association announced last week. The position is particularly acute in the London area for newly married young people who are faced not merely with high interest rates but with the rapidly appreciating capital value of property. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people in South-East London to acquire property for a family at a figure of below £4,500. The problem confronting those people in my constituency is grave, and I want to argue that there is no need whatever for this increase in the mortgage interest rates, and that the Association and the Government could between them adopt policies which would make this situation avoidable.
I propose to deal first with one or two of the economic aspects of the background to high interest rates. This afternoon my right hon. Friend had no great difficulty in showing the House that the housing record of this Government is markedly better than that of the party opposite when it was in power. That record must be sustained, and improved, but the Government's social policy, and this of course includes their housing policy, is entirely at risk because of their economic policy. For it is certainly true that the Government's economic policy has seriously inhibited the development of their social policy, and in this respect their housing policy. This is particularly so where interest rates are an important factor in housing.
Why is it that in Britain interest rates are so much higher than the interest rates prevailing generally in other advanced industrial countries? Why is it that interest rates in London are, on average, 2 per cent. higher than in other leading financial centres? The reason is clear. It is part of the function of the City of London to attract short-term inward capital movement, to pay interest rates of 8 per cent., and above, for short-term "hot" money coming into London. It is primarily because of this that interest rates are high in this country, and this is one important reason

551
why interest rates generally are higher than they need be.
The position could be changed if the Government pursued a new economic policy designed to reappraise the rôle of the City. But it does not lie in the mouths of the spokesman for the party opposite to argue against the present high rates of interest when we all know that if hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power today they would be pursuing basically the same sort of economic policy as the Government are doing. We know, too, that the Bank Rate and building society mortgage interest rates would be at about the same level if they held power. That is the overall position.
I turn now to the particular position of building societies. Earlier this week I said in the House, and I repeat it now, that the Building Societies Association was precipiate in its decision last week. I want the Government to go back to the Association and invite it to reconsider its decision pending further consideration of a number of proposals which I want to develop.
First, it will become increasingly difficult, when equity investment is so profitable to people into investing in fixed-interest shares. If this is so, we must grapple with the problem of where the building societies will get the funds to provide the capital for those who require new mortgages. I have advanced the proposition that building societies should be empowered to take out a 10 per cent. equity in the value of property on which they are advancing new mortgages. This would mean that the home owner, if his property appreciated and he sells it, would give back to the building society 10 per cent. of the appreciation between the price that he originally paid and the price for which he is selling. This seems fair. I am not arguing that the home owner should not make a capital gain, but he should not keep all the capital appreciation for himself, since, for example, the community has played a part in attaining this betterment.
My second argument is that the building society movement is out of date. I look at the present size of the movement. In 1900, there were 2,200 separate building societies and in 1967 there were
552
still 554; 236 of which have assets of more than £1 million but 254 of which have assets of less than £500,000. The six big societies, the Halifax, Abbey National, Co-operative Permanent, Woolwich, Leeds Permanent and Alliance Building Societies between them have 52 per cent. of the total assets of all societies. This vast proliferation leads to heavy management expenditure.
The staff of building societies, for example, has risen from 9,500 in 1956 to 17,700 in 1967. The number of separate branches in 1967 was 1,542 for societies with assets of more than £1 million. In Victoria Street, not half a mile from the House, there are four separate building society branches competing with one another; that is bound to lead to heavy overheads and administrative costs. In 1967, the accommodation and office expenses of building societies, excluding salaries, amounted to about £8,600,000. In advertising, competing with one another, in 1967 they spent £2½ million.
So there is a strong case for the Government inviting the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to consult with the Building Societies Association and the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies to see whether we cannot get a rapid and considerable amalgamation in the number of building societies.
Mr. John M. Temple: Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that the building society movement has been much more successful than the Government in pulling in savings in the last few years?
Mr. Dickens: This may be so. But I remind the hon. Member that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) argued that one reason for the present difficulties was the substantial withdrawals from building societies in 1968, and he inferred that this money had gone into a so-called spending spree. There was a marginal increase in the volume of retail sales in 1968 as against 1967, but total savings, including savings in equities through unit trusts, markedly increased over the same period. I was greatly surprised that the hon. Member for Worcester, who holds senior positions in the unit trust movement, did not recognise that.
I was coming to amalgamations. In Report No. 22 the National Board for

553
Prices and Incomes, explaining the advantages of amalgamations, said:
"First, amalgamations would help to reduce the tendency towards proliferation of branch offices. Secondly, they would bring the benefit of greater financial security due to a wider geographical spread of borrowers and investors. Thirdly, by enlarging the absolute amount of resources, amalgamations would enable societies to operate with a lower reserve ratio and a lower total of liquid resources …"
That brings me to my third point. It is wrong for building societies to retain reserves at their present level. I should have thought that there was a strong case for the Government guaranteeing these reserves thus allowing a reduction in reserves to enable people to borrow more extensively.
Fourthly, the Government must look to the building societies as a major instrument of social advance in housing and should treat them accordingly. There is a strong case for examining whether or not building societies should be exempt from Corporation Tax, for example, which cost £18 million in 1967–68, and from Selective Employment Tax. I know that my right hon. Friend is hard-pressed to cut taxation and raise public expenditure at the same time, but I submit that there is a special case for treating building societies on these lines.
It is true that my constituents, like home owners throughout the country, will have to pay, if the Building Societies Association's recommendation goes through, a much higher rate of mortgage interest. But let us not forget that for standard rate taxpayers, the effective rate of interest is about 5¾ per cent. It presents people who are home owners today, even with mortgage interest of 8½ per cent., with a good investment mainly because property is appreciating much more rapidly, certainly in London, the South-East and the Midlands, than the annual rate of interest. There is no better investment than property.
When we bear in mind that, in 1967, the taxpayers contributed through the mortgage Income Tax relief about £180 million and that this sum was vastly greater than all the subsidies for local house-building from central Government and for rate subsidies from local authorities themselves for council building, we can see the tremendous benefits which home owners are getting.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In spite of what my hon. Friend says—there is a great deal of wisdom in what he says and the Government should pay close attention to it—in real, practical terms, the percentage increases in mortgage interest rates are pushing away the possibility for many of our people who have been struggling of saving the margin of money between what they can borrow and what houses cost.
Mr. Dickens: That is a valid point and my hon. Friend will remember that, at the beginning of my speech, I not only deplored the fact that this tendency would develop as a consequence of this latest move, with all the implications which that has for private rented accommodation in the London area, but used it as an argument for the Government inviting the Association to reconsider their decision to increase mortgage rates.
I repeat there is no need for this. It is part and parcel of the effect on the Government's social policy of their economic policy at home and abroad. It gives one additional reason for reappraising the rôle of the City of London as a centre for attracting short-term capital movements, and for reviewing the rôle of building societies. I invite the Government to act accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Rafton Pounder: In accordance with Parliamentary custom, I wish at the outset to declare my interest in that I am a director of a building society. I am, therefore, glad to speak following the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) because he made some interesting points.
It has not so far been mentioned in the discussion of building societies and their activities that the building society movement is an integral part of the general savings movement and is not a rival thereof. The paramount purpose of the building society movement is the provision of a service to the community. Despite what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West hinted at, building societies are not profit-making entities in the sense of ordinary commercial undertakings. They provide a service to an evergrowing section of the community—the home owner.
Mr. Dickens: It was part of my case for urging the Government to remove

555
Corporation Tax and S.E.T. from building societies that they are not commercial entities in the normal trading sense. I pointed out that they are fulfilling a special social function and should be regarded in this way for taxation purposes.
Mr. Pounder: I am glad to agree with the hon. Gentleman.
We often forget the small margin of surplus out of which a building society must provide for its management expenses, pay Corporation Tax and other taxation, and also accumulate its reserves. In fact, the margin is only about 1 per cent. and there can be no other category of undertaking which works on such a miniscule margin.
Operating expenses have been rising for the last few years, due to a series of factors, including Corporation Tax and S.E.T. Yet if one studies the various reports of the building societies which are coming out at this time of the year one finds that they have largely been successful in holding down their administrative and management expenses.
The greatest service which the Government could perform to the building society movement would be to alleviate the massive tax burden under which it is currently labouring. Building societies are labouring under an increasingly high composite rate of Income Tax—the rate which has to be paid on dividends to their investors. While four years ago the level was 5s. 5d. in the £, it is now 6s. 5d. in the £, and on top of that has been added the monstrous burden of Corporation Tax at 42½ per cent. This is a crippling burden and it is an illusion to think otherwise.
In support of my remarks I cite the example of the building society with which I am connected. Twenty-five years ago it had assets of £8,000. It now has assets of £5 million. Last year this society paid more than £110,000 in Corporation Tax and Income Tax, and one can imagine the additional number of home loans that could have been provided if that tax burden had not existed. A slowing down of loan finance causes a chain reaction which may effect half-a-dozen or more potential house sales at a time.
It is well known that building societies aim to invest any money that they do not immediately require in interest-yielding
556
securities. By this means additional funds are found to provide loan finance. Yet a liability to Capital Gains Tax arises when these fixed interest securities are realised. To have to pay Capital Gains Tax when one is endeavouring to build up one's reserves is manifestly unfair—all the more so when the imposition is being placed on a non-profit-making organisation whose objective is to provide the community with a service.
I said that building societies are part of the general savings movement. That is true, yet alone among the entire savings movement building societies pay taxation while Trustee Savings Banks are exempt. Why should not building societies be similarly treated? After all, building societies are dealing in terms of investments worth about £8,000 million. If the building society movement were relieved of its tax burden—I have done a rough calculation and while I may not be absolutely correct I am not far from the mark—about 50,000 additional home loans of average amount could be made available annually.
I come to the question of the escalation of house and property prices and values. I do not dissent from the statistical arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), although I was surprised at the average house prices which he quoted. I would have put them higher.
I will speak, however, from my knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland because I am more familiar with what is happening there. Two years ago the average price of a house was £3,000. One could, therefore, get a loan of 95 per cent. on a deposit of £150. Those same houses are now fetching £4,000. There can be no other sphere of investment in which a person can get a profit free of Capital Gains Tax liability of £1,000 in two years, or, expressed another way, an appreciation of 650 per cent. free of tax.
Is it fair that a loan recipient whose funds have been provided by investors should be entitled to flit about collecting substantial short-term tax free capital profit from the house market? I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Lewisham, West raise this point. One must wonder if the time will occur when borrowers will be asked to forgo part of their equity profit to increase the interest levels for investors.

557
This escalation in property values has been caused by the inflationary policies of the Government. There has been a loss of faith in paper money and the belief has grown that bricks and mortar provide the only satisfactory hedge against inflation. However, by raising interest rates the Government sets in train inflationary tendencies which quickly manifest themselves in the house market.
The reason for the 8½ per cent. mortgage rate has been expressed frequently by hon. Members. I regret this increase, but if the Government were to reduce the interest rates, as the Conservatives did, the building societies would follow suit, as was done in 1963. Thus the Government hold the key to this matter.
A great deal of indignation has been generated about the 8½ per cent. mortgage rate, and little wonder. However, it is questionable whether this rate is high enough, bearing in mind the general high level of interest rates currently prevailing. If the financial pundits are correct in their forecasts about further increases in general interest rates in the foreseeable future, the mortgage interest rate could reach 10 per cent. I pray that this will not happen but, on current forecasts, a 10 per cent. mortgage rate is on the cards.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. Joel Barnett: It is one thing to say that the level of interest rates is intolerable. It is another to suggest how they should be reduced. That was the dishonest aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker).
Naturally the mortgage rate is tied to the rate of interest which building societies must give to get their funds and naturally this is all tied to international interest rates. Even if he economy had been running the way in which, for example, I and my hon Friend the Member for Lewisham West (Mr. Dickens) would have liked, with the United States' prime rate at 7½ per cent., it is not easy to see how British building societies could be doing other than offering the sort of rates which they are at present offering. For we also have to pay a higher interest rate than some other countries.
The major reason is that we are a reserve currency. At least the present Government
558
are trying to get us out of that situation, something which the Opposition never attempted to do. Certainly the hon. Member for Worcester did not suggest a way to get us out of the present situation.
I suggest that there are only two ways to deal with our present difficulty. One is to consider the size of building society surpluses, and these involve management and other expenses, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, West, and the other is to provide a subsidy. We may call it a reduction in Corporation Tax or something else, but it would be a subsidy.
According to the 1966 Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, the net surplus available to building societies in 1966 was running at about 6s. 6d. per cent. Thus, even if management expenses were substantially reduced—say, by 10 per cent.—at best that surplus would be increased by 9d. While the reserve ratios of building societies are higher than they need be, as the Prices and Incomes Board pointed out, one cannot reduce the rates of interest charged by using up the whole of the reserve ratio. One can only try to do it by considering the net surpluses of building societies in a given year.
The idea that we should remove the need for that net surplus and have a Government guarantee sounds very attractive, but if we did not increase the net surplus at all, with the increasing assets of building societies, that reserve ratio would be reduced anyway; and if we were to increase the provision of houses to a rate of 500,000, which I hope will be our target one day, we would be increasing the assets by some 13 per cent. and thus running down the reserve ratio very substantially, even with a surplus of 6s. 6d. per cent. Thus, on this question of surplus the best we could achieve if we did away with it altogether and went for the seemingly attractive idea of some kind of Government guarantee would be to reduce the interest rate by only perhaps ¼ per cent.
It is as well that we should look at this and recognise that such a Government guarantee would be, in itself, effectively a subsidy; and it could be a much more costly subsidy than any normal, straightforward subsidy, because by removing the financial discipline from the building

559
societies by giving a Government guarantee, or any kind of guarantee, the cost could be much more than a reduction in the interest rate of ¼ per cent. The loss could be heavy in terms of efficiency and in real terms to building societies if they did not have any kind of financial discipline or any need for a net surplus or ratio of reserves. While, therefore, it sounds attractive to say that we should reduce the interest rate by having no net surplus, and having a Government subsidy, it is clear that that would be no answer.
If we want to do something to help why not an outright subsidy, instead of talking of playing about with cuts in Corporation Tax and net surplus? I am certain that the House would have been interested in the Opposition's views on this but we did not get them and I suppose one should not expect them in a debate of this kind from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester. The provision of decent homes is of vital importance to all of us and therefore the question of a subsidy for their provision in the context of high interest rates is something we should consider. But in talking of any possible subsidy we must bear in mind that we are talking about a subsidy for, say 3½ million mortgage payers. There are in this country something like 17½ to 18 million households so if we are giving subsidies to 3½ million we must consider this whole problem in the context of all home dwellers. This brings me to the question of interest rates and subsidies generally, because council house rents or private rents are in effect interest payments anyway.
Our whole interest structure in this country is in a completely confused mess. There are all kinds of hidden subsidies. From the report of the Prices and Incomes Board we find, even in building society mortgages, that some 32 per cent. of investors are either paying no tax or are paying the lower rate of tax so that they are, in effect, subsidising mortgage payers. The report estimated that mortgage payers are being subsidised in this way to the extent of 1 per cent. in interest terms. The whole system is crazy. It means that some old age pensioners are investing in building societies when they should not be and are thereby subsidising people who are borrowing money for house purchase.
560
As many of us know, there are people able to borrow very substantial sums, even at today's rates of interest, to buy dated gilt-edged stock so as to make quick capital gains whilst the interest is a charge against their Income Tax and Surtax liabilities. There are many aspects of the whole interest structure which need looking at. I would say to my right hon. Friend that we need a general inquiry into the whole facts of the interest rate structure in this country, including interest which is effectively paid by private tenants and council house tenants. That is why I believe that, although a subsidy should eventually be given, in whatever form, whether by reduction in Corporation Tax or otherwise, we should not do so without a complete study of the facts; because the effective rate of interest for standard rate taxpayers is really only 5¾ per cent. and not the 8½ per cent. that is suggested. The real interest rate effectively paid by rent payers must also be studied.
Clearly, something could be done. To achieve a 2 per cent. reduction in interest rate by way of subsidy would not cost a fortune. I estimate that it would cost £120 million gross and that the net cost after allowing for increased tax would be about £70 million. If we include a proper mortgage option scheme affecting everybody along the line the effective rate could come down to as low as 3·9 per cent. and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider those figures. I believe that it can be done. This is the only practical way of helping mortgage payers.
It is a terrible shame that in debates of this kind when people outside are waiting to hear how they could be helped in the field of lower interest rates and lower mortgage payments, we should get speeches like that we have heard from the hon. Member for Worcester. While one can, I suppose, congratulate him on being a newly-wed, we may be sure that other newly-weds who look inquiringly at his speech tomorrow will find nothing in it to help them. It is a pity that the Opposition should have chosen to deal with this important subject in the way they have today.
Mr. Anthony Barber rose—
Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that in raising this point of order I am not prompted by

561
the well-known frustration that is felt by those who may sit in the House for a long time without catching your eye, Sir; but this debate began at five o'clock and the first hour of the debate was occupied by two Front Bench speeches which involved a good deal of political bickering and very little about the subject which concerns most hon. Members. Those were followed by 45 minutes of brief and constructive speeches from back bench Members; and those are now to be followed by a speech of about half an hour from a Front Bench speaker.
You said, Mr. Speaker, that you would try to be elastic. Is not this an intolerable imbalance between the back benches and the Front Benches?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry but this does happen in a half-day debate which is truncated. If the two Front Benches each put in two Front Bench speakers I cannot prevent them.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Is not it a fact, Mr. Speaker, that when you announced the truncation of the debate you said you would look with "elastic eyes"—I believe that that was the term you used—at the clock. If that is so, I had thought we were talking about a much longer period for backbench speakers on this occasion and would ask you whether you would consider calling some more back-bench speakers before speakers from a Front Bench.
Mr. Speaker: I must call a Front Bench speaker when he rises. I am sorry that my next metaphor is catching me up.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Barber: Naturally I sympathise very much with the two hon. Gentlemen who have just raised points of order and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary does, too. The problem is that we have other important business to follow and, whatever you, Mr. Speaker, may decide about the future, perhaps it would be convenient if I were to say a few words now. I know that it is the Chief Secretary's intention, if he catches your eye, to follow me briefly and I will be as brief as I can. I am sorry that I shall not have time to reply to some of the very interesting points made by my
562
hon. Friend for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and the hon. Member for Hey-wood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). But this has been a useful debate.
We started by discussing the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) which is concerned with two matters only: the increasing cost of home ownership and the election pledges of the party opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister virtually ignored both those points and perhaps that was understandable. I propose to concentrate on them because what we have been debating today have been the harsh consequences of the Government's economic policy as it affects more than 3 million people who are buying their homes through building societies.
I suppose that a great many will be able one way or another to make the necessary sacrifices, to tighten their belts somewhat and to cope with the increased charges that are to be made, but, make no mistake, for many what the Government have now achieved will bring tragic hardship and intolerable financial worry. There is no doubt about that. I believe it will also bring bitter resentment against those who deceived them in the past. One is bound to ask, what are the consequences in human terms of the Labour Government's achievement of a mortgage interest rate of 8½ per cent? Many of the 3 million people who in recent years decided to buy their homes through a building society worked out with the utmost care the financial liability they would have to shoulder.
For many of these would-be home owners this was probably the biggest decision they had to take during the early years of their married life. They took it after weeks and sometimes months of anxious consideration. They took it on the strength of what the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers had told them. They took it in the naïve trust and belief that those who now govern us could be relied upon to keep their word. The deception of the home owner was the most effective and most consistent confidence trick which the Prime Minister has played. Just because it was so effective I believe it will never be forgotten by the 3 million who were deceived.

563
We are now told by the right hon. Gentleman and others that if the home owner cannot afford the new rate of 8½ per cent. the period of the mortgage can be extended. Those people we are talking about set out to own their homes. They did not set out to saddle themselves for the rest of their lives with a burden of debt which some of them can never hope to discharge. This is the reality of the situation that we are discussing. Already individual cases of real hardship are becoming known. We have read of some of them recently in the Press. In 1964, when the Labour Party's promises were being spewed out with careless abandon by all and sundry who sit on the Front Bench opposite, a couple who bought a house on mortgage and decided to pay over 25 years would have had the unqualified ownership of that house within their working lives, but of course in 1964 the mortgage rate was 6 per cent. whereas it is now 8½ per cent. With their growing families many of these people simply cannot afford the increased rate of 8½ per cent., and many of these people will never— I mean never—own their homes. In a great many of these cases, because they could not afford the succession of increased rates which have gone on since 1964, the mortgage will not be paid off even within 100 years, and certainly will never be paid off in their lifetime.
I do not know if this is what the Minister meant in his opening speech when he said, "We have a solid record of constructive achievement." This is real hardship for individuals, but there was not a word about it from the Minister. Does he care, or does he not? He said that he was not complacent, but he has not devoted his mind to individual cases of this kind. There he sits sniggering to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does the Chancellor know how this affects individuals?
Now the right hon. Gentleman has given a new and cruel twist to the phrase, "The never, never system". And, on top of all this, no longer can newly married couples turn to local authorities, because in every year since right hon. Gentleman opposite came to office they have cut the sums available for local authority mortgages. The figures are: 1965–66, £191 million; 1966–67, £135
564
million; 1967–68, £130 million; 1968–69, £95 million; and now right down to £30 million. What does this mean? What does it mean for individual local authorities? It means that, as a result, more than half the local authorities with mortgage schemes will be provided with only enough funds to enable them to grant two or three mortgages each.
The Minister said with regard to some areas, "We have stopped the wicked and foolish sale of council houses." The truth is that, not every hon. Member opposite, but there are some in high places in the Labour Government whose vision of a new Britain is still a nation of council house tenants. This is a fundamental difference between the parties.
Hon. Members: Names.
Mr. Peter Mahon rose—
Mr. Barber: I must not give way because I want to end my speech by 7 o'clock.
Even the Government's mortgage option scheme has been turned down by 98 per cent. of those with mortgages. And many of the 4 per cent. who opted for the scheme now bitterly regret the decision they took. It is incredible that the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of these figures, could muster the effrontery to refer to what he called the success of the option mortgage scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) said, it has been a dismal failure. Now we hear from hon. and right hon. Members opposite a complaint that we should never have had a 8½ per cent. mortgage rate if it had not been for other high interest rates. The home owner is entitled to retort that it is a pity that right hon. Members opposite did not think of that in 1964 and 1966.
Many of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members opposite will have read in the newspaper this morning that the Labour candidate at Walthamstow, East told the electors last night that help would come
"as soon as the economy is in the kind of state at which we are aiming."
He can tell that again to the 5,000 home owners in Walthamstow, East! Since this Government have been in office the mortagage interest rate has gone up from 6 per cent. to 6¾ per cent., to 7⅛ per cent., to 7⅝ per cent., and now to 8½ per cent.

565
I am not surprised that the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and others makes not the slightest attempt to rebut the reference in the Motion to Election pledges.
Mr. Bidwell rose—
Mr. Barber: No, I cannot give way— [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."].
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Barber: The Minister went out of his way to refer to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), the 3 per cent. speech. I ignore the right hon. Member for Belper because although the Prime Minister, with typical guile, exploited that speech when it served his purpose during that General Election, he has now dropped the right hon. Gentleman. When the Minister says that this just was not true and that this gave a wholly wrong impression, it suggests that he has forgotten that when the Prime Minister was questioned about that speech he said it had
"highlighted once again the fact that after 13 years of Conservative administration owner occupiers—including myself—are paying 6 per cent."
He went on to give the unequivocal assurance:
"We intend to make a substantial reduction for new owner occupiers and as soon as possible after that to review the position of existing ones and get those rates down too."
The Minister says that he resents the charge of lack of faith and of deceit. The fact is that the Prime Minister again and again and again gave the most specific and unequivocal of undertakings to the nation on this very subject. The Minister referred to none of these. During the election the Prime Minister told the nation this:
"We shall help people seeking to buy a home, and reduce the mortgage payments they have to make."
Again, only a few days later, he said this:
"We believe that the Government should act positively to help owner-occupiers by lowering interest rates."
There were no qualifications or conditions. It was just a blatant political promise calculated to win the election, and it certainly paid off. It was a shocking
566
and cruel deception, a deception which was followed by virtually every right hon. and hon. Member on the Government Front Bench. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite will perhaps now understand why those who are today struggling to keep up their mortgage payments conclude with bitterness that they were duped, and that they were duped by men who cheated their way to office. They will not forget.
7.1 p.m.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I, too, have got but a short time at my disposal. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends and, indeed, all who have contributed to the debate from the back benches will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not attempt to reply in detail to what they have said. I have listened very carefully indeed to the suggestions which have been made. Some of them require very careful thought, as I have indicated on an earlier occasion, and I will certainly give careful thought to them.
I did not attempt myself to interrupt the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), because I realised the pressure of time upon him. I hope, similarly, that the House will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not give way.
I want to deal with the two points which the right hon. Gentleman has again referred to. One was the question of hardship. The other was the question of pledges. In opening the debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government—I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman denied this—went through the party manifesto page by page, referred to all the items dealing with the housing programme, and explained how it was that we had made those promises, what we had done about them, and how we had honestly and faithfully carried them out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can only recommend that all those who are contributing to the general noise but who did not grace us with their company during my right hon. Friend's speech should pay him the courtesy of reading it tomorrow. They will then be able to judge whether what I am saying is right. I would wish to devote myself to the other charge which the right hon. Gentleman made, the charge of hardship.

567
There were two minor charges, in addition. One was that we were not concerned with home ownership but were looking to a nation of council tenants only. This is just the sheerest nonsense having regard to the figures that my right hon. Friend has disclosed. There are far more home owners now than there were when the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister. The proportion of home ownership has grown notwithstanding that the number of houses we have built has been far greater than the number the Tories built. The proportion has grown until now every other family owns their own house. That was not the case under the Tory Government. I am talking about the trend. I am talking about the right hon. Gentleman's curious assertion that our policies lead to a falling number of home owners, not an increasing number of home owners. In fact, it is precisely the reverse, as my right hon. Friend made absolutely clear.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to complain about the reduction in the resources available to local authorities. If these resources were increased, it would mean an increase in public expenditure, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well. However, he complained about the falling resources available to local authorities to lend on to would-be purchasers. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's complaint was that the rate was too high. I thought that he was complaining about the cost, the hardship to the mortgagor in paying the rate. Local authorities are not offering money at any reduced rate. They are offering money at a higher rate than that being charged by building societies. Anybody who wanted to borrow from a local authority would have to pay more to the local authority than he would have to pay to a building society. So how would it solve the problem that the right hon. Gentleman posed of the individual who is suffering hardship because he has to pay 8½ per cent. to a building society if he were called on by a local authority to pay 9 per cent. or even more? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
I want now to turn my attention to the essence of the charge which arises from the Motion, the claim that hardship is being suffered. I do not think that in the short time available I need go over the problems of the building societies
568
themselves, except to say this. They are, as we know, affected by the reality of shortage of funds if they are to carry out their duties. The shortage of funds happened because they are in competition for funds. Because they are in competition they had to raise their rates. We all recognise that.
No hon. Member opposite has suggested that the building societies should have been prevented from doing this. Time and time again when the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister, in answer to Questions from Opposition Members and from his own hon. Friends inquiring if he would interfere with the building societies, he gave the very short and Chief Secretary-like reply, "No, Sir". That was his answer when asked if he would interfere with the building societies. So the Tories are not suggesting that we should adopt any attitude like that.
I want to make it quite clear, not only that the building societies have to compete for funds, but that the present rates which are being charged by building societies are neither out of step with other rates being charged by finance houses for finance, nor out of step with rates obtaining in other countries. Indeed, one hon. Member who is, I think, connected with a building society or is in that field—[Interruption.]—perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I was told he is an estate agent. Anyway, he speaks with great knowledge on these subjects. He said that the rate being offered for mortgages other than by building societies was as high as 15 per cent.
I repeat that the rate being offered by building societies is reasonable in relation to rates being offered elsewhere in Britain, and it is reasonable in comparison with rates being offered in other countries. It is difficult to make a comparison with other countries, but I refer the House to the article in The Guardian of, I think it was, yesterday which summed up the comparison of rates in this country with those in other countries under the title, "Home Loans Worse Abroad". I think that that is a fair statement of the position. The position is that there are rates which are being charged which are reasonable, both internally and externally, but which produce a high monthly instalment. That is the point I wanted to deal with.
Mr. David Crouch rose—
Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman must have heard me respond to his own Front Bench and say that I understood the reason why the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale did not give way and that I would expect the House to acquit me of any discourtesy if, because of shortage of time, I did not give way.
What I want to refer to about the building societies, first, is the increase which has taken place and the remark which one of my hon. Friends made about the timeliness of the increase. Having seen the building societies, I would have expected, having regard to all the facts which they gave me, that they would put up their rates at some appropriate time. I am bound to say that I was a little surprised at the speed with which they reacted. I thought it was a little hasty on their part. I thought that they should have given themselves more time to satisfy themselves that the trend on which they are relying was more established than the present time could have shown. If they had not reacted as they did, as quickly as they did, and if the trend had continued to go against them, they would have had to use their reserves in order to maintain the flow of money at the same rate.
It is an open question whether the building societies should not have dipped further into their reserves. It is an open question because it has been examined by a committee set up by the building societies themselves, and the committee came to the conclusion that the average ratio of liquidity, which is now about 15 per cent. was, if anything, too high. The minimum is 7½ per cent. One would not expect large financial institutions of this kind to go scraping along the bottom and running at a minimum, at all events for a long period; they might have to dip to that momentarily, but it would not improve their financial standing if they were doing it for a long time. But there is a vast difference, or a substantial difference, between 15 per cent. and 7½ per cent. This was one of the matters which I had in mind when, in my statement on Monday, I referred to the possibility of this aspect of the matter being considered
570
once more if, at an appropriate time, there was need for a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Diamond: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I should be guilty of gross discourtesy if, having been unwilling to give way to an hon. Member opposite, I give way to one of my hon. Friends.
I come immediately to the problem of the hardship which is alleged. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman had been here and had listened to the debate, he would have heard my right hon. Friend deal extensively with that, and I am bound to give some attention to what one of my hon. Friends asked when he expressed considerable displeasure at the way in which the Opposition were running the debate. He asked for some solid meat, which I propose to give, and not the kind of puff-pastry which we have had from the Opposition Front Bench.
I shall deal with both aspects of the question of hardship, examining the matter with some care and giving figures to establish the point. The first part of the question turns on increasing cost, and the second part turns on ability to meet the cost.
First, there is the cost of land. This has risen, but has risen less over the past four years than over the previous four years of the Tory Government. The cost of houses I take in terms of new houses and of old houses. The price of new houses has risen by an average annual rate of 7 per cent. In the previous four years, it rose by 7½ per cent. For second-hand houses, the average annual increase in the past four years has been 6·8 per cent. In the previous four Tory years, it was 8·2 per cent. The Tory rate of increase was 20 per cent. higher than ours. That is not a very good starting point for a Motion censuring us.
The explanation cannot lie in a fall in the standard of housing, for, as my right hon. Friend made clear at the outset, more than 90 per cent. of new private houses now carry the National House-Builders Registration Council ten-year guarantee against structural defects, and jerry-building is now virtually a thing of the past.

571
So it is not a question of the quality of the housing.
Having considered the cost of the house and of the and, comparing like with like, I now consider the capacity of a would-be borrower to continue his instalments or to start borrowing. The way to examine this is to take the average existing case—a £3,000 mortgage, spread over 25 years, taken out by an individual with a salary of £1,600 a year. I take £1,600 a year because that is the average income of the borrower from a building society.
At those figures, as the House knows, the instalments have risen. They have risen considerably over the last five years compared with the previous five. But one must consider also the capacity of the borrower to meet the increased instalments. In 1959, the person earning £1,600 now would have been earning about £980, according to the index of salaries. At that salary, the proportion of his monthly repayments in 1959 to his monthly earnings, that is, the burden we are concerned to examine, the hardship of which we have been told, was about 24 per cent. He paid in to his building society instalments about 24 per cent. of his monthly salary. Today, that same man is paying about 18 per cent. of his monthly salary. There has been a drop.
Mr. Peter Walker: Bogus !
Mr. Diamond: I ask the hon. Gentleman to contain himself. He is not a member of the Young Tories now. He may find the figures difficult to digest, but I wish to deal with his allegation and his right hon. Friend's allegation about hardship.
The first point I make is that the comparative cost, the relative cost, of paying the instalments on this house has dropped from 24 per cent. to 18 per cent. That is some of the explanation, though not the whole, of why, in spite of the great hardship, there is, as everyone agreed throughout the debate, a queue of would-be borrowers, of people anxious to submit themselves to even further and more painful hardship.
Mr. Peter Walker rose—
Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to allow me to finish this section of my speech, I shall be glad to give way.
572
I come now to the value of the house. In 1959, on a £3,000 mortgage, it being a 75 per cent. mortgage, the value of the house was £4,000. In April last year, nearly 12 months ago, the latest date for which I have reliable figures, that kind of house was worth £7,360.
In short, the average repayment to the building society has gone up by 20 per cent., the average salary has gone up by about 60 per cent., the percentage spent on the mortgage—the burden which we are considering—comparing the Tory term of office with ours, has gone down by about one-third, and the value of the property has gone up by over 80 per cent.
Mr. Peter Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not realise that the flaw in his figures lies in the three factors which he used? He used the increase in earnings. He used the increase in mortgage repayments But he failed to calculate that the same house had increased in value by 28 per cent. and, therefore, the mortgage necessary would have to have gone up by 28 per cent., too.
Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his argument and wrong in his figures. The house has not risen in value by 28 per cent.; it has risen by 82 per cent., to be precise. I am dealing with the question of hardship on this man who is unable to continue his instalments, and I am pointing out that, as we all know— and as an ex-Tory Minister of Works said in a letter to The Times yesterday—there is no hardship on this man at all.
In short, as my right hon. Friend made clear, the facts are, comparing the Tory achievement with ours, that we have built more houses and we have built better houses. An increasing number of the houses we have built are owner-occupied. The relative cost to the owner-occupier of buying his house has fallen by about a third. In addition, we have lightened the burden by the rates assistance we have given, and the assistance we have given in the scheme to reduce the cost to the small taxpayer by 2 per cent.
In all those circumstances, as our achievement is infinitely better than that of the Opposition, I cannot see how they have the effrontery to criticise us.
Mr. Crouch: On a point of order. We have hardly had a debate at all. There have been eight speakers, only four of them from the back benches, and no intervention was allowed in the last two speeches. It has been an unsatisfactory debate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That comment was made from a different angle earlier
in the afternoon, when I pointed out that it is a truncated debate. On such a half-day, if there are four Front Bench speeches this kind of thing happens.
Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 215.

Division No. 131.]

AYES

[7.23 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Anderson, Donald

Ellis, John

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

Archer, Peter

English, Michael

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Ennals, David

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Ensor, David

Kelley, Richard

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Lawson, George

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Faulds, Andrew

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Barnes, Michael

Fernyhough, E.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Barnett, Joel

Finch, Harold

Lee, John (Reading)

Beaney, Alan

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Bence, Cyril

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

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Loughlin, Charles

Bidwell, Sydney

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Luard, Evan

Binns, John

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Bishop, E. S.

Ford, Ben

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Booth, Albert

Forrester, John

McCann, John

Boston, Terence

Fowler, Gerry

MacColl, James

Boyden, James

Fraser, John (Norwood)

MacDermot, Niall

Bradley, Tom

Freeson, Reginald

Macdonald, A. H.

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Brooks, Edwin

Gardner, Tony

Mackie, John

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Garrett, W. E.

Maclennan, Robert

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Ginsburg, David

McNamara, J. Kevin

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

Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

MacPherson, Malcolm

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

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Buchan, Norman

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Mapp, Charles

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Marks, Kenneth

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Marquand, David

Cant, R. B.

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Carmichael, Neil

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Mayhew, Christopher

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Hannan, William

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Coleman, Donald

Harper, Joseph

Mikardo, Ian

Concannon, J. D.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Millan, Bruce

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Haseldine, Norman

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Crawshaw, Richard

Hattersley, Roy

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Cronin, John

Hazell, Bert

Molloy, William

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Henley, Rt. Hn. Denis

Moonman, Eric

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Heffer, Eric S.

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Henig, Stanley

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Dalyell, Tam

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Hilton, W. S.

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Davidson. Arthur (Accrington)

Hooley, Frank

Moyle, Roland

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Horner, John

Murray, Albert

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Neal, Harold

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Newens, Stan

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

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

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Norwood, Christopher

Davis, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hoy, James

Orbach, Maurice

Delargy, Hugh

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Orme, Stanley

Dell, Edmund

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Oswald, Thomas

Dempsey, James

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

Dewar, Donald

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Hunter, Adam

Padley, Walter

Dickens, James

Hynd, John

Paget, R. T.

Dobson, Ray

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Palmer, Arthur

Doig, Peter

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Driberg, Tom

Janner, Sir Barnett

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Dunnett, Jack

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

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

Pavitt, Laurence

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

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Eadie, Alex

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Edelman, Maurice

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Pentland, Norman

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Sheldon, Robert

Wallace, George

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Watkins, David (Consett)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

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

Weitzman, David

Price, William (Rugby)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Wellbeloved, James

Probert, Arthur

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Whitaker, Ben

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Silverman, Julius

Whitlock, William

Randall, Harry

Skeffington, Arthur

Wilkins, W. A.

Rankin, John

Small, William

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Rees, Merlyn

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Roberts. Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Taverne, Dick

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

Thornton, Ernest

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Tinn, James

Winnick, David

Roebuck, Roy

Tomney, Frank

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Tuck, Raphael

Woof, Robert

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Urwin, T. W.

Rowlands, E.

Varley, Eric G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ryan, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Mr. Ioan L. Evans and

Mr. Neil McBride.

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Eden, Sir John

Lane, David

Astor, John

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

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

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Awdry, Daniel

Emery, Peter

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Fortescue, Tim

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Balniel, Lord

Foster, Sir John

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

Longden, Gilbert

Batsford, Brian

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Lubbock, Eric

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Gibson-Watt, David

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Bell, Ronald

Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

MacArthur, Ian

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

McMaster, Stanley

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Glover, Sir Douglas

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Biffen, John

Glyn, Sir Richard

McNair-Wilson, Patrick

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Maddan, Martin

Black, Sir Cyril

Goodhart, Philip

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Blaker, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

Marten, Neil

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Gower, Raymond

Maude, Angus

Body, Richard

Grant, Anthony

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Bossom, Sir Clive

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mawby, Ray

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Grieve, Percy

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C

Braine, Bernard

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Bromley -Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Miscampbell, Norman

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Monro, Hector

Bryan, Paul

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W)

Montgomery, Fergus

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

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Burden, F. A.

Hastings, Stephen

Murton, Oscar

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Hawkins, Paul

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hay, John

Neave, Airey

Carlisle, Mark

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Llonel

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Channon, H. P. G.

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Chichester-Clark, R.

Heseltine, Michael

Nott, John

Clark, Henry

Hill, J. E. B.

Onslow, Cranley

Cooke, Robert

Hirst, Geoffrey

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Corfield, F. V.

Holland, Philip

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Costain, A. P.

Hordern, Peter

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Peel, John

Crouch, David

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Peyton, John

Crowder, F. P.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Pink, R. Bonner

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Pounder, Rafton

Dance, James

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Price, David (Eastleigh)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Prior, J. M. L.

Dean, Paul

Kershaw, Anthony

Pym, Francis

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

Kimball, Marcus

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kirk, Peter

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Doughty, Charles

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Drayson, G. B.

Lambton, Viscount

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Speed, Keith

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Stainton, Keith

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Wall, Patrick

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Stodart, Anthony

Walters, Dennis

Ridsdale, Julian

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Ward, Dame Irene

Robson Brown, Sir William

Summers, Sir Spencer

Weatherill, Bernard

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Tapsell, Peter

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Royle, Anthony

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

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Russell, Sir Ronald

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Scott, Nicholas

Temple, John M.

Woodnutt, Mark

Scott-Hopkins, James

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Worsley, Marcus

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

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Younger, Hn. George

Silvester, Frederick

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

Vickers, Dame Joan

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Waddington, David

Mr. Jasper More and

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Main Question, as amended, put:—
The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 215.

Division No. 132.]

AYES

[7.32 p.m.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Driberg, Tom

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Anderson, Donald

Dunnett, Jack

Hunter, Adam

Archer, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Hynd, John

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

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

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Eadie, Alex

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Barnes, Michael

Ellis, John

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

Barnett, Joel

English, Michael

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Beaney, Alan

Ennals, David

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Bence, Cyril

Ensor, David

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

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

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Faulds, Andrew

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Bidwell, Sydney

Fernyhough, E.

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

Binns, John

Finch, Harold

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Bishop, E. S.

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Booth, Albert

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Kelley. Richard

Boston, Terence

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Kenyon, Clifford

Boyden, James

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Bradley, Tom

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Lawson, George

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Ford, Ben

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Brooks, Edwin

Forrest, George

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Fowler, Gerry

Lee, John (Reading)

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

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

Freeson, Reginald

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

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

Galpern, Sir Myer

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)

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

Gardner, Tony

Loughlin, Charles

Buchan, Norman

Garrett, W. E.

Luard, Evan

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

Ginsburg, David

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn, P. C.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

McBride, Neil

Cant, R. B.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

McCann, John

Carmichael, Neil

Grey, Charles (Durham)

MacColl, James

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

MacDermot, Niall

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Macdonald, A. H.

Coleman, Donald

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Concannon, J. D.

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Mackie, John

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Maclennan, Robert

Crawshaw, Richard

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Hannan, William

MacPherson, Malcolm

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Haseldine, Norman

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Dalyell, Tam

Hattersley, Roy

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Hazell, Bert

Mapp, Charles

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Marks, Kenneth

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Heffer, Eric S.

Marquand, David

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Henig, Stanley

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hilton, W. S.

Maxwell, Robert

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hooley, Frank

Mayhew, Christopher

Delargy, Hugh

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Dell, Edmund

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Mikardo, Ian

Dempsey, James

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Millan, Bruce

Dewar, Donald

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Hoy, James

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Dickens, James

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn, Anglesey)

Molloy, William

Dobson, Ray

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Doig, Peter

Hughes. Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Rees, Merlyn

Tuck, Raphael

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Urwin, T. W.

Moyle, Roland

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Varley, Eric G.

Murray, Albert

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Neal, Harold

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Newens, Stan

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Wallace, George

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

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

Watkins, David (Consett)

Norwood, Christopher

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Oakes, Gordon

Roebuck, Roy

Weitzman, David

Orbach, Maurice

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Wellbeloved, James

Orme, Stanley

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Whitaker, Ben

Oswald, Thomas

Ryan, John

Whitlock, William

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

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Padley, Walter

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

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Palmer, Arthur

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Silverman, Julius

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Skeffington, Arthur

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Pavitt, Laurence

Small, William

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Spriggs, Leslie

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Winnick, David

Pentland, Norman

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Woof, Robert

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Taverne, Dick

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Price, William (Rugby)

Thornton, Ernest

Mr. Ioan L. Evans and

Randall, Harry

Tinn, James

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Rankin, John

Tomney, Frank

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Hordern, Peter

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Howell, David (Guildford)

Astor, John

Dean, Paul

Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

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

Iremonger, T. L.

Awdry, Daniel

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Doughty, Charles

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Drayson, G. B.

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Balniel, Lord

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Eden, Sir John

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Batsford, Brian

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Kershaw, Anthony

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

Kimball, Marcus

Bell, Ronald

Emery, Peter

Kirk, Peter

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Fortescue, Tim

Lambton, Viscount

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Foster, Sir John

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Biffen, John

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

Lane, David

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Galbraith, Hn T. G.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Black, Sir Cyril

Gibson-Watt, David

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Blaker, Peter

Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Body, Richard

Gilmour, Cir John (Fife, E.)

Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Langstone)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Glover, Sir Douglas

Lloyd. Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Glyn, Sir Richard

Longden, Gilbert

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Lubbock, Eric

Braine, Bernard

Goodhart, Philip

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Goodhew, Victor

MacArthur, Ian

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter

Gower, Raymond

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Grant, Anthony

McMaster, Stanley

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Gresham Cooke. R.

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Bryan, Paul

Grieve, Percy

McNair-Wilson, Patrick

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

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Maddan, Martin

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marten, Neil

Burden, F. A.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Maude, Angus

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mawby, Ray

Carlisle, Mark

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Channon, H. P. G.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Clark, Henry

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Cooke, Robert

Hastings, Stephen

Miscampbell, Norman

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hawkins, Paul

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Corfield, F. V.

Hay, John

Monro, Hector

Costain, A. P.

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Montgomery, Fergus

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Crouch, David

Heseltine. Michael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Crowder, F. P.

Hill, J. E. B.

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Hirst, Geoffrey

Murton, Oscar

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Dance, James

Holland, Philip

Neave, Airey

580

581

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Temple, John M.

Noble, RI. Hn. Michael

Ridsdale, Julian

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Nott, John

Robson Brown, Sir William

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Onslow, Cranley

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Royle, Anthony

Waddington, David

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Scott, Nicholas

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Peel, John

Scott-Hopkins, James

Wall, Patrick

Peyton, john

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

Walters, Dennis

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Silvester, Frederick

Ward, Dame Irene

Pink, R. Bonner

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

Weatherill, Bernard

Pounder, Rafton

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Speed, Keith

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stainton, Keith

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Prior, J. M. L.

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Pym, Francis

Stodart, Anthony

Woodnutt, Mark

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Worsley, Marcus

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Summers, Sir Spencer

Younger, Hn. George

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Tapsell, Peter

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

Mr. Jasper More and

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Resolved,
That this House, recalling the help given by the present Government to home owners through the Option Mortgage Scheme, the Rates Rebate Scheme and the domestic element of the Rate Support Grant and the fact that more houses for owner occupation were built during the last year than in any other postwar year, approves the policies of Her Majesty's Government designed to increase home ownership in all sections of the community.

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1969–70, Vote A
Mr. Speaker: We now come to Vote A of the Defence (Air) Estimates. May I announce, with regard to Amendment to the Motion on Vote A in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), that I cannot forecast whether either of those hon. Members will be successful in catching the eye of the Chair during the debate on Vote A. If either of them is successful, he will have an opportunity of moving that Amendment, as indeed any other hon. Member would.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order. Some hon. Members are under the impression that this debate has to end at 12 o'clock. Can I ask you to confirm that it is the case that, provided the Motion for the suspension of the Ten o'clock Rule is carried, the debate can continue thereafter and there is no particular set time at which it must end?
Mr. Speaker. I cannot foretell the future. All I can say is that on the Order Paper is a Suspension Motion which suggests that the debate might go on "… at this day's Sitting at any hour …".
582
Whether that "any hour" needs to be taken literally will depend on circumstances over which I have no control.
7.44 p.m.
The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move,
That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 118,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.
This is, I know, one occasion when my noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force regrets that he may not stand at this Dispatch Box. For me, however, it is a particular pleasure to handle this Air Estimates Debate at this point in time. Last year was an occasion for looking back with pride on the 50 years of achievement which the Royal Air Force completed on 1st April. This year we can look forward again. And I am sure we can be confident that the Royal Air Force will acquit itself with the same distinction in its vital rôle in the future.
In addition to summarising the position on Air Votes for 1969–70, I propose to deal with four main themes affecting the Royal Air Force—equipment, operational effectiveness, organisation and personnel.
First, a brief word about the money figures themselves. The total of Air Votes for 1969–70 is up on last year. By comparison with the original provision in 1968–69 Estimates, there is an increase of about £38 million. However, we took a Winter Supplementary for an extra £9,500,000, so, by comparison with the adjusted total, the increase is about £28,500,000. If pay and price increases

583
are discounted, the increases in real terms are £13,500,000 as compared with the original Estimates, and £4 million as compared with the revised Estimates.
The greater part of the increase is on Vote 7, the Vote which covers all the Royal Air Force's production requirements, and this is accounted for by the major aircraft re-equipment programme on which the Government embarked a few years ago. Payments for British aircraft will be higher next year, as will payments under Subhead 7H for the American Phantom and Hercules aircraft purchased under the credit arrangement. The provision under this subhead is based on the assumption that all the progress payments falling due in 1969–70 will be covered by credit, but I should mention that the existing credit arrangement does not take us beyond the end of the current American fiscal year, that is 30th June, 1969. We hope to have discussions shortly with the American authorities about our credit requirements for the following fiscal year.
I think that only two of the other Votes call for special comment. On Vote 1, there is a reduction of £3,250,000, which reflects the lower personnel numbers, mainly resulting from the general rundown in the size of the Force, following the decision to withdraw from east of Suez. On Vote 9, covering pensions and gratuities, there is a reduction of £3,500,000 because we expect to have to release rather fewer men this year under the redundancy scheme.
Now to the first of my main themes— equipment. I do not intend to dwell too long on this this afternoon—partly because I spoke at some length in last week's defence debate about the position on combat aircraft, both as regards the re-equipment starting in the coming year with Phantoms, Harriers, Buccaneers and Nimrods, and as regards the Jaguar and the multi-rôle combat aircraft of the future; and partly because I have a lot of other ground to cover as well.
There are, however, several other important future projects which will make their contribution to the Royal Air Force's capabilities and of which I must make brief mention.
There are, for example, two missile projects—Rapier and Martel. From 1972,
584
when delivery of Rapier to the Royal Air Force will begin, it will be operated by the R.A.F. Regiment and will provide defence against low-level air attack. Martel is, as hon. Members will remember, another project which we are undertaking with France, we expect it in service in 1971. This is an advanced stand-off weapon, that is to say, it is launched some way from the target, while the launching aircraft remains outside the range of the defences. It is being developed in two forms—the anti-radar version, and the television version, which is controlled visually through its television guidance system. The weapon is designed to have a very high order of accuracy, and will be used by the Nimrod and Buccaneer.
The Royal Air Force also has SA.330 helicopters on order. This project is part of the Anglo-French helicopter package deal; the package consisting of the SA330, which is where the R.A.F.'s main interest lies, and the SA340 and WG13 helicopters. Deliveries of the SA330 to the R.A.F. were due to start in 1970–71. The R.AF will employ it in tactical support of the Army.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 28th February, the hon. Gentleman said in reply to a Parliamentary Question that it was not the normal practice to reveal unit costs of aircraft like the SA330 and the SA340. Will he explain why not? Are there good reasons for this?
Mr. Morris: As I explained to my hon. Friend in the answer that I gave on that occasion, it is not the practice traditionally to reveal details of this kind or of the ranges of weapons of the forces. This practice has been in existence for a long time, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware of the reasons for it.
Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was dealing with the SA330. The Royal Air Force will employ it in tactical support of the Army. In this rôle it will operate beside the Wessex, although compared with the latter it has a much improved performance. Of particular interest is the fact that the SA330 has been designed to be air-portable and can be prepared for deployment by air, and reassembled at the other end, much more quickly than our existing helicopters.

585
Having mentioned a new helicopter to be used in the transport rôle, it would be wrong if I did not remind hon. Members that, with the completion of deliveries of the Hercules and the buildup of the Belfast force, the general re-equipment of the R.A.F's transport forces which has been in progress now for the last few years, will then be complete.
So, with four fine new combat aircraft, with the re-equipment of the transport force virtually complete, and with a number of new projects still to come, the Royal Air Force is in a healthy state to start its second half century.
The Royal Air Force is acquiring further responsibilities as well as new equipment; this year it will start taking over the tasks of maritime air defence and strike, and it will assume these in their entirety by 1972 when the carrier force phases out. Maritime support is not new to the Royal Air Force, but it recognises its great responsibilities to the Royal Navy when the carriers will be out of service. Much planning and discussion are already taking place between the two Services to ensure smooth and ready co-operation. The R.A.F's first Phantoms and Buccaneers will give new impetus to training with the Royal Navy on air defence and strike operations in support of the Fleet, so that, when the carriers go, the support that the R.A.F. can offer in these areas will be in the fine tradition established by the Fleet Air Arm.
Mr. Patrick Wall: Will the Minister explain how these aircraft can support the Fleet or convoys which are well out of range of land bases?
Mr. Morris: We have on several occasions traversed this ground. We have gone into it at Question Time and during debates, and I do not think that I can add anything to what we have discussed this year and last year in some detail, as the hon. Gentleman will recall.
Turning now to the second of my main themes, I should like to pay tribute to the high standards of operational effectiveness which the Service achieves with its present aircraft.
The Royal Air Force has a highly-developed capability for mobility and
586
speed of deployment, which are of the essence of air power. This capability will be further developed as new aircraft are brought into service but, meanwhile, "V"-bombers, Canberras and Lightnings continue to contribute a formidable strike and air defence force which can be rapidly deployed both in and beyond the N.A.T.O. area, whenever we may have a part to play in deterring or facing aggression.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend say to what extent the Royal Air Force has co-operated in the operation in Anguilla? What aircraft of the Royal Air Force were used, and will he give an idea of the cost?
Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has raised the issue of the Caribbean. As he will recall, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs this afternoon made a full statement about the Anguilla operation, and I do not think he will expect me to deal with the broader aspects of that in my speech on the Air Estimates.
While I cannot, and he does not expect me to, give figures of what exactly is involved, I can tell him that what has been done today underlines the fact that this operation is yet another demonstration that we have at our disposal an effective general capability, based on a powerful air transport force, which enables us to deploy forces with great speed and at short notice to remote parts of the world. He does not expect me to fill in the details of what was employed in this operation.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: Why not?
Mr. Morris: This operation, as the hon. Member knows, has taken place during today. We have had from the Foreign Secretary a report of what has happened to date, and I do not think it would be right for me now to spell out in detail the strength of the forces and the type of aircraft used.
Mr. Lubbock: What possible harm would there be in giving the House the information which the hon. Gentleman has asked for? What aircraft were involved in the operation? There cannot be any security reasons for withholding the information.
Mr. Morris: I have dealt with the general issue of what has been done today as an indication of the use of our general capability. I will consider during the debate whether it would be right for me to spell out the details of what exactly was involved. Traditionally, ranges and costs are not given, and I would like to consider how far I can do this. This operation has taken place only within the last few hours, but if I can fill in further details I will seek to accommodate hon. Members.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry to press the point. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give exact details, but surely when our finances are in such difficulty, to put it mildly, the Royal Air Force must get an approximate estimate of the cost of operations such as this. I want only an approximate estimate of what it will cost to take the troops there.
Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend is asking his question while the operation is continuing. It would be much more advantageous, if this figure can be given, if he were to ask it after the operation has been completed. I will during the debate consider what material can be given within a matter of hours after the operation has taken place. I do not know if it would be right and proper for me to do so, but if I can, I will, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance.
Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman has said that the operation is continuing. Surely there will not be a need for reinforcements?
Mr. Morris: The hon. Member knows exactly what I am saying. He is being frivolous, and he knows it.
If I may be allowed to continue, we have recently had a first-class example of the R.A.F.'s mobility in Exercise Piscator. The purpose of this exercise was to reinforce the Royal Air Force in Singapore with ten Lightning fighters from No. 11 Squadron, which is stationed at Leuchars in Scotland. The first pair of aircraft covered the 8,000 miles journey in three days: they left Scotland on 6th January and arrived in Singapore on the 8th. All the aircraft were in the Far East by 11th January. The total flying time of each aircraft was about 17 hours. This very rapid deployment
588
was made possible by the use of a force of tanker aircraft. On the outward journey, each Lightning was refuelled twelve times in flight and, in consequence, had to land only twice during the flight— at Bahrein and Gan.
This journey to Singapore was completed in two days less than was taken by the only previous deployment of a Lightning force of this size from the United Kingdom to the Far East, and in an emergency we could cut down on this still further and get the same number of aircraft there using the same tanker force in four days.
When the aircraft got to Singapore, the force was turned round immediately and was ready for operational flight within an hour of completing the journey from the United Kingdom. The Lightnings stayed in the Far East for a month, and during this time they undertook operational training with the resident Lightning Squadron. They returned to the United Kingdom at the beginning of February.
We plan to carry out similar exercises in the future.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that, after 17 hours' continuous flight, the pilots would have been ready within an hour to enter into engagement?
Mr. Morris: No. I was saying that the aircraft, in terms of flying time, took the time which I have specified to fly there. But it was staggered over a number of days. From the time that the whole flight was there, the force was ready to operate within the hour that I have mentioned, if it were necessary. I am indicating the general capability that we have, and this is an illustration of it.
While paying tribute to the operational efficiency of the Service for which my noble Friend has particular responsibility, I should not forget the Meteorological Office, the cost of which is borne on Air Votes, though it gives a service to the whole community. I know of the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) in this area.
In 1968, the number of inquiries for weather forecasts, warnings and other services from the public and industry rose by 11 per cent. to a new record total of 1·4million. Inquiries from agriculture

589
rose by 22 per cent., from the building industry by 18 per cent. and from surface transport by 13 per cent. A new service of particular value to shipping has been the introduction on a routine basis of weather routing for vessels using the North Atlantic. Over 100 ships have been routed during the year, and considerable success has been achieved in diverting them from the areas of worst weather, with consequent savings in time, fuel and damage to ships and cargoes. Climatological investigations in connection with problems of agriculture, hydrology, civil engineering, building and roads have also increased.
Mr. John Ellis: It is clear from the figures that the vast amount of money spent by the Meterological Office is directly for Service use. However, it also saves the country many millions of £s, especially in terms of agriculture. In view of that, should we not consider spending more on these branches of the service?
Mr. Morris: The Meteorological Office serves the whole community, and the figures which I have given indicate the growing use of its services by the various sections of the community. As regards the financing of it and responsibility for it, if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Gourlay, I am sure that on the basis of his interest and experience he will develop the point. I am prepared to try to deal with what he has to say in the course of my winding-up speech.
I now turn to the tasks of organising and modernising the Royal Air Force so that it obtains maximum advantage from its new aircraft and weapons and can best fulfil its rôles in the 1970's— rôles which reflect our withdrawal from east of Suez and the increasing predominance of our N.A.T.O. commitments and the European theatre.
First, organisation, the third of my main themes. The streamlining of the Royal Air Force's Command struture in the United Kingdom continued last year. Bomber and Fighter Commands merged to form Strike Command on 30th April, 1968, and Signals Command became part of the same Command as No. 90 Signals Group, on 1st January this year. Flying Training and Technical Training Commands combined to form a unified Training Command on 1st June, 1968; as a
590
result, we were able to disband No. 25 Group on 1st July. The number of R.A.F. Commands in the United Kingdom has thus been reduced from eight to five, and will be further reduced to four when Coastal Command becomes part of Strike Command. As the former Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force explained in last year's Air Estimates debate, the revised Command structure will provide the streamlined system of operational control, required by the Royal Air Force of the 1970's; it will also enable us to achieve savings of at least £1½ million a year.
Further progress has been made with our policy of concentrating Royal Air Force units on the smallest number of stations consistent with R.A.F. requirements, and, when possible, with regional economic planning interests, and of closing those less well-equipped stations for which we have no further use. We have decided to carry out navigation, air electronics and air engineering training at a Combined Aircrew Training School to be established at Royal Air Force Finningley; this will enable us to close two R.A.F. stations and substantially to reduce a third. In addition, we have decided that, with the contraction of the Royal Air Force, we no longer need to retain as many as four equipment supply depots and that the one at Hartlebury should be closed. As a result of these changes, we shall achieve savings of £2½ million a year.
We continue to take full advantage of the use of computer techniques. The Meteorological Office has begun a major programme of modernisation and automation. The Supply Control Centre at Hendon is the hub of the R.A.F.'s automatic data processing system for the control, the provisioning and the distribution of equipment throughout the Service. The computer control system was brought into operation in January, 1966, and more than half the total inventory of R.A.F. stores is now under computer control—some 530,000 items out of a total of 900,000.
How does this affect storekeeping personnel at a Royal Air Force station? The airman storekeeper no longer has to prepare umpteen copies of demand forms for items of equipment which are under computer control—for example, spares for airframes and aero engines,

591
Normal replenishment of station stocks is done automatically by the computer as stores are consumed by the squadrons. Urgent requirements are notified to the Supply Control Centre at Hendon, where the computer determines where the stocks are held and arranges to make the issue.
Army aviation stores are now provisioned under R.A.F. arrangements, and, when fixed-wing operational flying by the Fleet Air Arm comes to an end, naval air stores will also be integrated with R.A.F. air stores. We shall then be able to rationalise the provisioning, stock control and stock holding of air stores for all three Services.
We are making plans to introduce a next-generation replacement computer for the R.A.F. Supply Control Centre, and we shall exploit the use of automatic data processing in the supply organisation to maximum advantage. As a complementary part of the centralised computer system, computer control has been introduced in the equipment supply depots. These will also provide modern automatic data processing methods for dealing with such depot tasks as storage and issue of equipment.
This comprehensive computer control system will enable us to improve the accuracy of provisioning and stock control, to improve supply effectiveness—by meeting demands for equipment more quickly—and to prepare more detailed costing information. Improved supply support to units is already apparent, and this and the other benefits will increase as we advance to complete computer control of all stores.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am very interested to hear about this extremely important development. However, before moving forward to new computer techniques in storage for the R.A.F., would the hon. Gentleman examine the system in use in the American Strategic Air Force, especially the one which exists at Mildenhall, in my constituency, where he will find some extremely important advances which are well worthy of examination before embarking on new systems for the R.A.F.?
Mr. Morris: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. In my previous post, I acquainted myself a good deal with the computer systems of the coal,
592
oil and power industries. I have seen some of the systems of the Services. I have not seen anything nor have I been told anything of the one referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
Some 500 non-industrial posts have already been saved as a result of these computers at the depots, and, with the introduction of modern storage methods there, we expect to save some 500 industrial posts during the coming year.
We have also recently completed the transfer of 100,000 airmen's personal and pay records and personal records for 20,000 officers to a computer at the Royal Air Force Records and Pay Office at Gloucester. These accurate records are now readily available for a variety of purposes, including manpower allocation, career management, pay matters, and statistical information for manpower and establishment forecasting. This project, which has aroused great outside interest and has taken us ten years to develop from feasibility studies to full operation, is a highly sophisticated aid to management and will result in greatly increased administrative efficiency. Much clerical drudgery will be eliminated and there will be a reduction of some 700 Service and civilian staff. While the Service will benefit considerably as a whole from this speedy and efficient source of precise data. I must, of course, stress that the all-important decisions which affect an airman's career as an individual will continue to be taken by a Royal Air Force officer, warrant officer, or senior N.C.O., and not by a machine. The employment of computer on routine calculations will, in fact, enable even greater care to be taken of this aspect.
At the same time, the next stage in the employment of this advanced system is already being planned. The Royal Air Force intends to develop the use of the store of personnel data held in this pay and records computer for long-term planning and forecasting of the manpower requirements of the Service as a whole.
Now, at last, I have reached the fourth of my main themes, that of personnel. I want to pay particular attention to this this evening.
The Statement on the Defence Estimates reminds us that, with the reorientation of our defence policy completed, the Armed Forces can look forward to a period of stability and progress.

593
Dependant as we are on an all-regular volunteer force, we cannot relax our efforts to ensure that the Royal Air Force will have officers, airmen and airwomen in the quality and numbers it needs.
As regards the picture in 1968, recruitment of officers for aircrew duties was good, although towards the end of the year there were signs of a decline in interest; the targets for feeding pilots and navigators into training were met, and internal recruiting of serving noncommissioned aircrew provided the relatively small numbers required for training as air electronics and air engineer officers. The number enlisted during the year as N.C.O. aircrew, however, was barely satisfactory, and most of those recruited were serving as airmen in ground trades. There was a particular shortage of trainees as air electronics operators, which possibly reflects the somewhat higher standard of academic qualification that we require for this category.
In general, officer recruiting to the ground branches, for both the Royal Air Force and the Women's Royal Air Force, showed a slight improvement over the previous year, but we are still experiencing difficulty in recruiting professionally qualified men, especially for the Engineer and Medical branches, where a considerable shortfall persists. I shall come back to the problem of officer recruiting a little later, as it is a subject to which we have devoted a great deal of thought; but I should just say now that we expect to have available within a few months the results of a study of the possible need to make changes in the officer career structure.
During the year, we continued to make vigorous efforts to recruit airmen to the various ground trades of the Royal Air Force. The programme of reorganisation of the Careers Information Service continued, and we lost no opportunities of taking space at shows and exhibitions throughout the country with the help of large trailers. Nevertheless, increasing competition from industry—including the effects of the Industrial Training Act— resulted, in the first part of 1968, in a fall in the level of recruitment. However, by seizing every possible chance of putting the Royal Air Force before the public and by capitalising to the maximum extent on the 50th anniversary publicity—and here I would pay particular tribute to
594
the valuable rôle played by the Press, radio and television—this adverse trend was halted, and since August recruiting figures have shown some improvement. The situation is still far from ideal, and there are serious shortages in some trades, but the rate of enlistment in some others has shown a great improvement.
I am happy to say that the recruitment target for engineering technician apprentices was largely met, and we considerably increased our intake of craft apprentices, although their numbers were insufficient to meet an increased requirement. It was not possible to enlist sufficient administrative apprentices, however.
I am sorry to say that the number of airwomen recruited to the W.R.A.F. was lower last year than in 1967, but again there was an improvement towards the end of the year. Although we obtained a satisfactory number of student nurses for Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service, the number enlisting as state enrolled nurses was disappointing.
The retention of trained men is vital to maintain experience levels and to man the force, especially in times of recruitment difficulties, and I therefore welcome, as I am sure the House does, the satisfactory number of applications for re-engagement. Nevertheless, we have to keep a balance in each trade in the age and rank structure to ensure a healthy promotion flow, which bears comparison between trades. This balance is controlled by selection boards operating against re-engagement quotas for each trade. The system is having a significant impact in correcting imbalances which existed previously.
Extensions of service have increased in comparison with previous years, although there is a tendency to accept commitments for shorter periods of service where there is a choice—for example, extensions from five years to nine years rather than to twelve.
We continue to seek to improve our methods of training, and new methods of visual presentation, including closed-circuit television, programmed instruction and the use of video-strips, are constantly being introduced. We pride ourselves on an apprentice scheme that offers a first-class course of instruction, but we are also increasing the opportunities for both

595
men and women entrants to receive training in skilled trades. This will improve their value to the Service and their individual career prospects.
I turn now to the all-graduate direct entry scheme and the future of Cranwell.
In the field of officer recruiting and training, one major and significant change in policy of which hon. Members are already aware is that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration announced on 20th December last, the Royal Air Force has decided as a basic policy that all direct entrants to the General List of the main officer branches of the Service must have a degree or equivalent basic qualification.
I should like to devote a few minutes to explaining the reasons behind this change of policy and the way in which it will be implemented. I think that it might be of some assistance to the House.
It has become clear, I think, to all three Services in the last two or three years that our future permanent officers will increasingly require a high level of general education if they are to cope successfully with the ever more complex problems of defence, involving, as they do, contacts with industry, commerce, the universities and the other professions outside. At the same time, it is becoming clearer and clearer that with the growing opportunities for university education the good quality boy whom we have hitherto recruited through Cranwell will be reluctant to forgo the advantages of a university education which will be available to his contemporaries.
It is for these reasons that we have decided upon an all-graduate direct entry scheme. Because of the demands of flying training, it is desirable that a Royal Air Force officer should have completed his general education before he starts upon his flying training course. For this reason, we have decided that the degree course should be completed before entry into the Service, and we have also decided that the sensible thing to do is to utilise the resources of the civilian universities and colleges rather than attempt to set up our own degree courses within the Service. We shall hope to get our graduate entrants partly by recruiting direct from the universities and colleges and partly by greatly extending the university cadetship
596
scheme under which suitable boys are sponsored through their university course by the Royal Air Force.
But this new policy does not mean— and I repeat this—it does not mean that there will be no place in the Royal Air Force for the able young man who does not want or, for some reason or other, cannot get, a university place. He will continue to be able to come into the Royal Air Force as at present on a Supplementary List commission from which there will be very good opportunities to transfer to a permanent commission. The R.A.F. will continue to be a Service open to the talented from every source.
The new all-graduate direct entry policy will, of course, have profound consequences for Cranwell. With the disappearance of the traditional cadet entry in favour of a graduate entry, Cranwell will cease to be a cadet college. It will instead become the post-graduate and professional training college of the Royal Air Force. It is our intention that all graduate entrants will come into Cranwell for their basic officer and professional training. At the same time, we are examining plans for moving in other branches of officer training, with the object of using to the full the excellent facilities at Cranwell.
The new policy is already in full swing. Wherever possible, those boys who were due to enter Cranwell have already been diverted to universities or colleges to take their degrees. In the interim, those cadets entering Cranwell who are able and willing to go to a university will be given a special academic course to assist them to obtain university places after one year at Cranwell. We have taken special steps to ensure that those boys who nevertheless elect to stay at Cranwell for the full present course will not suffer in their career compared with the others, and they will follow the traditional cadet course.
Provided that graduate entries build up as planned, it is our intention that the October 1970 cadet entry into Cranwell will be the last cadet entry and that, allowing for engineering cadet entries, by 1975 Cranwell will have turned over completely to post-graduate training.
I need hardly say—I am sure the whole House is aware of this—that we are embarking upon a bold policy. We believe

597
it, nevertheless, to be the right one, and we have been much fortified by the immense support which we have been given by those connected with education outside. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force has written individually to the vice-chancellor of every university, to the principals of the colleges of technology and to the headmasters of public schools and grammar schools. The overwhelming response has been in favour of our proposals. I know that the House will wish us well in our policy.
Mr. Lubbock: What about comprehensive schools?
Mr. Morris: I am not sure that all the individuals were written to personally, or whether the associations were written to, but my noble Friend attempted, in the way I have set out, to contact each person responsible for an educational establishment. If I have not covered the matter comprehensively, I apologise.
I should like to touch on the University Air Squadrons. The House will be aware that for many years the Royal Air Force has had these squadrons established in most of the larger universities. Their purpose is basically to link the Royal Air Force with the university world and at the same time to give as many undergraduates as possible an opportunity to fly with the R.A.F., with the obvious hope that some of them will ultimately want to come into the Service.
In practice, over the years, we have been lucky enough to have a steady flow of high quality entrants from the air squadrons, and many of them have subsequently made their mark in the Service. As we have repeatedly made clear, the Royal Air Force has a growing need for good quality graduates in all its branches and the importance of the University Air Squadrons remains undiminished.
Nevertheless, as part of the general search for economy in our defence effort, we have thought it right to look at the University Air Squadrons to see whether they can be made even more cost-effective. As a result of very careful examination, we have come to the conclusion that we could and should make a number of changes which will have the effect of saving ultimately about £400,000 a year. The main ones are,
598
first, to restrict the initial period of flying membership to two years, with only a small proportion being allowed to stay on for a third year. This will allow us to make some reductions in the establishments of the squadrons. As part of this process, we have amalgamated the Edinburgh and St. Andrews University Air Squadrons, and the Hull and Leeds Squadrons, to form two large squadrons. Second, we are making some changes in the flying syllabus, thus enabling us to reduce the number of flying hours per member without, however, affecting the overall value of the training. Finally, since we hope that membership of the squadrons will become even keener, we are abolishing the entitlement to pay and allowances. Members will continue, however, to be eligible for an annual bounty and, of course, to receive out-of-pocket expenses.
These changes do not in any way reflect any slackening of our interest in the squadrons or the universities. As I have said, and as the House already knows from other statements, our need for graduates is going up, and the University Air Squadrons have therefore an increasingly important part to play.
I turn from undergraduates to other young people. Hon. Members will recall that the former Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force referred in his speech last year to the work of the Committee, set up under Air Marshal Sir Douglas Morris, to review the whole organisation, administration and training of the Air Training Corps. It made a searching examination of all aspects of the A.T.C. with the object of fitting it to meet the needs of the 1970s. It made some 30 recommendations, of which perhaps the most important was a proposal that the corps should be reorganised on a regional basis, with a regional commandant and regional headquarters in each region, similar to the organisation which already exists in Scotland. The Committee's conclusions were discussed fully with the representatives of the Air Training Corps itself, and following that we started to implement the various recommendations. I am glad to say that we have made very substantial progress and already the results are beginning to show themselves in the corps. In the past 12 months, the cadet strength has risen from 28,000 to

599
just over 31,000, and there is every indication that this trend will continue.
As I have said, the core of the Morris Committee's most valuable report was the proposal to reorganise the A.T.C. on a regional basis, and the successful implementation of many of its other recommendations depends basically upon this particular piece of reorganisation. All the new regional commandants are already in post and the organisation is expected to be fully operational by the middle of April.
Other recommendations which have already been implemented include a reduction in the minimum age limit for cadets, improvements in the scales of accommodation, the introduction of new training syllabi and the introduction of an increased training and administrative grant.
Naturally, we are anxious to combine these improvements with a reasonable degree of stability, and therefore some of the recommendations—for example, the reduction in the upper age limit for officers—will be implemented only very gradually, as and when officers come to the end of their normal periods of service.
I make no excuse for emphasising once again the importance which the regular Air Force attaches to the well-being of the Air Training Corps. Many hundreds of ex-A.T.C. boys join the Royal Air Force each year and provide an extremely valuable entry of the high quality which we shall continue to need for as long as we can foresee. At the same time, the corps is providing a youth training service, with a measure of discipline which is increasingly valuable. Like the other cadet forces, the A.T.C. is basically run by voluntary, unpaid effort and I am sure that the House would wish to join me in thanking all those who carry out this sterling work on our behalf.
My treatment this evening has inevitably been selective, but from it hon. Members will, I hope, have realised the tremendous efforts which the Royal Air Force has made and is making to ensure that its record in its next half century will justify the same pride as does that of its first 50 years. Those efforts deserve to succeed. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will
600
be proud to play whatever part they can in ensuring that success.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. F. V. Corfield: I suppose that after the Minister's speech I ought to be feeling an outsize inferiority complex, being a mere product of the Royal Military Academy, but, looking at the benches opposite, I do not.
I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish wholeheartedly to be associated with the Minister's confidence that the Royal Air Force can be completely relied on in the next 50 years to carry out its duties with the same loyalty, gallantry, and efficiency that it has in the past. Indeed, it is due to these virtues in all our Services that we are here today. It is also due to them perhaps that we have the less exciting duty year after year of listening to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).
When the Secretary of State for Defence wound up the debate on the Defence White Paper on 5th March he concluded with the warning that
"… once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]
Those are dramatic words, but they express a sentiment which I think will be echoed by everyone on my side of the House, and they are words which identify the question that is, and must be, central to the issues that we discuss in these annual debates on the Defence White Paper and the Service Estimates.
That question is quite simply this: what is the minimum level of our Armed Forces at which it can reasonably be said that our security is not imperilled? That, after all, is what these annual debates are essentially about, although, of course, it is the duty of the Government to achieve that level with the maximum economy, just as it is the duty of the Opposition to probe and question their account of their stewardship. But if a reduction in defence expenditure imperils our security there can be no economy, for if, in the words of the Secretary of State, the result is a pile of cinders, then defence expenditure is a defenceless extravagance.

601
This is the crux of the matter. Is the level at which our Armed Forces are currently maintained, or planned for the immediate future, above the threshold below which, as the Secretary of State put it, our security is imperilled? The evidence that it is is sadly lacking. The arguments which the Government have employed cast doubt rather than give reassurance, and increase rather than allay anxiety.
What is abundantly clear is that the Government have not even set out to determine the minimum level of defence consistent with reasonable security, and then to provide the requisite forces as efficiently and as economically as possible. All the evidence of successive White Papers, of successive pronouncements by Ministers, and in particular by the Secretary of State for Defence as he abandons one final curtailment after another, is that they have done precisely the opposite. Setting this wholly arbitrary reduction in costs, they have proceeded to argue that the forces which that enables them to supply must necessarily be adequate for our security. If that were so, it would be a coincidence far too unlikely to be accepted by any reasonable person in the absence of evidence that is irrefutable, and argument that is convincing, and neither of these is noticeable in the Government's case so far.
But there are other causes of anxiety. As the Secretary of State himself has said, "We must avoid isolating the military problem from the political context in which it is presented in real life". That is precisely what the Government are doing. That N.A.T.O. should be able to prolong the conventional phase of military aggression in Europe sufficiently to allow time for last-minute diplomatic effort to avoid a nuclear holocaust is clearly a worthy objective, but at a time when N.A.T.O. has been abandoned by France and when the United States is heavily committed elsewhere, on what ground does the Secretary of State believe that that objective is currently obtainable?
Faced with the ever-increasing potential of the Warsaw Pact Powers—which, we are told in the Defence White Paper, have over 1 million men in air forces and strategic rocket forces—it is difficult to accept that the marginal extra contribution
602
which Britain is making to N.A.T.O. could lengthen a conventional struggle sufficiently, by days rather than hours, to mount such a diplomatic offensive which, in the nature of the situation, would have to be built on the ashes of diplomatic failure.
Whatever may be the changes in military thinking, no responsible body of opinion denies, or is likely to deny, the supreme importance of command of the air in time of war. It is worth reminding ourselves from time to time that in none of the operations in which British and American forces have been engaged since the last war has command of the air ever been in doubt. It was the key to the six-day war in the Middle East. It would be a brave man indeed who would speculate on the outcome of any of those operations, let alone on their cost, had that not been the case.
In the European theatre it is both right and necessary to look to N.A.T.O. rather than to the British contribution alone. I do not think that anyone with an appreciation of the enormous cost of modern defences would contemplate an effective all-round defence of Britain alone. Here at least we can not only agree with but applaud the Government in expressing their determination to strengthen the Alliance.
However, it is not particularly reassuring to learn from the Military Balance, 1968–69, published by the Institute of Strategic Studies, that the Warsaw Pact countries probably have more than twice as many tactical aircraft in operational service as N.A.T.O. The figures given are 8,130 on the one hand and 3,750 on the other. A recent report of the United States Senate Preparedness Investigating Sub-Committee confirms that superiority, although the Sub-Committee believes that N.A.T.O. probably has a qualitative advantage over the Warsaw Pact countries in aircraft primarily designed for the strike rôle; or, as the Americans put it, aircraft having as their primary mission
"… the air to ground delivery of ordnance".
Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
Mr. Corfield: No. I will not give way.
That Sub-Committee appears to have little doubt that, in terms of the number

603
of "interceptors and air-superiority aircraft", the latter have a "substantial majority". Ominously the report adds:
"If the airspace is not controlled, the tactical aircraft designed for air to ground rôles will be relatively ineffective."
Only the Phantom is considered to equal, though not to be superior to, the MIG21 in air combat, and this Sub-Committee believes that the Soviet Union has already flown a number of aircraft more advanced in type than the MIG21.
Three fundamental requirements seem to follow from this state of affairs. First, the R.A.F.'s imperative need for a genuine all-weather multi-rôle aircraft as opposed to a short-range day strike aircraft; in short a multi-rôle combat aircraft of the right specification. That includes terrain-bombing capabilities such as were disastrously thrown away with the TSR2. Secondly, it implies the continuing need for research so that the quality of the equipment in the R.A.F. and other N.A.T.O. air forces keeps pace with Soviet advances and ensures a reasonable chance of survival in time of war. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, is the overriding need for continued United States commitment in Europe.
In none of these spheres can the Defence White Paper, the Estimates or the speeches and actions of Ministers be regarded as reassuring. I do not doubt that the concept of co-operation with our European allies in the manufacture of military aircraft is sound. It has many potential advantages which I need not recapitulate, but we should not underestimate the difficulties and dangers; and there certainly are difficulties.
The West Germans, occupying as they do the potential battlefield, can hardly be expected fully to share the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for flexible and graduated response as opposed to a continued and overt willingness on the part of N.A.T.O. to go nuclear immediately since they believe it is on that that their security depends.
Prolongation of conventional war is therefore less attractive to them than it may be to us, but it is an objective to which the Secretary of State is committed, and we really cannot afford another of these abrupt changes in strategy that have so disrupted the equipment of the R.A.F. and placed such a strain on the morale of
604
officers and men. This requirement, therefore, is an essential corollary to the Secretary of State's own strategy; it is not one that existing types, lacking all-weather equipment seem capable of satisfactorily fulfilling while at the same time maintaining superiority in the air.
There is also the further difference of outlook between Britain and West Germany that, whereas the West Germans are interested in their own theatre only, Britain's geographical position and our dependence on seaborne communications has committed us, in my view quite rightly, not merely to the central European front but to the flanks of N.A.T.O. as well. In these circumstances, a joint Anglo-German project inevitably will be something of a compromise. I hope that the Minister in replying to the debate will assure the House that in no circumstances at all will the R.A.F. be deprived of the aircraft that the strategy to which it is to be committed by the Government demands.
I hope that it will be possible to embark on a joint co-operative venture but I trust that for once there will be a firm determination on the part of the Government to retain if need be our own capability to meet our own requirements. For far too long talk of abandoning that capability has passed to foreign Governments, notably the French—the ability to veto our requirements and inhibit our technological advance.
The outcome of the Anglo-French variable geometry project, so long regarded by the Secretary of State as the vital linchpin of the R.A.F.'s weaponry only to be dismissed as of minor importance when the French withdrew is not a happy augury; nor are the reports that the French are now exerting pressure on West Germany to abandon the M.R.C.A. and take the Mirage 3G instead. Again, I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that if this R.A.F. requirement cannot be provided by co-operation it will be provided by Britain. In my view it is absolutely vital to the country and the British aircraft industry that we should neither lose our capability in military aircraft design and construction, nor opt out of technological advance and the employment and other things that such projects involve.

605
I have expressed doubt as to the practicability of the Secretary of State's strategy of flexible and graduated response, but I doubt whether in the long term even the trip-wire philosophy can be effectively operated without an aircraft of this kind. East European defences will become increasingly elaborate and their penetration will require increasingly sophisticated aircraft. I have mentioned the probability that the Russians are already flying more advanced aircraft than the Mig 21. Perhaps most important of all, we must recall that Phantoms need a great deal of concrete.
Denied bases in France, forward bases in Germany and the Low Countries will become increasingly vulnerable to preemptive attack and our aircraft may have to operate from bases as far afield as the United States, thereby greatly reducing their operational efficiency. In the ground attack-reconnaissance rôle, as we know, the Harrier very largely overcomes this problem but there are at present two limitations to its flexible and most effective employment. First, there is the question of numbers. We welcome the increase from last year to a total order of 90 but it still seems dangerously low. Nevertheless, we have been encouraged to hear that the Government at least have not a closed mind as to the possibility of further orders for Harriers primarily adapted for the maritime rôle now that the Pegasus engine can be upgraded, with a higher thrust.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Member elucidate his remark about operating from bases in the United States?
Mr. Corfield: I am sorry if I said bases in the United States; I meant in the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Government will not delay in coming to a conclusion on this matter. There cannot be any doubt that a larger order would have a very salutary effect on the cost per aircraft and would give the firm concerned the ability to meet export orders without undue delay and at the same time without depriving the R.A.F. of its most urgent requirements. This I have no doubt would greatly increase the attractiveness of this aircraft for export sales.
The second limitation to the full use of the Harrier seems to arise from our inability to relate the potential flexibility
606
of this aircraft to equal flexibility in providing the ground services. When are the Government to turn their attention to the urgent need for a V.T.O.L., or short take-off and landing transport aircraft able to deliver personnel, weapons and supplies to keep the Harrier in action in frontline areas, independent of static and highly vulnerable base facilities? Is this not a project in which we could usefully renew our collaboration with West Germany either in the development of a completely new project or in the development of the Rolls-Royce powered Dornier DO31?
International co-operation, particularly in military projects, is very largely based on mutual trust and confidence between the partners, but far from creating that mutual trust and confidence the Government have done much to undermine it. Whatever the merits of decisions on E.L.D.O. or the airbus, there cannot be any doubt that the way in which the Government have presented their case to their partners has been deeply resented and has left in their minds nagging doubts about our reliability as partners. We cannot afford the dual disaster of exclusion from European cooperation and a Government policy which denies to our own aircraft industry the opportunity to supply our own requirements by ourselves.
Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member has thrown some cold water on the possibility of getting some understanding on the M.R.C.A. and has now attacked the Government on a number of scores. He is giving only one side of the picture. Perhaps he forgets the progress which has been made in the development of the Jaguar and also the collaboration which we have with France on the three helicopters. It would be of assistance to the House if the hon. Member gave the whole picture, not one side.
Mr. Corfield: It is not my job to defend the Government. It is my job to probe. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer my anxieties when he winds up the debate. Of course I am aware that the Jaguar was a very successful co-operative effort, but it does not follow that we can make the same success with the multi-rôle combat aircraft in which we are not in co-operation with France.

607
I find Chapter 6 of the Defence White Paper a little like the curate's egg, good in parts but begging some of the more important questions. With the exception of the first paragraph, it is not what the chapter contains which causes me concern but that which is omitted or, to be more accurate, what is mentioned, so to speak in passing, with a positively tantalising lack of detail. I take issue with the first paragraph. In the light of the enormous pace and, indeed, the cost of technological advance a confession that no
"dramatic changes in the types and characteristics of our future weapons"
is foreseen and that
"The total expenditure on research and development"
is to fall, inevitably gives rise to some suspicion.
For example, I note a cutting from The Guardian announcing the American invention of something called the subsonic cruise armed decoy, which has one of these revolting shorthand names "SCAD", which, according to The Guardian, is revolutionising the whole concept of the bomber. The Americans, therefore, are turning back their attention to bombers rather than strike aircraft.
Is that included in the word "dramatic"—perhaps it is all a matter of the interpretation of that word—or is it something we have not heard about? It certainly seems to be a considerable advance on Martel and we should like to hear more about it.
I should like to think that reductions in the cost of R and D reflect, not so much a reduction in effort, as a more sensible accounting system. I greatly welcome the recognition in paragraphs 7 and 12 of the importance of civilian spin-off engendered by defence research and of the importance of identifying
"results that can be used for the benefit of the civil economy".
There is no doubt whatever that the spin-off of defence research continues to be very substantial.
The same applies to very advanced civil projects such as Concorde. The Daily Mail is much to be congratulated on producing a very good article on 27th
608
February listing and describing some of the remarkable and immensely beneficial adaptations of Concorde development techniques in spheres of ordinary everyday civilian usage, ranging indeed, as was pointed out in the article—it was by no means complete—from better life-saving equipment for premature babies to what was described as perfect plumbing. These things should be more widely known. I hope that the Government will ensure that information about these techniques developed as by-products of the defence research programme are not confined merely to firms which are capable of applying them to some civilian production. There are bound to be some security problems, but I hope that as far as security permits the Government will try to make information available to the House and to the public on it.
I hope that they will go further and at least try to put a monetary value on some of these technological by-products and persuade the Treasury to allow an appropriate credit to the defence budget. There appears to be no allowance of any sort for this item under Subhead Z of the Central Vote, headed "Appropriations in Aid", nor does there appear to be very much credit for overseas sales of R.A.F. equipment. The Minister pointed out that apparently the defence budget does not get credited with what the Services have done in the meteorological field for other people.
Turning to the question of R.A.F. sales, an article in The Times on 6th February estimated that exports of this type of equipment probably stood at about £20 million for 1968, with prospects of very substantial increases in the current year. We know, for example, that there have been sales of Lightnings to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and of Canberras to Peru. There have certainly been many inquiries for Hunters, though I do not know whether it will be possible to fulfil any orders. Presumably some part of the proceeds finds its way back to the Exchequer, either in the form of levies on new aircraft or cash for second-hand R.A.F. aircraft which are re-purchased by manufacturers for modernisation and re-equipment for sale abroad. The entry under subhead Z5, which is only £7½ million and which covers all disposals of surplus defence equipment, certainly does not seem adequate to cover aircraft

609
sales of this sort of magnitude. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us precisely how such items are accounted for because it seems right that they should go to the credit of the defence budget and that we should not go on carrying items in the defence budget without any recognition of their value to the civilian economy.
Perhaps the Minister will give us up-to-date information about the proposal to sell Hunters and Harriers to Malaysia. Is it true, for example, as has been announced in the Press, that the deal depends upon our agreeing to station aircraft on Labuan Island, at least till 1971? If it is, it would, surely, be sensible to accede to that request, bearing in mind not only the strategic value of forces in that part of the world but the value to this country in supplying the initial needs of an air force which is likely to return to the same source for replacements in the future?
While on the subject of military exports, I return for a moment to a subject which I raised last year. Disastrous as was the replacement of the TSR2 by the subsequently cancelled F111, the Government at least, in negotiating the latter contract, also negotiated an offset agreement which has been of considerable value to this country. May we be told whether in the case of other purchases which we make from the United States a similar agreement applies or is being negotiated?
I was a little disturbed to read in an influential and normally reliable source of aero-space news, Aviation Week, of 21st October, the following headline,
"U.K. 10-year Defense outlay in U.S. may hit 2·5 billion dollars".
The article went on:
"Britain is expected to spend about 2·5 billion dollars on major U.S. defence equipment in the 10 years to 1977, according to Raymond S. Brown, defense sales head of the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense. 'And this is without taking into account purchases of standard equipment of about 40 million dollars a year', he said. 'We shall probably spend a considerable sum in addition for civil aircraft, engines and equipment'.
"According to Brown, 13 per cent. of Britain's annual defense equipment purchases are made from the U.S., or 230 million dollars per year of a 1·5 billion dollar budget."
A little later in the article, Mr. Brown is reported to have referred to United
610
States purchases of United Kingdom-manufactured defence equipment and indicated that it would be less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of United States defence purchases, or about 200 million dollars through the 12 years of the 1966–67 offset agreement between the two Governments.
Is this really the way to do business with the United States? The first essential is to try to make clear that, although we are prepared to put these valuable orders in the way of United States manufacturers, we can do so only on the basis of an equivalent opportunity for British manufacturers of defence equipment in the United States market. I hope that the Minister will look into that and reassure us that the offset factor is not being ignored. After all, 2·5 billion dollars over ten years, even by American standards, is a fairly valuable order.
Mr. Robert Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the United States Marine Corps' interest in the Harrier, which, though it went out at one stage, has now reappeared in a modest way and, we hope, will go ahead.
Mr. Corfield: I deliberately left that out because it was indicated to me that too much publicity might be embarrassing for the deal. I fear that that account in Aviation Week to which I have referred gives an impression that such cards as we have are not being played with either skill or determination, and this impression, I am sorry to say, is confirmed by some of the contacts which I have had with Americans who have been involved in these matters. Too often, the reaction of Americans is surprise at our readiness to agree to American terms, even on occasion failing to win a concession which the Americans came to the negotiating table ready to make.
I hope that we shall be able to renegotiate an offset agreement and that, if necessary, in so doing, we shall bargain toughly, as toughly as the Americans expect us to do.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, speaking with some small experience of the American aircraft industry, I am sure that he recognises that the crucial need is to have the equipment which they want. If we go about cancelling our

611
advanced projects, then, automatically, we shall have nothing to offer competitively with the Americans.
Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend is right. On the other hand, in the electronic sphere we have a good deal they do want, which is more competitive with their own product. The difficulty is that there is a very strong tariff advantage for the United States-produced product. We need some sort of offset agreement, under which Britain can get over the tariff barrier.
I return to the question of research, particularly procurement. There is here an immensely difficult and inevitable conflict. On the one hand, the Treasury has this fiduciary position vis-à-vis public money, and that engenders caution at the outset, check and counter-check throughout production and development and, in consequence, delay. On the other hand, there is a military or, in the case of commercial aircraft, a commercial and industrial need for quick decisions and continuity. Government, and I make no distinction between parties, has yet to find the answer.
The Government are right to place greater emphasis on the detailed definition of a project before commitment and, where possible, avoiding over-elaboration of operational requirements. If, as I suspect, the corollary to this is that by and large a new aircraft and its equipment would be produced within the knowledge of the art, instead of allowing each new aircraft to develop into a major research operation of its own, as has happened in the past, it follows that it will fall more and more to the research budget to ensure that the knowledge of the art is progressively widened. In other words, the further corollary is that the research budget will require to be increased. That seems to be the inevitable quid pro quo for what should be very much more economic development and production of the operational aircraft.
That is one of the reasons why I distrust the first paragraph of Chapter 6. In my search for ideas as to how we can resolve this conflict between Government as trustee and Government as customer, I have also been attracted by the concept of the project team and project controller
612
which is borrowed from America. I would ask the Government to try to arrange for information, either in the form of a White Paper or of reports on specific projects, to be deposited in the Library or for the House to be given details of these developments and Government assessments of their efficacy from time to time. We have had a lot of valuable information on this subject disclosed to the Select Committee on Technology.
It is not always in a readily assessable form, and certainly not in a form easy for reference purposes. There is no arrangement whereby progress reports can bring us up to date. There are many details that would be of great interest to a number of hon. Members. For example, from what source will these project officers be recruited? Will they be exclusively civil servants or will the Government experiment by securing secondment from industry or the universities, as is done extensively in America?
Again, will the project officers devise their own monitoring machinery, or will this be laid down by the Government? It would be unfair to expect the hon. Gentleman to answer such questions, but I hope that I have said enough to indicate what I have in mind, and also that he will agree that something on these lines would constitute a useful stimulus to discussion and ideas on what is a difficult problem. It probably changes in character from time to time, and from project to project, but it is always with us. It is one on which more knowledge, more discussion would be valuable.
I conclude with the wider issue. It is probably true that the two sides of the House are in broad agreement on the central facts but in fundamental disagreement on the conclusions to be drawn from them. I think it generally agreed that probably the most powerful deterrent to Russian aggression in Europe is likely to be the certain knowledge that the immediate consequence will be war with the United States.
If that be so, as I believe it is, then provided the United States retains a substantial deployment of military force in Europe, this threat probably remains amongst those which are least likely to develop. It follows, therefore, that, where there can be a British military presence outside Europe which strengthens the

613
alliance between Britain and America, and therefore the American commitment to Europe, such a presence is every bit as much in the interests of N.A.T.O. as an equivalent British military effort in Europe itself.
Where British forces continue to be welcome, as in the Gulf, Malaysia and Singapore, it is their presence which, in my opinion, constitutes a real guarantee to any potential aggressor that they can and will be reinforced. That really is the deterrent. It is of an entirely different order to any statement of intent to come to the support of local forces if the need should arise.
Moreover, the political context in which the military problem has to be presented in real life is, as the Secretary of State said, one in which the most immediate threats to peace are outside N.A.T.O. and outside Europe. I refer, of course, to the Middle East and the Far East. The Secretary of State dismisses the objectives of Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean and probably by now in the South Atlantic as merely political. What does he mean by "political" in this sense? I suggest that we can only judge by looking at the actions of the Russians themselves.
These actions are an increasing political and economic influence, highly detrimental in many cases to Western trade in the Middle East, Africa and many parts of Asia; they are the build up of the forces, particularly air forces, in these countries with Russian arms, Russian military instructors and sometimes Russian pilots; they are the creation of tensions which, certainly in the Middle East, could at any time erupt into major military action with all the possibilities of escalation.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman believe that our security is in no way imperilled by inability to counter these so-called political ramifications of military force? What reference to that vital question has the proportion of gross national product devoted to defence by other N.A.T.O. Governments? What justification has Europe, with its vast industrial wealth and population larger than that of the Soviet Union and the United States, for relying so heavily on the latter?
614
It is in these non-N.A.T.O. areas that the Government have left us so critically weak, particularly in the numbers of maritime aircraft. We welcome the possibility of maritime carriers but are 38 Nimrods, for example, adequate replacement for seven squadrons of Shackletons at a period in our history when we are more, rather than less, dependent on seaborne trade than ever before? Can the Royal Air Force, whose front line combat strength will, according to the estimate by the Air League, be under 500 aircraft by 1975, fail to cause anxiety? Where are the resources of men and material essential to the concept of flexible and graduated response?
I give place to no one in my admiration for the Forces. Neither their integrity nor their loyalty is for one moment in doubt. But the Government and the Defence Secretary in particular delude themselves if they mistake that loyalty to Crown and country for confidence in themselves.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? At what point will it be proper for me to move the Amendment in my name?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Mr. Speaker indicated earlier in the debate that the Amendment had not been selected. If the hon. Gentleman succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair he may move the Amendment then.
Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) spoke for a long time but did not mention the aspect of the Estimates about which I wish to make a few remarks—the Meteorological Office.
In the Session 1966–67 we had a Special Report from the Estimates Committee, which did a very valiant job of looking into the amount of money spent on the Meteorological Office and how we are served by it. I do not disagree with the Committee's findings in general. I shall have some critical remarks to make later, but in the Meteorological Office we

615
have a service costing less than £10 million a year while individual types of aircraft cost much more than that sum. In addition to serving aviation, it makes a great contribution to many facets of our national life, and overall, having regard to the difficulty of weather forecasting, it does a reasonable job.
The Select Committee said:
"In the immediate future important decisions will have to be made to determine to which particular research projects priority should be given with the resources available. A prime consideration in the making of such decisions should be an assessment of the amount of likely economic value to the country as a whole of progress in any particular field of meteorological research."
This seemed to me to be common sense, because one does not study meteorology always as a pure science but because, in its day-to-day application specific and accurate forecasts are of enormous use to human beings, and we have still barely realised the potential of the forecasts to save money.
Therefore, I was very disappointed when we had the Departmental observation on the recommendation, which flew directly in the face of it. It said:
"It is accepted that the overall programme of research projects should pay attention to its long-term economic value to the country as a whole. The Meteorological Office must however undertake a broad based programme of fundamental research in order to fulfil its functions of advancing the science of meteorology. This will involve some work which does not offer prospects of immediate or identifiable economic gain."
This does slightly less than justice to what the Committee said, which was that more attention should be given to this aspect of development.
Another recommendation of the Committee was:
"In order to try and ensure that the Meteorological Office retains a higher proportion of trained staff in the scientific assistant grade, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence should carry out a review of the Abnormal Hours Allowance payable to those in the grade employed on roster work."
I suppose that I should declare some interest, because for 15 years I was in that grade. The people in it do the observations hour after hour. They are at work for 24 hours on the roster, and go to work at Christmas and on Sundays, providing all the basic information on
616
the weather. Very often the decisions taken on visibility determine whether or not aircraft fly. It is therefore important that there should be experienced staff. This cadre has always lacked experienced observers and experienced assistants because the rates of pay have been abnormally low.
I was disappointed to find in the Departmental observation a proposal to review the Committee's recommendations on the wastage of assistant scientific officers. This is not good enough. These are the men who man the ocean weather ships. I have never served on an ocean weather ship and I think that I should have refused that duty. I have seen Press reports about a great liner suffering damage when I have known that an ocean weather ship has been just south of Iceland in the path of the North Atlantic gales, where it was laying to in order to take observations. The laconic message would come over the teleprinter: "Waves 60 feet from top to bottom"—and the ship would be hove to—"Am unable to maintain position; will steam a grid course". This meant that the conditions were so bad that the ship could no longer hold its position. This is the kind of work that is done by these men. Some are on remote airfields miles from anywhere. I hope that the Department will get on with considering this problem.
I wish to touch on one other matter which was part of my intervention. The Meteorological Office has been closely identified with the needs of the Services and most of its budget is used to this end. One can understand why it is thought necessary to have a staff of forecasters and assistants at a fighter station which may have 40 aircraft airborne, costing millions of pounds. A very good service is given. I often wonder why this kind of service cannot be made available for civilian application, although there are some local weather centres in major towns. Building sites have been mentioned, but there are also enormous potential savings in agriculture. Many millions of pounds have been saved for a minimal outlay. We should consider setting up specialist offices on the sites of important building projects, with, say, a team of six assistants and forecasters to provide detailed information. This has been neglected in the past, and I hope

617
much more will be done on this in the future.
The Select Committee touched on the amount of money which will be spent on the new computer. The Director-General, in the foreword to the Annual Report of the Meteorological Office for 1965, said this:
"High among the more important events of the year were the commissioning in July of the English Electric-Leo-Marconi KDF9 computer, and the introduction of routine numerical forecasts on 2 November."
He goes on to say:
"These computered forecasts are already as good as those produced by an experienced forecaster and will almost certainly form the basis of operational forecasting in the near future."
During the time when the Select Committee sat, the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) inquired of the Director-General about feasibility studies when the computer was installed.
He asked him:
"Have you been able to refer back to those studies to satisfy yourself as to how accurate they have proved to be in the event?"
He got a very different answer:
"… I think we have been overtaken by events and the next computer will have to be much bigger."
In other words, things were not quite as rosy. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask if a howler had been committed when the computer was bought. The reply came:
"… It would have been better if it had been bigger and more powerful, but really, without personally going through all those exercises and being wise after the event, I would hesitate to express an opinion … of these remarks."
But with respect, I would say that an opinion had been expressed in 1965. That was very different later.
I want to issue a warning to my hon. Friend. If there are those who advance the theory that with a bigger computer it will be possible to forecast where the last raindrop will fall, I think that the events of 1965 will be repeated with the new computer. That is not to say, however that it should not be purchased, but some assessment should be made.
In Questions, I have asked about the results of the computer. So far, I have received only flimsy replies. Quite an amount of money has been spent here, yet
618
we are told that it is too early to say that the computer has affected the correctness of forecasts, and so on. That is not good enough. We should have more details from the Meteorological Office.
I turn now to the correctness of forecasts, and here I intend to be somewhat critical. In 1967, I asked a Question about the accuracy of forecasts. The Answer that I was given was that for forecasts issued at 6 o'clock in the evening for the evening of the next day, the general accuracy varied between different years but was generally about 77 per cent. correct. For the forecasts issued at 8 o'clock in the morning for the next day, which is the one to which many people listen, I was told that the remarkable figures of between 83 per cent. in 1963–64 and 85 per cent. in 1966–67 were deemed correct.
I asked what was meant by "correct" and how the assessment was made. The Meteorological Office was good enough to supply me with the criteria for checking. It is one of the most remarkable documents that I have ever seen. Here is a scientific service using a huge computer and employing scientists and others doing observations with remarkable accuracy and care. The object of the exercise is to prepare forecasts, and the proud claim is made that 85 per cent. of them are correct.
The document reads:
"A few rules are given below on the standards of marking, but they do not and cannot cover every possible wording or situation. In most cases the checker will have to exercise his discretion. When in doubt he should make whatever assessment he feels is most appropriate, without attempting any elaborate reasoning—remembering, that he is trying to arrive at a layman's estimate which is really a closely reasoned one."
For a scientific discipline, I would have thought that a more scientific approach to the accuracy or otherwise of forecasts was called for.
The list of marking standards giving the various elements is very poor. It does not mention fog and how accuracy should be judged in any way. One of the items is headed "Showers and thunderstorms", and it is remarkable. It says:
"Such transient phenomena present the most difficult problems of checking. If the forecast refers to 'a risk of', 'scattered', 'in a few places' or some such phrase, it is a good forecast even if no showers occur. But it is 'bad' if showers etc. are frequent (say more

619
than two moderate showers in the day) or very prolonged. (Note that to the public a fall exceeding about an hour is not a shower, so that any forecast of showers is bad if such long falls occur.) If the forecast is for widespread showers, or even 'showers in many places' it should be treated as bad if none occurs."
I think that was self-evident. I make a serious point. I have pursued this question with my right hon. Friend, suggesting, in the kindest possible way, that we should give more thought to it. So far I have had a negative response. I think that we should take as much care in checking to see how our accuracy is increasing as we do elsewhere in scientific disciplines.
I jotted down what I thought was a reasonable forecast, and I guarantee that I will get 100 per cent. marks for being correct. This is how it goes: "Most areas will be cloudy with occasional outbreaks of slight to moderate rain. At times outbreaks may be heavy locally. Winds westerly, moderate or fresh, rising to gale force in exposed places. Winds will be light and variable in sheltered places where frost may occur. Temperatures are expected to be variable but to generally be below average for the time of year. Further outlook unsettled."
All that terminology is in use in forecasting today. What does it mean? "Most areas will be cloudy with occasional outbreaks of slight to moderate rain." In the areas where it is not cloudy there could be sunshine, so I cover for sunshine and slight to moderate rain.
"At times outbreaks may be heavy locally." That throws in heavy rain as well.
"Winds westerly …" This is always a good one. "Westerly" includes a 180 degree cycle, so one has only to be right within half the range, which is good going. "… moderate or fresh, rising to gale force in exposed places." The other day a tile blew off my house. I could not be faulted on that, because if the wind blew a tile off the roof of my house, it must be in an exposed place. "Winds will be light and variable in sheltered places where frost may occur."
Another point is that they are talking about what is average all the time: "Temperatures are expected to be variable but expected to generally be below average for this time of year". There is no criterion here. These are general
620
terms which vary widely from year to year. If one asks the man in the street, he will say, nine times out of ten, that it is cold for this time of year.
I will close on this point. Rarely do we have an opportunity to discuss something so intimate to most people's lives as the weather. It is a subject of constant concern. Therefore, I hope that the House will be patient with me.
I looked at the 30-day forecast in The Times for this Monday. I hope that no one will think that I am exaggerating. This is the 30-day forecast that was issued:
"The Meteorological Office issued on Saturday the following forecast for the next 30 days. During the next few days it will probably remain cold, with occasional rain or snow in northern districts."
At the time that was written snow was covering some of the North of England and there was rain in the South, so the odds were that it would occur during the next few days.
"Farther south, milder and unsettled weather, with heavy rain in places, is likely."
I would say also occurring.
"Later marked changes in weather are probable"—
that is on the basis that it cannot go on raining and snowing all the time, so they were on a good thing—
"with one or two fine, anticyclonic spells in all areas …"
We usually find that such spells are to do with ridges of high pressure, so if we get a bit of sunshine during the next 30 days on one or two occasions they are on a good bet there.
"Night frost is expected from time to time everywhere and it will probably occur more often than usual in Scotland, especially in the West."
Scotland is in the North, and it follows that it is more likely, the further North one goes, the more frost will be found.
"Some further snow is expected in northern districts"—
and again we note—
"Monthly mean temperatures are expected to be below average in most places, but near average in South-East England and South Wales, and much below average in Eastern Scotland, North-East and East England. Rainfall during the period is expected to range from average in South and South-East England and East Anglia to below average in Scotland."
No ordinary man knows what these averages are, because in one month one can,

621
for instance, get three months' rainfall, and in another month get hardly any. I hope that the Meteorological Office will reconsider its attitude to 30-day forecasts.
I hope that the Minister has taken note of what I have said. I think that we could do with a good deal more information. I spent many years in this service, and worked with good forecasters. Forecasting is a difficult job. We have a fine Meteorological Service, but I think that it should inquire more fully into what has happened in the past, because in that way better scientific estimates can be made for the future.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have had three speeches in aproximately the first two hours of this debate. I am almost inclined to say that, weather permitting, I hope to call everybody who wishes to speak. Reasonably brief speeches however will help.
9.32 p.m.
Wing-Commander Sir Eric Bullus: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) into the vagaries of the weather. During my service with the Royal Air Force I had a great regard for the weather man. He was not always right, but on the other hand he was not always wrong.
I think that courtesy demands that I should congratulate the Minister of Defence for Equipment on what I think are his first Estimates, but having said that, I must add that I am rather sad that this is the first time during my service in the Royal Air Force, and during my long service in this House, that the Air Estimates have been introduced by someone who is not a Minister for the Royal Air Force.
I have taken part in Air Estimates debate for 20 years. They have always been thoughtful and useful debates, and it is interesting to read the reports of some of the earlier discussions. But it is rather different today, and I think it is rather sad that, instead of noting the increasing power and growth of the Royal Air Force, we are witnessing a gradual, almost perceptible, run-down.
I shall perhaps be told that the morale of the Royal Air Force is high. My reply is that it could, and should, be higher. Whereas in past years we have discussed new British aircraft and enthusiastically
622
anticipated new British types which would soon be coming into service, today we have no major military aircraft on the drawing board, and this in a country which can match anything in the world.
All that might be justified, and even acceptable, if we were moving into an era of peace, looking forward to sustained peace when war shall be no more, but would anyone say that war is less likely today than at any time since the end of the last war? While dangers remain we have a vital responsibility to see that our defences are strong, and that while we work for peace we are still prepared in defence.
Is this really the time for reducing our expenditure on defence? The Secretary of State has almost gleefully told us that the Estimates this year are considerably down on last year. The Minister of Defence said that the Estimates are up slightly. Is this in real terms? Real defence must always be expensive, and real defence must always be a prime priority for a nation such as ours.
In this uncertain and unstable position, can one wonder at the general uneasiness and the disappointing recruiting figures? During the years I have always maintained that we shall require manned aircraft and trained pilots for years to come, but the administration of our Defence Forces today causes the would-be recruit to think very seriously about the future.
Is everything possible being done to attract the best of our youth to enter the R.A.F.? Every effort should be bent to this end. I commend the Minister's statement that the standard for future entrants for officers is to be raised, but I deplore what I consider the false economy in the case of university training. Similarly, I commend the scheme of the Daily Express and the Air League which will encourage youth to build their own aircraft. Such schemes as this could be very helpful in recruiting.
For years to come we shall also require first-class aircraft and an efficient aircraft industry. But what are our plans? It is estimated that the R.A.F.'s front line combat strength will, by 1975, be under 500 aircraft. That would be less than the available aircraft at present possessed by North Korea, with 590, by Japan, with 570, and by Poland and

623
Sweden. Except for the Harrier, we shall still be dependent on fixed and known concrete runways at bases vulnerable to instant destruction by rocket or other attack.
British air power as at present planned is inadequate even for a European rôle. I believe that we should be planning for double strength—for a front line combat force of 1,000 aircraft—which, by 1975, should be mainly vertical take-off and landing types, capable of operation with equal ease from mobile bases ashore or afloat. We should have a transport support force with the emphasis upon close support of the forces in the field, in particular V.T.O.L. air forces operating from mobile bases.
At the moment, we have a rather big transport force. Is it being streamlined into an efficient support force? The commitment of all our aircraft to Europe leaves some of us in grave doubt as to whether we could call upon them independently in a situation of sudden dire need. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance on that?
The Government hope to conclude an agreement with West Germany to provide a swing-wing combat plane. What is the French antagonism to this? Are they helping or obstructing in the hope that we shall become dependent on their Mirage G? The Government should tell both West Germany and France, and Europe generally, that, if sensible arrangements and agreements are not forthcoming very quickly, we shall go it alone. Of course, this would be expensive and of course it would be cheaper if we could get joint production of the planes we require. But the certainty is not the same in a joint production effort.
We must have a firm decision and quickly—either a firm agreement of joint arrangement or rapid preparation to build our own aircraft. If we have to go it alone, we must above all stick to the decision and build the 300 combat planes the R.A.F. requires. We could then compete for orders in Europe with a fair chance of getting them, for we could build a fine aircraft.
The Conservatives have been chided for the money lost in defence projects during their 13 years of office, but we were told recently in a Written Answer that R.A.F. projects cancelled between 1st
624
October, 1964, and the end of 1968, just over four years, numbered six and that the total expenditure was expected to be about £225 million. Presumably this covers the TSR2, the P1154, the HS681, the AFVG, the F111K and the Chinnock. What Britain would now give for the TSR2! I hope that the lesson has been learnt.
Government policy is not helping the British aircraft industry, which earned £300 million in exports last year. Its capacity to earn in the next 10 years depends on what the Government do now to help. Unless the Government help, Europe could decide the destiny of our aircraft industry and France could take the leadership in the building of aircraft.
We want our own aircraft orders. We want to see expansion and extension of our factories. We do not want to see them closing down, as the Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency will do in a few weeks' time. The same story can be told in other parts of the country, for the aircraft and other industries. Design teams are being dispersed when we know how long it takes to build them up.
The Government should have another think about the whole matter and about the valuable "know-how" which is an off-shoot of aircraft production and which is invaluable for commercial interests. Do we want to forego these in this technological age? We must get and give work to our aircraft industry, thereby giving security to our skilled workers and a morale boost to the R.A.F. The defences of this country demand it, the people require it, the R.A.F. deserves to be given the necessary hardware.
9.42 p.m.
Mr. Robert Howarth: I wonder if the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) is really suggesting that we should not only double the proposed strength of our front line aircraft in Europe but also keep a capability east of Suez, which I understand is official Conservative policy? If so, it would so increase the defence budget as to put it way beyond our economic capability. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) did not suggest that course; he was far more guarded in his comments.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South criticised my right hon. Friend the

625
Secretary of State for Defence by suggesting that because, in his view, we were not making sufficient effort in the face of increased Russian naval activity in many of the world's oceans, there would be a diminution of United States support for ourselves and the Western Alliance. He made a fair point which must be taken into account, but I was surprised that he did not mention that we are not the only member of the Western Alliance.
If, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, it is in our interest to consider considerably stepping up surveillance by reconnaissance aircraft, what does he consider should be the position of other Western European countries which also depend a great deal on merchant ships to bring in their oil and raw materials? In other words, why did he pick on the defence effort of the United Kingdom? What about the effort that should be made, according to his thesis, by other members of the Western Alliance?
I believe that the effort being made by Her Majesty's Government in concentrating our defence in Europe is correct. This matter was debated last week, and this is neither the place nor the time to go over that ground.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South also criticised the Government for what he described as their lack of effort in attempting to sell military equipment to the United States. Although I drew his attention to the Harrier, I could have mentioned the fact that engines are being bought by American aircraft manufacturers for military aircraft; and, of course, the Handley Page Jetstream is being bought by the United States Air Force. I think it is the only foreign aircraft which will be in service with the United States Air Force. Prospects for the Harrier are quite good according to American journals, which may be seen in the Library.
The last 12 months have been an exciting, demanding and rewarding period for the R.A.F. The first squadrons of the Phantom, an American aircraft with Rolls-Royce Spey engines, is giving the R.A.F. outstanding aircraft. The Harrier squadrons will be formed later this year and will come into more numerous service in 1970, and similarly there will be the Buccaneers specially ordered for the R.A.F. or transferred from the Naval Air Force.
626
These three aircraft, the Phantom, Harrier and Buccaneer, represent a strike and defence force of first-class capability, and I am sure that in the hands of the R.A.F. they will give considerable service and protection to this country, in Europe and in adjoining areas. I have in mind the Mediterranean areas. These aircraft are joining the Hercules transport aircraft, the V Bombers, Lightnings, VC. 10s and Belfasts. Coming along from 1970 onwards, we have the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft, which will replace the Shackleton. It is an aircraft of exceedingly long range, high speed and great reconnoitre capability. The Jaguar will also be coming into service from about 1971 onwards. That is an outstanding supersonic strike aircraft. We have had details of the Anglo-French helicopters, which also will be coming into service.
All this I recount, because it should be set against the tale of woe which we have heard from the Opposition. The R.A.F. at the moment has first-class equipment, and in the next 12 months to two years it will have equally outstanding aircraft which will have many years of service ahead in the hands of the R.A.F. This is first-class equipment of which we can be proud. Many of these aircraft have great export potential. Not only is the United States interested in the Harrier, but so also are other countries. This presumably will firm up when the Harrier comes into R.A.F. service in squadron numbers, and the Jaguar is expected to be an aircraft with great sales potential. It is believed that this will prove attractive to many friendly air forces throughout the world. This is true also of the Anglo-French helicopter and the B.A.C. 162 training aircraft. There is no doubt that, as we see from export figures, the British aircraft industry is making a great contribution to the export effort. On the decisions which have been made, and which I hope will quickly be made, it will continue its contribution to the export performance of the country.
On the equipment side, I want to comment on the multi-rôle combat aircraft. This is an issue of outstanding importance, not only to Britain and her defence and to her Alliance, but also to the industry. When considering, on the

627
one hand, the aircraft that need replacement by the multi-rôle combat aircraft, if this is what we are to have, we must also consider the potential opposition to an aircraft which we hope that the R.A.F. will have in the mid-1970s.
To this end I want to refer to the equipment made available by the Soviet Union to her own air forces and to other air forces in various parts of the world. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South mentioned a number of the very advanced aircraft available to the Soviet Union. Only this afternoon I took the trouble to look up a reference book in the Library. It was a salutary lesson of which I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who have tabled this unfortunate Amendment, will avail themselves. They will see there the range of equipment available to the Soviet Union, equipment which is not being made just for the glorification of the Russian aircraft industry but which clearly has a purpose.
The Soviet Union has in the Mig 23 an all-weather fighter which for some time has held height and speed records and which is thought to be capable of speeds of Mach 3. It is an aircraft which is already in service in large numbers in the Soviet Union, it is thought. Similarly, there is the Subhoi twin-jet single seater, a Mach 2·5 plus aircraft. There is the Yak-28 and other supersonic combat aircraft. The list is long and impressive. I hope that my hon. Friends who have tabled this fantastic Amendment will take the trouble to inform themselves on the type of equipment which is available to the Soviet Union.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am very well acquainted with the Soviet Union and its development in the air.
Mr. Howarth: I wonder.
Mr. Hughes: I think that I have travelled in the Soviet Union more than most Members in the House, and travelled more by air. I do not doubt that the Soviet Union has tremendous air potentiality for destruction. If the two forces met, there would be nothing for it but the destruction of Western
628
Europe. What is the point of the argument? Nobody denies that the Russians have a very powerful air force. The question is: what lesson is there for the people of Britain? If that powerful air force gets into action, we are destroyed.
Mr. Howarth: One of the lessons which I draw is that I wish I could think that there was a debate such as this going on at present in the Soviet Union with Soviet Deputies moving an Amendment of the type that my hon. Friends have tabled. That does not happen. In view of what happened recently in Czechoslovakia, I can only express my repeated amazement that my hon. Friends should table this Amendment, remembering the activities of the Warsaw Pact countries against one of their own numbers, never mind us.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: How could the possession of a powerful air force by Britain possibly help Czechoslovakia?
Mr. Howarth: I am not suggesting that it would necessarily have helped Czechoslovakia. I know, however, that the Soviet Union could not make the same sort of move against ourselves or any other member of the Western Alliance precisely because we have forces available to us capable of making a very firm and clear answer to any threat from the Soviet Union.
It is interesting to note also, in connection with Eastern European forces, that Yugoslavia, which herself has been under threat on a number of occasions from the Soviet and her allies in Eastern Europe, has made it clear that she will militarily resist any move against her of the type made against Czechoslovakia. So far at least, fortunately, no such move has been made.
However, let me continue on the point I was making about the equipment which the potential opponents of the Western Alliance have available to them.
I was discussing some of the very advanced fighters, first-class aircraft, available to the Soviet Union. Similarly, the Soviet Union has supersonic bombers as well as the giant TU20 with stand-off missiles available. As regards transport aircraft, the position is probably well known to hon. Members present this evening. The Soviet Union has also—this is interesting—a maritime reconnaissance

629
aircraft which is in squadron service and has been for several years, a pure jet aircraft. At the moment, there is nothing comparable to it in the West, though there will be when the Nimrod comes along. This aircraft, the MYA 4, has capabilities well beyond those available to the Western Alliance at this stage.
Remembering the prototype aircraft displayed over two years ago, we see that the Soviet Union is experimenting with variable geometry aircraft, with VTOL and STOL aircraft, and there is little doubt that we shall see these aircraft coming into squadron service in the next few years.
In considering the Royal Air Force, its present equipment and the equipment which we hope it will have in the next few years, it is necessary to understand what equipment is available to those who could, perhaps, represent a threat to our whole way of life in Western Europe.
The point I make in connection with the importance of advanced combat aircraft to our industry—I agree with other hon. Members here—is that, if agreement cannot be reached shortly on a joint project with certain of our allies in N.A.T.O., a firm decision should be taken that we shall build on our own account an advanced military aircraft to replace those which are now becoming quite old and are outclassed easily by equipment not only of the Soviet Union but of other countries to which she has supplied equipment, even Arab countries as well as countries in the Far East.
We know what the capability of the industry is. It is the third largest aircraft industry in the world and is well able to build an advanced military aircraft. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will come quickly to a decision, since time is of the essence here. It will take about four years before we see such an aircraft flying in prototype form, and another two years before it is in squadron service. By then, we shall be well into the mid-1970s. I trust that a decision will be forthcoming in the next few months.
630
It is a happy circumstance that we are able to have this debate near the 50th anniversary of the Royal Air Force, a Service which has an outstanding record in the defence of this country. I hope that hon. Members will do as the two Front Bench spokesmen did and take this opportunity to express our thanks for its service in the past and our confidence in the service which it will render in the future.
9.58 p.m.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) will excuse me if I do not follow him, save to agree very largely with the strictures which he passed on the inadequacy of the Government's defence programme.
The Government's defence policy now involves drastic new responsibilities for the Royal Air Force, particularly maritime responsibilities, and it is to these that I shall direct special attention to night. The Royal Air Force will take over entire responsibility for the air de fence and air support of the fleet and our merchant navy except for the helicopter element of this task. Similarly, this year the navy formally takes over the strategic deterrent rôle from the Royal Air Force. These are major changes, representing a watershed in our maritime history. The moment is therefore appropriate to discuss the relationship between the Royal Air Force and the Navy. There has been, to say the least, healthy rivalry between the two Services for 50 years. It started in 1918 when the Royal Air Force, on its formation, incorporated the Royal Naval Air Service, and it continued through the 1920s and 1930s—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and that the proceedings on Vote A of the Defence (Air) Estimates, 1969–70, the Immigration Appeals Bill and on the Genocide Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. — [Mr. McBride.]

SUPPLY
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY],—again considered.

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1969–70, VOTE A
Question again proposed.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: This rivalry continued through all the vicissitudes of the bombers versus battleship controversy and so on. In 1937 Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the then Prime Minister, announced the Inskip Award which created the Fleet Air Arm.
Mr. Speaker: With respect, I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will come to the Estimates.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I was explaining the very important point of the relationship between the two Forces which are the most important part of the Estimates.
In the new situation which we now face in 1969, co-operation between the two Services is even more urgently needed. I do not want to rake over the embers of any old controversies, but urge that the Navy and Royal Air Force shall once and for all bury the hatchet in the predicament they face under these Estimates. In using the term "bury the hatchet" I do not wish to imply that there has been serious bad blood between the two Services. At working level, cooperation has almost always been excellent, and I confess an enormous admiration for what the Royal Air Force has done and for what it is today.
It is very apparent that the most serious differences of opinion between the two Services are liable to arise in Whitehall. It is understandable that officers who reach the top of the tree in their own Service should find it necessary to fight tooth and nail for the very survival of the Service to which they have belonged all their Service lives when it seems to them that it may be in peril. The more cuts are applied, as is happening in these Estimates, the more true this becomes.
Tragically, the result has been, and must always be, that the disunited Services will be seen off by the "Abominable No-men" in the Treasury. Fortunately, we have today both a Chief of the Air Staff and a First Sea Lord
632
who are big enough men to see the need for real co-operation and, I am sure, to act upon it.
It is arguable that the nuclear deterrent should be provided on a completely separate Vote both for manpower and finance, that could be part of the central Defence Estimates and not a millstone around the neck of whichever Service is responsible at the time for providing it.
It is no good jobbing backwards. Now that we have come to this watershed in our history there are three essentials for the Services in the light of the current vast Soviet maritime expansion. The first is that the Royal Air Force must take really seriously its new responsibility for flying from ships, Second, the Navy must accept the new state of affairs. It must not lament the demise of the Fleet Air Arm, and it must work with the Royal Air Force to produce really effective air support and air defence both for the Fleet and—I emphasise this to the Minister—our seaborne trade world-wide. Third, both Services must co-operate urgently to produce the technical infrastructure which this new relationship will require, particularly as regards what ships are to be built, what technical manpower is to be trained for servicing our Royal Air Force aircraft at sea, and so on.
The Royal Navy understands the threat from the sea because trade protection has always been its foremost task. Fortunately, there are signs that the R.A.F. understands this too. I was delighted to see the following passage in an article by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Coastal Command, in an excellent R.A.F. publication called The New Dawn. He said on page 13:
"Two main factors … have now emerged. These are firstly the missile firing submarines … and secondly the nuclear deterrent stalemate, with the consequent increased likelihood of limited wars."
It is also of note that the influential Air League has emphasised the importance of maritime air, including the use of aircraft carriers.
But nothing the Services can do by cooperating together can be of any avail unless the Secretary of State will also cooperate and provide the men, money, ships and aircraft. At this point, the spotlight focuses directly on him—and incidentally he is not here. We see him

633
ruddy and chubby, blinking at the light, but not showing much sign that he understands the magnitude of the new task he has given to the R.A.F. This year's White Paper on Defence devotes only one paragraph in its policy chapter to the threat at sea. The realities are very different. I shall not, however, weary the House with a tabulated list of the huge threats, which other hon. Members have mentioned.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to give the R.A.F. this great additional responsibility and not provide enough aircraft for the purpose, nor the men to man them, nor the flat-topped ships for them to fly from. The vast and vitally important maritime task which the right hon. Gentleman has given the R.A.F., and which it will wish to carry out efficiently and effectively, simply cannot be reconciled with his boast that he hopes to reduce expenditure on defence to 5 per cent. of the gross national product by 1972.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to deceive the House, the country and the officers and men of the R.A.F. This is why we condemn him and his policies.
One of two things must be true. Either he does not realise the facts, in which case he should resign; or else he does realise the facts but cannot carry his point in Cabinet, in which case all the more so he should resign. I therefore end up with a call for his resignation.
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Frank Hooley: I want to concentrate on what I believe to be the purpose of the debate—the question of the financial control exercised over this part of our defence expenditure. The difficulty about discussing the strictly financial aspect of this Vote is that we are discussing only estimates, do not know how the appropriations will eventually work out and have no immediate comparison, since we have no detailed appropriations even for 1968–69. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be ruled out of order if I look at some figures going back just three financial years. The point I wish to make is that there does not seem to have been in the past very tight estimating or very tight control over the enormous sums of money which the House has provided on the Vote.
634
In 1965–66, the Air Estimates were under-spent by £28 million—an error of 4½ per cent. In 1966–67 the under-spending was £26 million, which was an error of 5 per cent. We did somewhat better in 1967–68, with an error of £10 million, or only 2 per cent., which was not too bad.
Hon. Members may ask, "Why are you worried about under-spending? If there was a large over-spending of what had been authorised you might get worried, but why worry if the expenditure has fallen somewhat short of what was originally forecast?". The reason why I am worried is that these figures seem to show that the original forecasts were not intelligently and coherently thought out, and contained large sums of money which were not required, and in the event were not used.
The Vote in which the greatest error occurs is Vote 7 to which my hon. Friend referred in passing, and which constitutes about half of these Estimates. In 1965–66 there was an error of no less than £55 million on the calculation for Vote 7, which was an error of 20 per cent., but it looked rather better when the figures were published because the TSR2 was cancelled and the Department managed to set off against that £55 million error £35 million compensation for the cancellation of the TSR2, a sum which was not included in the original Estimates, but which made the out-turn look somewhat more respectable. The error on Vote 7 in that year was a 10 per cent. error, even after the £35 million offset for the TSR2 cancellation. Whereas in that year £281 million had been asked for, only £257 million were spent.
In 1966–67 there was again a 10 per cent. error, when £260 million was asked for, and only £236 million were spent. I am glad to see—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the Estimates in due course.
Mr. Hooley: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to go as far as I did. It is somewhat difficult to make a sensible appraisal of the current figures without trying to compare them with figures we know. We cannot now know the out-turn of these Estimates, nor,

635
I am sorry to say, do we know the outturn of the 1968–69 figures, so that even an immediate comparison is not sensible, and it is difficult to assess how sensible these Estimates are unless we have some firm figures of out-turn with which to make a comparison. I apologise for going back to those figures, but they are the only firm figures which exist.
The striking thing about Vote 7 in the current Estimates is that it has shot up to the incredible figure of £302 million, compared with an actual expenditure three years ago of £236 million. This is an increase of 30 per cent. in cash terms, but probably somewhat less allowing for the decline in the purchasing power of money. This is a 30 per cent. increase, at a time when we are told by the Government that we are scaling down our commitments, that we are withdrawing from the Far East, that we are withdrawing from the Middle East, and when the rôle of the Royal Air Force will presumably become integrated with our N.A.T.O. defences generally and concentrated on Europe. I think that the Government owe the House an explanation for this startling escalation in Vote 7 which accounts for half of the Estimates, in the light of the deliberate and calculated reduction of commitments—which I support—and which presumably result in a reduction in the commitments of the R.A.F. itself.
The House is entitled to ask, "Why complain if the Department spends less money than it originally claimed it wanted? Is it not much more unsatisfactory if it overspends?". My answer to that is that it depends on the degree either way. An overspending of a very small percentage would not be regarded as seriously worthy of criticism, but an error in estimating of 10 per cent.—and these votes in past years have contained errors of 10 per cent.—indicates that there is no proper control over this vote and that the sums of money asked for are wildly inaccurate. One wonders just how tightly control is exercised when the actual appropriations take place.
The first objection to this state of affairs is that the estimating itself is grossly inefficient. I cannot accept an estimate with an error of 10 per cent. as being an efficient estimate. The second objection is that when my right
636
hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence comes to make his claim on the public purse he is in competition with other Departments of State, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must rule on the demands he makes in the light of the demands made by other public sectors for the total money available.
If, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is preempting large sums of money—and these are large sums of money, £24 million and more—which his Department does not require and which it clearly has not accurately calculated, it is doing so to the detriment of other Departments of State, such as Social Services, Education. Health and so on, which might make very good use of these moneys.
Further, if the Services have at their disposal sums of money of the order of £24 million which they do not require, they have a considerable amount of leeway or slippage to play around with, which can scarcely encourage tight control of expenditure when they come to decide whether or not they want the money for a new weapon, a new piece of equipment or for research.
I turn now to the purchase of Phantom aircraft, which I believe was originally authorised in 1964, which in itself was a perfectly sensible decision. It was a decision to do away with the need for uncertain expenditure on research and development and to purchase from our major military ally a proven battle aircraft of unquestionable value in military terms and one which, presumably, the R.A.F. decided it could use for its own purposes. What happened? It was decided first to put in a new engine. The airframe then had to be altered to accommodate the engine. The avionics and the attack system were then changed for reasons which are not clear. The Public Accounts Committee was by no means convinced of the necessity for this change in navigational attack and radio equipment, and said so in its report last year.
This was a proven aircraft; 3,000 had already been produced for the United States Air Force. The whole advantage of buying an off-the-peg aircraft was completely destroyed by the demand for the new engine, which meant a change in the airframe and changes in the electronics, the avionics and the attack

637
system. The result of making all these changes was that the aircraft cost twice as much. The unit cost was about double what it would have been had we bought the United States aircraft straight off the peg.
There may well have been technological reasons for the change in the engine. There may have been reasons for the change giving advantages to British industry. What I am less certain about is why the R.A.F. needed this special avionic and attack system all of its own when we were purchasing an aircraft from one of the major military powers in the world, an ally with whom we have to work in close co-operation.
Mr. Dalyell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a classic argument for co-operation at a market level rather than at a production level?
Mr. Hooley: I shall be coming on to the question of co-operation when I consider the Anglo-German aircraft.
What it indicates is that, when the R.A.F. goes shopping around for aircraft, obviously it must have the aircraft that it needs, but the Department must resist the demands for specialised requirements peculiar to our own Defence Forces.
I want to elaborate that point in relation to the Anglo-German multi-role combat aircraft, which was referred to earlier in the debate. The principle of co-operation in this is perfectly sound. Obviously it is intelligent for two, three or four major allies within the N.A.T.O. Alliance, if they want this kind of weapon, to team up in order to produce it. What is not clear to me is why we want two versions of this aircraft. Why is the R.A.F. requirement different from the German requirement? Why does this have to be a compromise aircraft?
We are agreed that, in the future, the R.A.F. is not to have a rôle outside Europe. We are winding up our Far East and Middle East commitments and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no intention of assuming commitments in Southern Africa or other parts of the world. If the aircraft is being built for operational requirements within N.A.T.O., why is it that the operational requirements of the R.A.F. are so distinctive from those of the German, Italian and Dutch air forces? Apparently the French do not want this
638
type of aircraft at all. It is true that we have achieved an 80 per cent. common design requirement, but what is not obvious to me is why we cannot agree on an identical aircraft for what is bound to be an identical role. It is in the same theatre for the same purpose, and I cannot understand why the R.A.F. has to have its own special version.
I would ask my hon. Friend to assure us that, in view of the increasingly enormous sums which this House is being asked to vote, proper control and supervision is exercised over the expenditure of these monies.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: I want briefly to refer to what I believe to be three serious gaps in the Government's stewardship of the R.A.F. The first concerns the absence of a long-range strike reconnaisance aircraft.
The House knows that the deterrent has been taken over by the Royal Navy's submarines, but I suggest that there is a need for the R.A.F. to have a long-range strike aircraft armed certainly with conventional weapons and probably also nuclear weapons. Whether or not hon. Members agree with that, I believe that they will agree that it is essential for the R.A.F. to have a long-range reconnaisance aircraft both for operations in Europe and for the defence of shipping throughout the world.
The Canberras and V-bombers are exercising this rôle at the moment. However, both are obsolete and gradually are being phased out. The TSR2 and the F111 are not being proceeded with, and all that we have and are likely to have for the next few years is the Buccaneer. That is an excellent plane. It is built in my constituency, and I have a good knowledge of it. But I would remind the House that it was designed some ten years ago as a maritime aircraft. Now it is being used in a different rôle. Perhaps I might also remind the House that, seven or eight years ago, I was trying in the House to persuade the R.A.F. to take this very aircraft. If it had taken it then, a tremendous amount of Government money would have been saved. However, because of friction between the Royal Navy and the R.A.F., unfortunately, it did not happen. This plane is subsonic. This can be an advantage

639
because it can get in under the radar beam when attacking a target.
I should like to know whether the order for Buccaneers which was announced at the end of last year is for the Mark 2 or for an improved design with perhaps more range and, therefore, a longer reconnaissance capability. The reconaissance capability is vital to the future of the R.A.F. if the plane is to fulfil its functions well into the 1970s.
I should like to ask the Minister about the M.R.C.A. I imagine that this aircraft will eventually supplant the Buccaneer as the long range reconaissance and strike aircraft. It is not really the successor of the A.F.V.G., which I think was more of a fighter. This is to be a long-range aircraft in the strike and reconaissance rôle. I hope that the Minister will confirm that. Is there not a grave danger, unless this aircraft is designed and produced in the near future, our design teams will begin losing their expertise? It seems when we drop one design after another and purchase American aircraft we lose a number of our design teams which are essential to our future research and expertise.
I remind the House, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley North (Sir E. Bullus), that the Daily Telegraph, in an article on 1st March, stated that the R.A.F. combat strength had fallen to 460 aircraft, which included 144 Canberras which are now obsolete. This puts Britain in 14th place below countries such as North Korea, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, Japan and even India in respect of combat strength. This is a serious matter and must be taken seriously by both sides.
The second matter concerns maritime aircraft. The Minister must agree that shipping has to be protected. There are over 2,000 British ships at sea in various parts of the world. It is possible, in the era of nuclear stalemate, that we could possibly get a conventional war at sea— for example, in the Indian Ocean with a "middle Power". Therefore, our shipping would have to be protected from the air.
I put to the House in an earlier debate that to cover shipping from possible air attack we need two aircraft airborne and four at two minutes' notice.
640
If we provide these aircraft from a carrier, flat-top, call it what we will, we can do it with one squadron. If we do it from a land base some distance away we will need six aircraft over the convoy or ship, six aircraft on their way out and six aircraft on their way back. The ratio is one squadron to nine. I want to know what the Government are doing about it. They did not question those figures when I put them to the House. Presumably they accept them. Therefore, they must accept that there is an important rôle for the R.A.F. in operating from ships at sea.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman explain how a ship at sea could be protected from a rocket?
Mr. Wall: The real object of aircraft protection of ships at sea is against other aircraft or possibly against missile discharging warships. The defence of ships at sea from rockets or missiles would be from their own surface to air missiles which are being considerably improved in the Royal Navy.
Concerning the Mediterranean, it is clear that the R.A.F. can operate from land bases. But this could not happen in the Indian Ocean area. We have Gan, Diego Garcia and Masera, and that is about all. Therefore, it is essential for aircraft—probably vertical take-off aircraft—to be provided operating from ships. The Minister agreed this was being examined by the Government and said that they would have to be provided for the R.A.F.
What measures are the Government taking for training the R.A.F. for operating from ships? This is not an easy matter. It caused a great deal of controversy in the 1920s and 1930s, and experience during the war revealed the need for specially trained pilots to operate from ships as well as from land bases to cover to protect our shipping. One does not get value from these pilots unless they are specially trained for this work.
What plans does the Minister have for training R.A.F. crews in this task? I am not making a party point in asking this question because I realise that throughout the history of the R.A.F. priority has never been given to the protection of shipping, whichever party has been in power. It is clear that unless

641
the Government ensure that special measures are taken to train special R.A.F. crews in this work—perhaps a section of the R.A.F. could be devoted to this task—our shipping will be inadequately protected. There would therefore be an advantage in maintaining the existing Fleet Air Arm for this purpose, at least while additional crews are being trained. Naval and R.A.F. aircrews would then be interchangeable.
In a previous debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy said that he had found a part of my speech, in which I had referred to the Simonstown Agreement and the Beira Patrol, amusing. I hope that the Minister will not burst his sides laughing tonight when I refer to the possible sale of Nimrods to South Africa. It seems utterly crazy, since we have the best
642
modern aircraft of its type in the world, that we apparently do not intend to sell it to South Africa. I hope that the Minister will not reply that South Africa has not placed orders for this aircraft. We all know that the South African Government will not place such orders until they know that they will get the necessary export licences. Does not this illustrate the neglect of maritime strategy that is occuring under the present Government and their general neglect of the British aircraft industry? It all stems from their basic failure to appreciate that an island such as ours lives by trade alone. Unless they appreciate this and initiate a proper maritime strategy, there will be danger ahead for us; and I hope that the Minister will concentrate on this issue and answer some of these questions when he winds up.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move,
That the said number to reduced by 1,000 men.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) described the Motion as "unfortunate". He may be right, although it is highly traditional. It is the sort of Motion which has been moved from time immemorial in this type of debate. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence have moved similar Motions on previous occasions.
Having made that clear, I wish it to be equally clear that the terms of the Amendment are governed to some extent by the Table Office. We are technically discussing Vote A, and even if we had wished to do so, we could not have moved a more drastic type of Amendment to, for example, alter the Government's defence policy. In other words, we are limited to moving to reduce the strength of the R.A.F. by 1,000 men, but in doing so we are entitled to indicate our displeasure with some aspects of the defence policy.
Compared with the sort of defence policy that hon. Gentlemen opposite would introduce, this one is good. The summary of the policy, of which this Vote is a part, contained in the conclusion of the Green Paper is sensible and reasonable. It is certainly more sensible and reasonable than the sort of policy that hon. Gentlemen opposite have indicated they would introduce if the country should suffer the misfortune of the Conservatives being elected to power. Apparently they would pursue a policy entirely without any regard to the relative position of this country to other countries. They would pursue a policy without regard to the financial strength of the country. The general policy they have put forward, to come to the particular question—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not debating defence policy as such, but Vote A of the Air Estimates. Perhaps the hon. Member will confine his remarks to that.
Mr. Jenkins: I will follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend confined his remarks very closely to the question before
644
us, but the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who followed him, ranged over the whole of defence policy. You were kind to him on that occasion, and I hope that if I follow him a little way you will permit me to do so, but I shall try to remain within the guidance which you were so kind as to give me.
In the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), I was rather reminded of those officers with whom I had the honour to serve in the war. They carried on their breasts an R.F.C. badge and had to be placed in positions of lesser importance because they tended to think they were fighting the 1914–18 war.
Mr. Corfield: That is, of course, the standard crack of those who are determined not to face reality.
Mr. Jenkins: I think that when the hon. Member dies it will be found that engraved on his heart will be 1939–45.
I had the privilege of serving in Fighter Command, and I am not without affection for the Royal Air Force. It was a civilised command, because it was engaged on a defensive operation; we were engaged in repelling attack. What frightens many of us is that that kind of defence is finished; no longer is there defence but counter-offence. This is an alarming development. It is no longer a question of mounting a response to attack. All the countries of the world in their air forces are mounting a policy of counter-offensive.
I have put forward this Amendment to reduce the strength of the Royal Air Force because, although I think my right hon. Friends are pursuing a defence policy which is much more realistic and sensible than the policy which would be followed by hon. Members opposite, even my right hon. Friends have not come to terms with the realities of the situation in the world. The policies they are following entail an unnecessarily larger air force than this country is capable of deploying. If they were to follow not even the relatively sensible policies in the defence Green Paper, as distinct from the policies of hon. Members opposite, but which were put before the electorate in 1964 and 1966, particularly in relation to air defence, which

645
reflected the views of the party to which they and I belong, it would be much more sensible.
Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Member is putting the accent on defence, particularly in the case of Fighter Command in the last war. Does he not realise that once the crew is in the air, whether it is the Few in 1939 to 1945 or the crew today, it is very much a matter of offence and attack?
Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member is forgetting that there is a difference between attacking a civilian population and defending against a fighter. Anyone who knows what happened in the last war knows that the standards declined. At the beginning of the last war, we were issued with things called rules of war and were told what was right and what was wrong and what not to do. By the end of the war we were bombing civilians wholesale.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will assist the Chair by indicating to which pages in the Defence Estimates dealing with the Royal Air Force he is relating his argument. The Estimates are for expenditure in the coming year, not for expenditure in 1939.
Mr. Jenkins: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for giving me that advice, which I will immediately follow. I was drawing attention to Vote 7, Class C—Armament, Ammunition and Explosives. I was about to suggest that the nature of the armament, ammunition and explosives currently employed by the Royal Air Force fits it for a rôle entirely different from that which it used to perform. In other words, it is a counter-offensive rôle at best and an offensive rôle at worst. There is no defensive rôle such as at least one command in the Royal Air Force used to perform.
I come to why I seek to reduce the number of men engaged by 1,000. I want to press the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who asked what the armament, ammunition and explosives would entail. I, too, would like to know how much napalm is included in this item of
"Aircraft armament, ancillary equipment for guided missiles, ground defence weapons, etc."
646
To what extent is nuclear armament involved in
"Ammunition, rockets, bombs, guided missiles, torpedoes, etc."?
Are there any proposals for the distribution of chemical and biological means of warfare? Are they concealed in these subheads? If so, how much is involved in the spreading of disease among other people? What preparations have we got for that under this Vote?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will enlighten us on some of these points, because in some ways the Vote which we are discussing serves to conceal rather than to reveal the facts of air warfare as it is in these times. The more we know about the real nature of air warfare the better we shall be placed to evaluate the question whether we are getting value for money, so to speak.
In relation to air warfare, and possibly in relation to all other warfare, the last sensible large war has already been fought. There is not likely to be any more major warfare of a sensible character. This relates particularly to the question of air warfare and the amount of money and numbers of people involved. It therefore is closely related to this Vote and to the Amendment. My right hon. Friends would be well advised to reconsider their policy and see whether they could not reshape it and bring it more into line with what was laid down in their 1966 manifesto, in which they said, as regards our activity in the air and as regards our defence activity generally:
"Labour's immediate objectives are agreements to stop all nuclear tests and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons; further, Labour will seek agreements to create nuclear-free zones and make possible agreed and verified international disarmament."
There have been signs in recent months that my right hon. Friends have moved in that direction. I hope that they will continue to do so. In the meantime, I suggest that they investigate the possibilities of adopting a more defensive attitude to defence and not lining themselves up, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seems to have lined himself up, with the policy which was advocated by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in 1957—the counter-nuclear policy whereby a conventional attack is countered by a nuclear

647
response, in which aircraft would no doubt play a substantial part. It appears that the policy which we attacked when we were in opposition is one which we have adopted now that we are the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend can assure me that we have not in government adopted the policies that we attacked when we were in opposition.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I was rather disappointed at the beginning of the debate, when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) did his best to provoke the Minister of Defence for Equipment into a short adventure in the Caribbean in the neighbourhood of Anguilla, that the Minister would not follow him there. Had he done so, I should like to have taken him a little further and pinned him down and asked him how he proposed, in the event of an attack upon it, to defend British Honduras and with what aeroplanes and from where. However, it was fairly clear that the Minister was not to be drawn, unless we hear from him later in the debate.
In his very forward-looking speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) referred to the importance of Coastal Command and spoke sadly of the fact that we had only 38 Nimrods in place of seven squadrons of Shackletons, and one of which has since February been in the Mediterranean. It is largely because we have only 38 Nimrods that I am speaking in this debate, because the moment I heard that the number was to be only 38, I was well aware that it was unlikely that three Coastal Command stations were to be kept open in the United Kingdom. And so it proved. That is why I am on my feet tonight to make—I do not apologise for it, because it is of importance —a purely constituency speech about the closure of one of those Coastal Command stations, the Royal Air Force station at Ballykelly, in my constituency.
As I said last year in this same debate, this means unemployment for hundreds of my constituents in an area of very high unemployment. It also means a loss of spending power of about £1¼ million in an area which cannot afford that loss and where the economy is really the economy of the Royal Air Force.
648
Indeed, the whole community there has grown up around the Royal Air Force. If the closure comes about, it will have an appalling effect on the little village of Ballykelly, Limavady and the surrounding district.
I spoke last year of the cost to the local authorities of the amenities which they provided as facilities for the Royal Air Force and as a result of Government pledges which flowed very glibly from right hon. and hon. Members opposite in the months before. I spoke in some detail also last year on what that decision had done to the local authorities concerning the large new primary school, which was virtually built specially for the progeny of personnel in the Royal Air Force. Two-thirds of the pupils for that school, which was built at a cost of £¼ million, would have been the sons and daughters of personnel in the Royal Air Force.
I also spoke of the other schools in the area, which were enlarged almost at the behest of the Ministry of Defence, and also of the rate increases which will fall on local residents when the Royal Air Force moves out. I recounted the hardships which would be inflicted on small shopkeepers, hoteliers, restaurant owners and the like, who had in some cases put, as I know for a fact because I have seen them and talked to them, their life savings into improving and modernising their premises as a result of assurances given by members of the Government.
I do not want this year to embarrass right hon. Gentlemen opposite by a repetition of the pledges which they scattered around so liberally in years gone by before the closure was announced. I suppose that one cannot nowadays expect Ministers to resign because they have closed down, or are about to close down, an airfield in Northern Ireland, even at the sort of cost which I have explained. That is too much to expect. But one can ask for some contrition, a little sense of guilt and a sense of the moral responsibility they ought to have for what will happen to the people in that community.
Only on 14th September, 1966, the Leader of the House of Lords, speaking in Londonderry said:
"It is highly desirable that the R.A.F. should continue to have a strong presence in Northern Ireland. The R.A.F. for as far ahead as we can see, will remain in Ballykelly."

649
And so it went on. Pledges fell from the lips of Ministers like rain from the sky in that particularly wet summer of 1967. Even on 13th December, 1967, I was given an oral assurance in the House that all was well. This R.A.F. station is permanently in my "Brought forward" file. It is of such importance to the economy of that part of the world that, virtually every three months, it comes to the top of the file and I ask Questions to see that its future is assured. An oral assurance was given on 13th December, 1967, yet only 15 days later the closure was announced. That is the sort of situation with which we have had to deal.
I hold strongly the view that the Government have a moral responsibility towards these people, in view of their pledges. And so I ask these questions. Have they reconsidered their decision? Are they reconsidering it? If not, what success have they had in finding alternative uses for the airfield, and when will they tell us about them? What can the Minister of State for Equipment tell me about the future of the men who are likely to be displaced? Can he put me in the picture on how fast the rundown is going and what the phasing of it will be in the future? If he cannot tell me all that tonight, perhaps he will be good enough to write to me about it.
Now, another aspect of the matter. Here I thank the Minister's former colleague, who was extremely helpful. The aerodrome there is already being used by one civil operator, Ulster Air Transport. This is very useful, and I have had a great deal of help in the way of bringing that about. In a series of Questions and Answers since then, we have established that the airfield can be used by civil airlines on certain occasions and for certain purposes. What I wish to know is if British European Airways or British United Airways want in the future to use this airfield as a diversionary airport instead of distant Dublin, and if they find in so doing that they must have staff on the premises should diversions occur, will the Minister undertake that premises and accommodation will be found for them? That might make a decision considerably easier.
I have not consulted Ulster Air Transport on the matter, but it is possible that some sharing of accommodation might be feasible and help to solve the
650
problem. If not, it would be useful to know whether the R.A.F. would provide other accommodation.
The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): There are two airfields which are to close which are permanently emblazoned on my mind: one is Brawdy and the other is Ballykelly. If it is possible to find any alternative use for either of them, we shall do it. The hon. Gentleman is interested in Ballykelly. As regards providing facilities at the aerodrome, I am sympathetic to his request. I assure him that I shall be only too pleased if it is possible to help in any way in the particularly difficult problem which he has in that part of Ulster. I am prepared to look at any request which he makes.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am grateful for that reassurance. If I may have a little more detail in answer to my specific questions, perhaps on another occasion, I shall be grateful.
Lastly, I come to the question of safety and facilities, so to speak, pertaining to safety. May I be told how the safety facilities at Ballykelly compare with those which are likely to be available at civilian airfields used in the normal way by civil airlines elsewhere? That would be most helpful information.
Mr. Reynolds: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I end as I began. The Government have a self-inflicted responsibility for the people in this area. It must be discharged. What I want is an assurance that it has not been forgotten.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Having visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) two years ago, I have a genuine sympathy with the predicament in which he finds himself. I, too, hope that some alternative use can be found for Ballykelly. But it strikes me that his problem is symptomatic of the genuine problem before the House, and that is the way in which these Votes are presented.
I think the Defence White Paper was a superbly-written and extremely coherent and clear document, but I am not happy about the way in which these Votes are

651
presented. If it is decided that the hon. Gentleman's constituency should rightly be helped, the item should not go on the Defence Vote. It should be a distinct Vote on the notion that social aid has to be given to this area in Northern Ireland. It ought to be separate from the Defence Vote as such. I suspect that constituencies like the hon. Gentleman's have perhaps suffered by an over-compartmentalisation of decision-making in Whitehall. There is a genuine Whitehall problem here which has to be considered.
This brings me to the point where I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who said that these civil by-products of military research are valuable. But if there are by-products from research, should not they be manipulated out of the Defence Vote as such? I hope that by next year, as I have said in previous Defence debates and Estimates debates, some genuine thought will be given to the reconstruction of the Vote as such, and if it is social aid, or OpMac, or research by-products, the figures should appear under separate Votes from the Defence Vote. By all means add the items on the Defence Vote, but let the items be separate because defence policy then becomes more efficient and much clearer.
I am a little impatient with the way in which this debate has taken place and with the way in which the Opposition have constantly asked for more of very many different items. Contrary to general belief, I am not one of those who have ever asked in this House for a general slash. I agree that if we slash things too far, we get into trouble in which a force is no longer a force. But, having said this, it becomes a rather different matter when, for instance, the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) asked for 500 extra front line aircraft. We have got to be clear what we mean by this. Do we mean 500 extra Phantoms or 500 extra Hunters, or what? There is an obligation on those who ask for this order of escalation in our aircraft needs to be very precise about what they want, why they want it and what it will cost.
It will be within the recollection of the Government Front Bench that I put down a Question about the cost of the 300 or so extra aircraft for which the
652
hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asked in the Defence debate. The answer was, I suppose somewhat naturally, that no figure could be given because I was not specific about what kind of aircraft were wanted. But I think it is up to the Government Front Bench to extract from the Opposition precisely what is meant when time and again the Opposition spokesmen say that it is totally inadequate, that we are behind Turkey, North Korea, Italy and various other countries in the number of front line aircraft.
If Defence debates are to be meaningful—and, regardless of party, I think they should be meaningful—we have to be clear about this sort of situation. It would be much clearer if we were given rather better information about unit costs.
I interrupted my hon. Friend on the subject, and it struck me as unreasonable that we could not be given the unit costs of the SA330 and the SA340 helicopters. I know them, but I will not quote them, especially in my position ! It would be meaningful for the debate if these costs were given. I do not believe that they are secret, and I am dissatisfied with the Answer which I received to my Parliamentary Question asking about the unit costs of the SA330 and SA340 Anglo-French helicopters respectively. This seems to be an example of the unnecessary secrecy about which Fulton complained.
I will not repeat many of the points made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), about the multi-rôle combat aircraft except to express a view on cooperation. I grant my hon. Friend that the Jaguar has been a success and I also grant him that co-operation at sophisticated levels is becoming better and better. But I wonder whether this kind of co-operation at the production level is, in fact, the optimum kind of co-operation. There have been great difficulties not only in civil developments but also in connection with many of the international fighter and combat aircraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley said, if there are to be these differences—and I challenge the need for different requirements—in Anglo-German variable geometry aircraft, and if we have to have separate avionics, which leads to separate airframes, which

653
in turn leads to separate engine requirements, then we get to the situation to which my hon. Friend referred—the extraordinary story of the Spey engine being fitted into the Phantom. Anyone who reflects on the work of the Public Accounts Committee and of my hon. Friends the Members for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) and Heeley, and anyone who looks at the reports which they have been producing, must wonder about the future of international co-operation. I should like to see a situation in which one country in the Western Alliance produced, for instance, the combat aircraft and perhaps we produced the Harrier or the V/STOL or whatever was required by the rest of Europe. I leave that argument on the basis of market co-operation.
May I refer to the very good job which my hon. Friends are doing in the important matter of the career structure of the R.A.F. I hope that the facilities at Cranwell will be used. From my knowledge of the situation, they have done excellent work in creating a situation with the universities, and I hope that it is a success because, as was rightly said in the opening speeches, this is a bold stroke and a risk, for reasons into which I need not go at eleven o'clock. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends deserve great credit.
As my hon. Friend at the Home Office knows, a day's visit was arranged for me to Hendon. It is a pity how few Members of Parliament materialise for such visits. I found it extremely impressive to see the way in which computer techniques were being adapted by the forces. These comments in praise ought to be made, particularly by one such as myself who in the past has been somewhat critical on Air Estimates debates.
I am a little concerned about Mallard. I asked a Question on the subject and the reply was that it was too early to give any indication of production costs. This is linked with another problem. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley to ask for more accurate accounting. In theory, I am wholly in favour of more accurate forecasting and accounting, but I am not sure how we get the Services to do it in the absence of sufficient technical cost officers. It is a difficult problem whether we should try to pull people out of industry to be technical cost officers when
654
they are the very people of whom the aircraft industry is desperately short.
I beg the Government to look at the whole problem of adaptation. It seems to me that adaptation over the years has led to an escalation of costs that is entirely unjustified by any supposed gains that we should get from it.
Other hon. Members want to speak, the time is late, and so I should like to rest my case there.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is right. Time is pressing, and I do not wish to detain the House unduly long. Therefore, I shall make one general point straight away, followed by three particular ones.
My general point is that it becomes clearer, year by year, as we go through these stilted, ritual debates on the Service Estimates that we need a better system of keeping ourselves informed on what is going on and the way in which money is being spent in the name of defence. This is not a satisfactory debate, and moreover we know well that tomorrow we shall be extremely unlikely to have any further debate on the Royal Air Force, because other matters will crowd it out. Each year the case for establishing a Specialist Committee on defence becomes stronger and stronger.
I now come to the first of my particular points. In concentrating on them I would not like it to be thought that I under-estimate the importance of the Royal Air Force in our defences, or that other points raised by other speakers are not important. But it would be well for the House to turn its attention briefly to these three matters.
The first is the general use of R.A.F. airfields for civilian purposes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) touched on this briefly in relation to Ballykelly. I have had some exchanges with the Department on the general subject of the use of the R.A.F. stations in the United Kingdom for civilian flights, and I note with interest that there are only four stations at which scheduled flights operate. There are about 30 stations at which there are less than one civilian flight per week on average, and although there has been a considerable increase

655
in the total number of flights, from some 46,000 non-scheduled flights in 1965 to 60,000 in 1967, this is very largely accounted for by the enormous activity at White Waltham, where there was a total of about 35,000 non-scheduled movements in 1967. The next largest in that year was Manston where the figure was 9,300. Then the total drops away very rapidly until one comes to Northolt which, although it is comparatively amongst the larger entries in this log, appears to have had no general increase in civilian movements and to be static at the total of about 1,200 movements a year. That seems to me to be quite inadequate.
Taking that with the apparent overall decline in scheduled movements, I consider that there seems to be a considerable under-utilisation of the resources involved in R.A.F. airfields up and down the country. The Department should make every conceivable effort to encourage the civilian use of these fields. I know that there are security considerations. One cannot readily accept civilian flights at a Q.R.A. field. But the competitive development of domestic air services must become more intense. We need regional networks to provide for third level carrier, we need more facilities for air taxis and we need them at weekends and on a 24-hour basis. Though individual station commanders are generally helpful in this context, I am by no means satisfied that the Department's attitude is always as constructive and helpful as it could be.
My second point touches on a matter that is of some sensitivity to the Government as regards security. I am strongly tempted to move that strangers do withdraw before I deal with it, but I realise that this would take up the time of the House. I hope, however, that if the Minister feels he can give an answer he will not hesitate to move such a Motion so that the House may hear it.
My point concerns the number of flying hours of R.A.F. pilots. I have had some exchanges with the Government about this, culminating in an Answer on 18th October last year, when I was told that it would not be in the public interest to publish the average monthly total of flying hours of R.A.F. pilots because:
656
"Taken together with other information which is available it would enable a hostile intelligence service to arrive at a significantly closer assessment of the operational capabilities of the Royal Air Force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 177.]
That may be true, although I am sceptical about the validity of the smokescreen. If there is something that should be known about this, it is surely important that the House should be told. Hostile intelligence services probably know it already.
The House has great need of this information, because the operational capability of the R.A.F. depends upon the skill and practice of its pilots. I am told that this matter causes considerable concern to those who employ and train ex-R.A.F. personnel for civilian airlines and that the average monthly total of hours flown by R.A.F. pilots may be as little as 15. If that is so, it is a matter of considerable concern. If it is because of economy that the number of flying hours is being cut down, the House must probe it further and be given full and satisfactory answers.
My third point concerns the publication of the R.A.F. accident statistics—again an item on which I have had exchanges with the Government, as has the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is not present. Once again, indeed, in a debate on the Service Estimates, the Liberal Bench is unoccupied. The Minister of Defence for Administration told me on 19th February that he hoped to be in a position to make a statement in the near future. Last October, I was told by his hon. Friend that it was hoped to complete the review of the practice with regard to the publication of military aircraft accident statistics by the end of the year. We have not yet had a statement on the subject and this is to be regretted.
Such researches as I have been able to undertake suggest that we should take the subject very seriously. Dealing with only three types of aircraft—the Hunter, the Canberra and the Lightning—I am told that, in recent years, accidents in and around the United Kingdom—I exclude accidents overseas—totalled as follows: In 1963, there were 8; in 1964, again 8; in 1965, there were 4; in 1966, there were 8; in 1967, there were 10 and last year there were 6. That reaches a considerable total.

657
These statistics may or may not be accurate—I am in no position to judge— but they are the only information I have. The House should be given full and accurate information on the subject, as is recognised in a number of other countries. It would enable us to judge the operational capability of our air forces and to see whether there are some defects or shortcomings in training or operation which are placing aircrew at risk.
Secondly, and perhaps more important, we should have this information so that we may be assured that operational flying is not taking place in conditions which place the general public at risk. Unfortunately there are from time to time accidents in this country and there have been civilian casualties. There have been crashes by aircraft of other nations as well—for example, the French aircraft crash at Farnborough last year. From time to time there are crashes by American Air Force planes based in this country.
Why may we not have much greater information on this subject? Why may we not be taken into the confidence of the Government? Is there something here which they feel we should not know? This is a matter of which the House should be much better informed and on which, again, there is no justification for the Government to hide behind a smokescreen. If, for one reason or another, the Minister finds himself unable to cover these points, I ask that they be covered in next year's Defence White Paper because they are matters of continuing public concern and it is necessary that the House should have an adequate opportunity to probe and be satisfied about them.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Edwin Brooks: I hope that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the specific points which he raised. Instead, I will launch into the major matter to which I want to refer.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), I am disturbed about some of the estimating which has taken place in
658
the past and which appears to be taking place at present. I am concerned tonight to draw special attention to one or two ambiguities which appear to thwart any attempt to follow what is happening in aviation expenditure.
On pages 2 and 3 of the Estimates before us, there is an item, "Purchase of United States Aircraft", and some extraordinary figures are given under the headings "Gross" and "Repayments", showing apparent discrepancies of only £1,000 in all cases. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have been privileged to learn something of the reasoning behind it, but I shall be surprised if hon. Members who do not serve on that Committee know what it means.
However, at the end of the summary, we see that it is accounted for by page 188, Ministry of Technology, and there we find an extraordinarily short item referring to large sums of money under the heading "Purchase of United States Aircraft (Net)". The figure for 1968–69 was £171 million, and for 1969–70 it is £90 million.
We are told on page 188:
"In due course an Estimate will be presented to Parliament for the Ministry of Technology (Class IV, 21 and 22) for expenditure by the Ministry of Technology on the supply of equipment for Government Departments and other customers; and the purchase of United States aircraft and for research and development connected therewith."
I went to the Vote Office to inquire whether the due course had expired and the Estimate had been presented to clarify these sums. I discovered that it has not been presented so far.
Mr. Roy Roebuck: I expect it is confidential.
Mr. Brooks: It is not in the least confidential. It is available for last year and, I hope, will be for this year within a few days. I feel that my hon. Friend's intervention is unhelpful, but at least it assists me in revealing how ignorant of the situation many hon. Members are.
Mr. Roebuck: Had my hon. Friend been here last night, he would know to what I referred. Hon. Members were not allowed access to a document which was said to be "Confidential". My aside was meant to be humorous.
Mr. Brooks: I was here for as long as my hon. Friend—unless he stayed after midnight, that is—
Mr. Roebuck: I was awake.
Mr. Brooks: When one turns to page 185, where the expenditures of the Ministry of Technology are set out in more detail, one sees the heading "Vote 20 (Ministry of Technology) (Aerospace)" and the figure of £147,248,000. As it is impossible to clarify the breakdown of this, since the Civil Estimates have not yet been presented to Parliament, one might be forgiven for assuming this to be an unambiguous global sum. However, looking at the corresponding Civil Estimates for 1968–69, one finds on page 111 the heading "Ministry of Technology (Aerospace)", under which there is a similar tabulation to that on page 125 of the Defence Estimates, and the figure for "Research and Development: Work by Industry, etc." of £166,087,000, which is substantially different from the figure which I quoted just now.
Clearly, something very odd is happening here. It may be that, by going through the breakdown given in last year's Civil Estimates, it is possible to discover how some of the discrepancy has arisen. I do not pretend that there is anything mysterious or formidable about the problem, but the form in which these Estimates are presented to us, without having the simultaneous presentation of the Technology figures to show the basis of this global total, is a matter which we should criticise. We are dealing with extremely large sums, and it is important to know what is happening.
The final example I have time for this evening to illustrate the ambiguity of these figures was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley. He pointed out, on page 155, relating to Vote 7 of the Defence Estimates, that there is a discrepancy of some £32,500,000 in the 1968–69 figures compared to 1969–70. If we look at page 154, we find that rather more than £32,500,000—£33,500,000—is explained by the discrepancy in one particular item, "Airframes &c", and this is further elaborated as "Airframes, airframe repairs and the occasional purchase of aircraft complete with engines and installed equipment."
660
In 1968–69, the figure was £39 million, and in 1969–70 it was £72,500,000. This is a difference of the order of two to one. I suspect that there may be a simple reason for this, but I would have thought it would have been helpful if, in presenting these Estimates with such a tremendous change in this one item, we had had a short footnote or something to illustrate how on earth this has arisen.
It would be possible to spend a great deal of time in dealing with the ambiguity involved in the presentation of these figures. I am not trying to be clever for the sake of it, but I do submit that the time has come when it is important, if we are to have a debate on the Defence Estimates which is meaningful, to look rather more carefully at the way these are presented and elaborated.
I have two final points to make in the form of extended questions. The first point is one which has increasingly concerned many members, not only of this House but no doubt of assemblies throughout the world, ever since the U-2 incident at the beginning of this decade. I am referring to the growing problem of the surveillance of our country, and indeed of the world, by satellites, some of which have been called—I think quite properly—spy satellites. They are capable of proceeding more or less at will above our country and capable of taking information of considerable detail and up-to-date accuracy.
A few days ago, the United States revealed that a large Soviet rocket is on the launching pad ready, presumably, to land a complicated apparatus on the Moon, and we have a detailed exposition of how it is possible to do this from photographic evidence. If that sort of military information is available, clearly there are virtually no secrets left.
This raises another point, to some extent a point of law, which perhaps should not therefore be addressed to my right hon. Friends tonight but which should be addressed to someone. Increasingly in recent months we have heard reports of various countries prepared to ban overflights by supersonic planes. It seems interesting to speculate at what point a country's airspace terminates. Concorde will be flying in its supersonic configuration at some 60,000 feet—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not a matter for the debate today.
Mr. Brooks: With respect, I am trying to make the point that if we are talking about the safety of this country's airspace, it is important to know what the dangers are that face us, and what protective devices we have, or should have. I cannot accept without further elaboration that this is in any way out of order.
We have spent a great deal of time in this debate, not least because speakers have given us the benefit of their wisdom at length, but I would go on to make a further point about the four-minute warning. At Fylingdales and other stations there are various systems, presumably to give advance warning of rockets launched from the ground which will be identified at certain points of their trajectory. We are now hearing of orbiting bombs which I should have thought present a quite new order of difficulty for this type of early warning system. Again I should be interested to know what response, if any, is possible against this sort of very serious threat.
This brings me to my final point. In the United States, and doubtless in the Soviet Union, thought has been given to possible protection against this type of attack and against the more traditional type of inter-continental ballistic missile. I refer to the Sentinel system upon which the President of the United States has recently made a most important announcement. I am not sure how far this has been taken in consultation with the N.A.T.O. allies. I suspect that we shall have pressures, as the years go by, to make this relatively light scatter much denser across the United States, if only because the Chinese ballistic strength will increase. Therefore, it is most important that we and our N.A.T.O. allies should have the fullest possible discussion with the United States over the wisdom or otherwise of the military implications of a decision of such magnitude.
I am sorry to have spoken so hurriedly. I feel that we are entering a period of more technological sophistication and it is important that we should be one or two steps ahead of those who are thinking along these lines elsewhere.
11.26 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In the past, my constituents have had many reasons to be grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). They will be all the more grateful to him tonight in his capacity as a usual channel in having made it possible for me to raise certain points on their behalf.
I should like to put my points briefly and basically in the form of questions.
The first two concern Transport Command. First, has the Belfast aircraft, which I had the pleasure of seeing in some detail both in Cyprus and in the Persian Gulf, been entirely satisfactory in operational service? If so, why is there a type, to which the pilots refer as the "fast back", flying at a considerably lower speed than was intended at the point of manufacture? Can the Minister say that the teething troubles, if that is what they were, with the Belfast aircraft have now been satisfactorily ironed out?
Secondly, concerning Transport Command, we have been told of the need and the intention to continue to fly our troops to the Far East. At present the airstrip at Bahrein is used. Can the Minister say how we shall manage to perform these operations when, as is intended, Bahrein is abandoned?
I now turn to two strategic matters. First, can the Minister say whether it is or is not the view of the Government that the Soviet Navy in the Mediterranean could be sunk by air power within a matter of hours? I should like a clear answer to that question. I have recently done a tour of the Mediterranean for the W.E.U. and I had the pleasure of talking to a number of N.A.T.O. admirals. I have also recently put some questions to senior officials in the United States. None of these people agree with the British Minister who claimed that the Soviet Navy in the Mediterranean could be sunk in a matter of hours because, for one reason above all else, we do not know where all its submarines are.
The second strategic question concerns the statement by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). He said that we might as well forget all about defence, because the offensive ballistic missile has pretty well ruled that out.

663
I have had the pleasure of discussing the A.B.M. system in the United States in some detail. The hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) is right in saying that President Nixon's decision is perhaps the biggest single decision that has been taken in matters of defence in a decade. It is of crucial importance, and it is a great tragedy that we are not able to discuss it in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, I believe that defence can be credibly established by the combination of the Sprint and Spartan missiles and by the perimeter acquisition radar. I do not want to go into detail. Has the matter of effective anti-ballistic missile defence been considered by the Government? Has it been discussed in any detail with the United States? I hope that the Minister will deal with those questions.
I suppose that Suffolk has one of the greatest concentrations of air power in this country. We have the three American bases at Mildenhall, Laken-heath, and Wethersfield, and the three substantial Royal Air Forces bases at Stradishall, Honington, and Wattisham. I am concerned only with Stradishall and Honington, and I start with the latter.
Honington is an excellent base which has had a chequered history. First it was to have the F 111s, then it was not to have them, then it was to have some of the F 111s. I was given personal assurances, in writing and by word of mouth, that even though the Press was saying that the F 111s would be cancelled I could tell my constituents and local authorities that this was all hot air, that the Government in the person of the Minister of Defence had personally guaranteed that they would come. Of course we know that they did not come. In the process of this in and out of Honington the local authorities and the local population were put to great difficulties, and indeed so was I.
I am glad to say to the Minister that now that the whole of the Buccaneer force is to come to Honington we are delighted. The presence of the R.A.F. at Honington is something that gives us great pride, and I should like to say to the Minister, with whom I have had correspondence on this matter, that we are very pleased indeed. When is this base to be opened for operational purposes?
664
Is there likely to be sufficient housing there? Will there be adequate transport, particularly for the married families to get into and out of the nearby towns? What is the Minister doing about noise control?
My last point concerns Stradishall, another excellent base, but sadly it is to be closed when the R.A.F. air navigational training facilities are consolidated elsewhere. I observe that the Minister is taking no notice. I do not know why I am asking these questions, but my constituents at least are concerned. When is the rundown to start? What is to happen to the unestablished personnel who will be discharged? There are 125 unestablished personnel, and 45 established. What facilities will be provided by the Ministry of Defence, or by the Ministry of Productivity and Unemployment, or whatever it is called, in view of the fact that in the neighbouring town of Haverhill there are few jobs available at the present time? What do the Government intend to do about helping these redundant personnel to find alternative employment?
I wish that it had not been necessary to put a number of complex points in this rather staccato fashion, but I am sure that the Minister will understand that it was not the product of any discourtesy on my part, but rather an intention to deal briefly with a large number of subjects.
11.33 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have attended many dull and dreary debates in this House during the last 20 years, but this is about the dullest and dreariest of the lot. I think that some responsibility for this must rest with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), because he is the best sleeping pill and sleeping draught that I have ever known. It takes a long time for the House to recover from his orations.
We are very lucky this evening to have more time to debate the Air Force than we had to debate the other two Services. This is due to a procedural accident. If the Opposition had not come forward with a Motion of censure this afternoon, I suppose we would have had to conclude our debate at ten o'clock, and the Royal Air Force would have had two hours less in which to discuss its affairs.
Hon. Members: Why?
Mr. Hughes: Because we would have had to adopt the procedure which operated in respect of the debates on the other two Services.
I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to protect their interests and to see that Estimates are not rushed through as on this occasion. If this process goes on, I should not be surprised if the House of Commons were soon asked to pass huge Estimates on the nod.
We are here spending £563 million, and that is far more important than the House of Lords, and yet we are doing so with only a small number of hon. Members present, largely because hon. Members who have often contributed important technical speeches on these subjects have become "browned off" through being unable to get into these debates. I hope that the House will revolt against the Government's attempt to rush through these enormous sums without adequate discussion.
What is the Royal Air Force for? In the midst of a maze of technicalities, I have been trying to find out why we need to spend this exceedingly large sum on the R.A.F. I am still mystified. This afternoon the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs explained the circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to use armed force. Presumably, the R.A.F. has been engaged in the latest operation in the Caribbean. It appears to have taken troops to the island of Antigua and then to have dropped leaflets, a harmless and inspiring exercise. I do not know whether the R.A.F. or the Foreign Office has had to pay for the leaflets.
When the Foreign Secretary was asked this afternoon how force would be used in other circumstances, such as in Rhodesia, he said that force would be used only in circumstances when it would not create a great deal of human misery. That is a new definition and a new outlook. If this goes on, the Foreign Secretary will soon be trying to expound the sort of pacifist ideas which I have been trying to explain for a number of years. If the R.A.F. is not to be used in circumstances when it would create greater misery, or more evil or cruelty in the world, I do not see how there can be war.
What are the kinds of wars in which the R.A.F. is likely to be engaged in the
666
foreseeable future? Let us consider the R.A.F. in the light of the statement of the Minister of Defence. We are now told that the conventional forces of potential enemies are so large that if a conventional war broke out, we would have to retort by the use of nuclear weapons. Presumably, that means using the R.A.F., unless it means using Polaris which it would be out of order to discuss in this debate. What would be the rôle of the R.A.F. in the event of the Government of the day deciding to use nuclear weapons to meet a conventional attack?
I recall hearing the Prime Minister telling a meeting of women in Glasgow that Britain would never be the first to use nuclear weapons and that we would not press the button first. I do not know how such weapons could be used without the button being pressed or without the necessary signal being passed to the R.A.F. How does my right hon. Friend's pledge square with the doctrine elaborated by the Secretary of State for Defence at Munich? No wonder Lord Wigg affectionately described the Secretary of State as "Suicide Healey". If we are not to use nuclear weapons or, alternatively, if we are committed to a policy of suicide, I cannot envisage how this great number of aeroplanes about which we are speaking will defend the population of this country.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it possible that the Prime Minister was thinking of the excuse given by the young lady who had an illegitimate baby and said, "It is only a little one"? Perhaps the Prime Minister was thinking only of little nuclear weapons.
Mr. Hughes: If I start talking about illegitimate babies I will soon be called to order. Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise that matter when we are debating the Ministry of Health.
Why do we need all these aircraft? Will they take part in a European conflict? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) spoke of the massive air power of the Soviet Union. Russia has, under Communism, developed amazing air strength, which is not my idea of what Communism should be doing. Hon. Members who have travelled across Siberia to Japan in large aeroplanes which use virtually the same

667
engines as bombers appreciate the tremendous destructive power of the Soviet Air Force. But are we being asked to enter an arms race with the Soviet Union? We boast about the Concorde, but Russia is technologically ahead of us even there.
On the other side is America, with its enormous destructive air power. President Nixon has been talking about anti-ballistic defence systems. We talk in terms of millions of £s. They talk in billions. To enter an arms race with the United States or try to compete with Russia would beggar us and eventually bankrupt us.
Hon. Members talk about conventional defence of shipping. One word we have not heard in this debate is "rocket". Hon. Members do not realise the tremendous technical developments in delivering atomatic weapons by rockets. Russia and America have developed a technique for taking rockets to the Moon. If they can take them to the Moon, to Venus or Mars, they could drop enough hydrogen bombs in a couple of minutes on this country to destroy it. Yet we are talking about the Air Force as if it is relevant to the situation developing in the world and which will develop much more in the next decade.
We are wasting a large amount of money. Instead of reducing this Vote by 1,000 men, which is the traditional approach, we should reduce it by £500 million and put that £500 million into civil aircraft. Then we could have a civil aircraft industry. Instead we are taking away the resources and energies of the country and putting them into an air force which, if it is not obsolete now, will certainly be obsolete during the next decade. I appeal for a little realism in these debates. I do not see why we should go on spending £2,000 million every year without looking at what is happening in the world.
When we were in Opposition we moved votes of censure on the Government. I remember the last one in which we said that £20,000 million had been wasted in different kinds of aircraft in the previous 13 or 14 years. The same process is going on now, perhaps at a slightly reduced rate. We are still putting these enormous sums of money into buying American aircraft and into manufacturing aircraft of our own. I do not see how this House can get enthusiastic
668
about spending this money one week and then complain about balance of payments when we come to the Budget. When the Government said we were to abolish TSR2 I thought that we were on the road to regaining our sanity, but instead we are spending our money on American aircraft. It is still a bit of a mystery, but it means spending large sums of money.
Every year I make my protest. If anyone survives another war and reads this debate, they will see that my hon. Friend and I have taken the proper line in making an emphatic protest.
11.49 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Hastings: I want, first, to apologise to the House and to the Minister for having arrived late this evening during the course of the debate, through circumstances beyond my control. If in the course of my speech I touch on anything which has been fully covered already, I will immediately accept from the Minister any recommendation that I should pass on, because I know how irritating repetition can be, particularly late at night.
The speech just delivered by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) deserves attention. In these debates which take place year by year, we are always indebted to him for the light that he throws upon our problems. He is the Don Quixote of defence in the House of Commons. Every year, in one debate or another, he mounts his ancient horse, lowers his lance, and charges at everything—bows and arrows, the A.F.V.G., the TSR2, or whatever the most modern defence equipment may be. The hon. Gentleman does it with absolute conviction. We always respect him for that.
The hon. Gentleman admitted frankly that pacificism was his creed and that this was the reason for his mounting his horse every year. It is, perhaps, not unfair to suggest that, boiling the hon. Gentleman's views down to their essence, he believes that all defence and all concepts of war are reprehensible and wrong —who would deny this; nevertheless, some of us would say that war is inevitable in some degree in this wicked world; the hon. Gentleman says, "No"—but that, if it has to be, it is better the equipment is in the hands of the Soviet Union than in our hands.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Nonsense.
Mr. Hastings: This is my interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Therefore, he argues, if defeat has to be, because this implies victory or defeat, it would be better that we should be defeated than that the Soviet Union should be. This is where the hon. Gentleman is hoist on his windmill as the years pass. The hon. Gentleman complained that the R.A.F. was engaged in this tremendous operation on which the Government have embarked in Anguilla and was dropping leaflets. I had not heard about this. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spared us this desperate news this afternoon.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented my argument. I am as much against the Soviet Union spending colossal sums on so-called defence as I am against our spending colossal sums on it. I say it is leading to suicide. I want neither the Soviet Union nor the West to commit suicide.
Mr. Hastings: I entirely accept that. But there is a gradation of opinion in the hon. Gentleman's head; having listened to him diligently during the several years I have been here I would say that that was it.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.
Mr. Hastings: Yes. It is exactly what he has said this evening, as right hon. and hon. Members, at any rate those on this side, will testify to. The hon. Gentleman asks: why should we presume to compete with the Soviet Union, since from his journeys through Siberia or wherever it be he thinks that their power is unassailable; if there has to be a balance of victory or defeat, it had better be in favour of the Soviet Union. Anybody who has listened to the hon. Gentleman throughout the years will agree with my interpretation of his attitude.
I turn from the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech to two fairly narrow points which I wish to put to the Minister. The first concerns the question of the multi-rôle combat aircraft. The second concerns the question of helicopters. It will be no news to the Minister that, since the present Government came to power, I have done my best to explain why of the various shortcomings
670
of their policies over the years what they have done in defence aviation has been perhaps as damaging to Britain as anything at all.
I do not want in any way to embark upon the general point tonight. I merely remind the Minister that there is only one project on the drawing boards in Britain today which matters at all in defence aviation—that is the M.R.C.A. There is nothing else. This is an international project. It is going reasonably well, I understand. There are two versions—the two-seat and the one-seat. If it is to be the two-seat, then the design leadership rests at Preston. If it is the one-seat, it goes to Germany. The commonality between the two is something which can be worked out and, given an international company to direct the affair —as, for instance, Sepicat in the case of the Jaguar—things could go well. There are four companies involved—B.A.C., Fiat, Fokker, and Messersmicht Bolkow.
There are two questions on this subject which are of critical importance. We have heard that the whole of Britain's defence aviation in the future rested on the word of the Secretary of State for Defence upon the A.F.V.G.—and down it went Now we have only this one. In the industry and in the R.A.F. this is of principal and categoric importance.
Can the Minister satisfy us on these two points? First, what about the engine? The engine can only be, I think, either a Rolls-Royce concept or a Pratt and Whitney concept. In the case of either alternative, we are talking about paper work and no more. There is no hardware, there is nothing on the bench. They are theories at this stage. Doubtless Pratt and Whitney would represent that their work is further advanced, and Rolls-Royce would deny this.
We are permanently in a dilemma about this as long as we are stuck with the Plowden concept of the inevitability of international co-operation. If the countries and firms concerned accept a British engine, they will ipso facto insist upon design leadership on the airframe. Rolls-Royce, however, depends for its existence and its future upon the existence and the prosperity of a British airframe industry.
How will the Government work this out? Is not this at the base of the falsity, possibly, of the whole concept of

671
international collaboration? I am not questioning the M.R.C.A. It may be inevitable. I hope that it succeeds, but let us at least be aware of the limitations of the whole idea and of the disastrous advice which that Plowden Committee gave us a year or two back. That is the first point on the M.R.C.A.
Second, what are the French up to? Their greed is amazing. Their aim and their belief is that they can establish a European dominance in airframe design. That is what they are after. We have learned our lesson a time or two. The A.F.V.G., the cornerstone of British defence aviation, as the Secretary of State described it—
Mr. Wall: The core.
Mr. Hastings: I beg his pardon.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Core, as of an apple.
Mr. Hastings: My right hon. Friend is, of course, quite right.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The core, to be thrown away.
Mr. Hastings: Down it went. I and a number of my hon. Friends warned that that would happen, because some of us are connected with the industry and we knew what Dassault was up to. We knew that the Mirage 3G was on the stocks. "No", said the Secretary of State, "not at all." The Minister said that any suggestion that such a thing could happen was ridiculous. But, of course, it did. The A.F.V.G. was cancelled "for financial reasons," said the French Government, and three or four weeks afterwards up came Dassault with the Mirage 3G. Since then, and at this hour, the French are indisputably busy in Bonn advancing the Mirage 3G as an alternative to the M.R.C.A. That is undeniable.
It may be that our German friends in Messerschmidt and the German Government say that such talk is idle and that the French cannot expect to have any success in their permanent attempts to prise the German aircraft industry away from any connection with this country unless they produce orders for this aircraft which would make it worth while. That would seem to me to be an entirely acceptable proposition and likely to be true.
672
There are, however, rumours, and the Minister will surely not be unaware of them, that perhaps the French may be making headway here. I would welcome any news that the hon. Gentleman can give tonight as to whether this vital project for the British aircraft industry is as firm as we have every right to hope that it may be.
I turn to the second of the two points which I wish to raise with him, I feel in a sense that I should apologise to the Minister, because I base this on no more than rumour and hearsay, but there is always a good deal of hearsay and rumour going round in an industry as alive and as far-ranging in its implications as our aircraft industry. It is also a matter of history that a number of the rumours which have circulated over recent years have turned out to be nearer the truth than fiction.
The premise is this. Of the various new concepts in aviation, one of the most important over recent years—and it has emerged from practice in Vietnam—is that of the gunship or the armed helicopter. Is it not a fact that, for a long time now, this idea has been going the rounds in Whitehall, and there has been a fairly extensive disagreement between the Army and the R.A.F. about who should arm helicopters designed, for instance, for tank busting or attack from air? Air cavalry the Americans call it— an evocative and descriptive phrase.
I understand that the argument has now been settled, and it will be the business of the Army to arm helicopters for tank busting. If that is right, we are in the game in terms of our own defence—I give credit to the Government for having taken an important decision—and we are also in the market on a world scale for weapons of high sophistication, and with little competition, save from the United States.
The rumour is that, having arrived at this point, the Army is, naturally, in a hurry to arm the helicopters. What weapon should be used? There is a choice of two. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to this part of my speech. From what I know of the position, I take it that either we buy the French SS11 or we use Swingfire. The difference between the two is clear. Nord-Aviation absolutely depend on the order. It would, I should imagine, reduce the

673
price to peanuts to sell the SS11. It is immensely important to that company. But it so happens that the SS11 is obsolescent.
On the British side, Swingfire might or might not cost a little more. I question whether it would be delivered slower than the French weapon. I do not think that there would be trouble there. And it is a second-generation weapon, infinitely more efficacious, with a two to one cost-efficiency advantage over the French and with a guidance system which is so much better that it is not in the same league.
I am not talking in a nationalistic way about choosing British rather than French. I am talking about a potential market for a new arm, which the Americans have certainly proved in action, and which we are in a good position to furnish worldwide. For heaven's sake, let us not make a mistake here.
For nearly five years now, we have suffered such a lot in defence matters under this Government. I say at once that I am not making this as a personal attack upon the Minister or his hon. and right hon. Friends who have been on the Front Bench this evening. Most of the disasters we have suffered over defence equipment in this country as a result of this Government's decisions predate the appointments of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I do not make a personal attack, but what I do say is that it will be decades before we get over what we have done to the aircraft industry and the country's capability to defend itself in terms of air defence.
Having reached this stage, let Ministers make no mistake of the kind I have foreshadowed. I have put two matters to them tonight: first, the only project—alas, an international one and not our own—which is potentially on our drawing boards, the multi-rôle combat aircraft; second, there is the concept of the armed helicopter. Let them get it right. I hope that we shall have some explanation from the Minister on the two matters which I have put to him.
12.5 a.m.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: I share one thought with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and that is one of regret that those who
674
take part in this debate seem to be under some pressure because of the rather heavy overloading of the Government's programme today.
However, having said that, may I congratulate the Minister on having presented this first set of Air Estimates and, having done so, say that, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus), this is the first time that I have taken part in a debate on the Air Estimates in which there has been no Minister responsible for the Royal Air Force here to answer the questions which have been asked. It is not the Minister's fault, but I think it is unsatisfactory that it should be so, and I hope that the Prime Minister will not make a habit of appointing to the various Ministerial posts noble Lords, however worthy or good, who sit in another place. We have to debate these matters in detail in this House and it is not fair to the Minister of Defence for Equipment that he should be expected to know so much detail about the R.A.F. as a Minister responsible for that Service would have in his own mind.
We have to look at the rôle of the Royal Air Force, as with the other Services, in the context of the overall policy outlined in the Statement on Defence. This seems to be broadly that we are aiming at greater flexibility—that is to say, less dependence on nuclear weapons and a greater dependence upon conventional weapons. The R.A.F. has carried the nuclear burden with honour for some years now, and it is to hand the task over entirely to the Royal Navy when the third Polaris submarine becomes operational some time this year. When this happens, the Vulcans of Strike Command will then be transferred to a tactical rôle.
What I should like to know, like my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), is what is the R.A.F. to do for a long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft after 1970 when the Canberras have finally disappeared from the scene? If we are to rely more upon conventional weapons than on nuclear weapons, clearly the tactical strike reconnaissance rôle becomes more important and not less. It will be remembered that the TSR2 was to have filled this rôle up till the moment when it was cancelled by the then Chancellor in his 1965 Budget speech.

675
However, this having gone, the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft was to replace the cancelled TSR2 and this was to be in service by the mid-1970s. The gap between 1970 and the mid-1970s was to be filled by the Vulcans supplemented by the F111 as a spearhead type of aircraft. But the F111, as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force pointed out at the time in the Air Estimates debate in 1967, was to have a "vast radius of action", to quote his words—far longer than the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft —and the need for it was not confined to the area east of Suez. Indeed, we were to have two-thirds of the force stationed in the United Kingdom.
He said:
"… the principal rôles of the F111 aircraft will be tactical and particularly reconnaissance to support our forces in any military operations and to discharge our responsibilities to our allies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 247.]
He said that the F111 would fulfill its rôle long after the AFVG comes into service. But the AFVG was abandoned and the F111 was cancelled.
What is the R.A.F. to do now for tactical strike and reconnaissance? We are told that discussions are taking place— and these have been referred to by my hon. Friends—with Germany, Italy and the Netherlands about producing a multi-rôle combat aircraft. We hope these negotiations will be successful. But this aircraft is not likely to be ready by the mid-1970s even if agreement is reached. Indeed, the Government have acknowledged this. Whilst the Supplementary Statement on Defence of 1968 spoke of having it in the mid-1970s, the Secretary of State, in presenting the Statement, said on 25th July last year:
"The major problem remaining for the R.A.F. is to introduce a new combat aircraft for service in the middle or late 1970s when V-bombers and Bucaneers are no longer adequate for the task."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 1013.]
Already we see that the multi-rôle combat aircraft is slipping, as the AFVG slipped before it finally disappeared. Are the Vulcans expected to continue until the late 1970s? I suspect not. But even if they are, they require supplementing by the F111, according to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence
676
for the Royal Air Force at that time. He said, in the Air Estimates debate in 1968,
"The V-force, due to operate in the tactical rôle, could not fill the gap unless it was bracketed with a spearhead type of aircraft— the F111—the Vulcan remaining, to the mid-1970s."
He went on to say that the cancellation of the F111 created "a serious gap". Indeed, he added, as well he might,
"The whole question is very difficult".
As reported in column 787, in reference to the Buccaneer Mark II, he said,
"I am advised that this aircraft is not in the same class as the F111.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 786–87.]
We had the Minister telling us on 4th March that the Buccaneers
"will form the backbone of the R.A.F."
I suspect the word "backbone" after what has happened—
"strike reconnaissance, both here and in Germany in the next few years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 353.]
The R.A.F. is to be given as the backbone of its strike reconnaissance force an aircraft considered to be inadequate only a year ago by the Minister responsible for the R.A.F. at that time, an aircraft inferior in class to that required.
Speaking in the Air Estimates Debate two years ago, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force justified the proposed purchase of the F111 in these words:
"Although we do not plan to indulge in major operations without the co-operation of allies, this does not absolve us from the responsibility of maintaining a balanced force capable of making a contribution which those allies would value, nor indeed from the responsibility for providing our own forces of all three Services with strike reconnaissance support."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 245–46.]
What has happened in the last two years to render that statement invalid? If that were true two years ago, why are we now told that the R.A.F. is to make do with the Vulcans and the Buccaneers? The hon. Member told us two weeks ago that
"qualitatively, our new European posture will make relatively little difference to the content of our equipment programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 350.]
We therefore know that the change back to Europe has not affected this decision about what the R.A.F. needed. I hope that in his winding up speech he will

677
spell our in careful detail the defence reasoning behind this volte face and will also tell us what changes in the rôle of the R.A.F. have been made to take account of this downgrading of a vital operational requirement.
I hope that he will also tell us what plans he has for equipping the R.A.F. with a new strike reconnaissance aircraft in the late 1970s should the present negotiations with Germany, Italy and the Netherlands collapse. Is he prepared to give the British aircraft industry, as my hon. Friends have suggested, a chance to build an aircraft to meet the R.A.F.'s needs, or will he buy in France or America? The lesson of the Harrier is that if this country produces a good aircraft there is always a market for it, and for that not to be remembered now would be a tragic event. One point is certain: we cannot go on indefinitely allowing this requirement to be filled by stop-gap second-best aircraft.
We are worried not only about the types of aircraft but also about the numbers. I should like the Minister to answer a question about the number of aircraft in R.A.F. Germany. In an intervention on 5th March my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asked the Minister of Defence for Administration what were the aircraft figures to support B.A.O.R. at tactical strength in 1964 and what they are today. The right hon. Gentleman merely said,
"The aircraft are still there, and in the United Kingdom, as they have been in the past".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 455.]
That was a very convenient way of not answering the question.
Mr. Reynolds: The correct way of answering it.
Mr. Goodhew: The reason the right hon. Gentleman did not give us the answer is that he knows, as I have no doubt the Russians also know, that there has been a drastic reduction in the number of aircraft in R.A.F. Germany over the past two years. It is absurd that we in the House should not be told when this must be perfectly well known to the Russians and everybody else.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is not the Russians that the Government are trying to keep it from—it is our allies.
Mr. Goodhew: One sometimes wonders how the present Government are dealing with defence.
It is very difficult for hon. Members to obtain detailed information about squadrons and aircraft. For some unknown reason the Defence White Paper supplies us with a list of the Royal Navy's fleet of ships so that we may judge the Government's performance in running them down to a dangerously low level, but apparently when it comes to the R.A.F. we are not allowed to know. We must scratch about in all sorts of places picking up bits and pieces to try to put the jigsaw puzzle together, and when we have done this there is no chance of our ever confirming whether the picture we have built up is accurate.
One thing that is certain is that the number of front-line aircraft in the R.A.F. today is probably well below 500. That is about a quarter of the R.A.F.'s strength at the outbreak of war in 1939 and about one-twentieth of its strength in 1945. One is bound to ask whether the Government appreciate the indispensable rôle of air cover in all military and naval operations, quite apart from the need for air reconnaissance, strike and defence capabilities.
We should also ask whether the number of aircraft is to increase with a renewal of the accent on conventional as opposed to nuclear weapons. One aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon can knock out an airfield quite simply, but when conventional weapons are used two squadrons are probably needed to do the same job. Has account been taken of this by the Secretary of State for Defence in his present plans?
The White Paper tells us many things. I should like to comment on a number, but I shall try to be brief, as I know we are under pressure.
One thing that disturbs me is the idea that suddenly we have to have graduate entry for the R.A.F., that we cannot have direct entry except from university graduates, though I know that the Supplementary List is for non-graduates. This is rather worrying. The Minister said that the university authorities are enthusiastic. Of course, they would be. That is natural. They would like to be providing the officers, pilots and so on for the R.A.F. But it is sad to see the Cranwell cadet depart from the scene.

679
I am sure that no one on either side of the House would wish to let this moment pass without mentioning the great record the cadets from Cranwell have had in the Air Force. I have no doubt that Cranwell's traditions will be carried on when it continues as an officers' training school.
The shortage of commissioned entrants to the Engineers' Branch has been with us for some time. What is being done about it? This is a particularly sensitive area in which to be short.
Looking through the figures for both commissioned entrants and airmen, one finds very disturbing shortages. Is this just the result of the uncertainties of the continuing defence review, or is not the now infamous decision to transfer the responsibility for Service pay from the Grigg Committee to the Prices and Incomes Board responsible for much of this uncertainty and unhappiness?
Mr. Reynolds: One of the problems was that they were all told 10 years ago that the manned aircraft was finished.
Mr. Goodhew: I do not see what relevance that has to the Grigg Committee and the Prices and Incomes Board. I know that the right hon. Gentleman worries about this problem. In particular, I hope he is worried about the Medical Branch. May we have figures of the number of doctors in the R.A.F. and what the shortfall is? This is glossed over in the White Paper. The reason, of course, is that we have a situation in which Service doctors who should have been kept 15 per cent. ahead of the pay of general practitioners have been allowed to get about 34 per cent. behind, and the Government seem content to leave it that way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has talked to the B.M.A., which refused to take advertisements for the B.M.A. Journal because it could not recommend its members to undertake Service careers.
Mr. Reynolds: The B.M.A. for two years refused to talk to me, but I have talked to it recently.
Mr. Goodhew: That is encouraging. Perhaps the B.M.A. was disturbed by what the right hon. Gentleman had done. I am glad that he has been able to persuade it to talk to him again.
680
I shall skip great chunks of my speech —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— although I can always use them if hon. Members wish—and will merely say, therefore, that the manpower shortages in the R.A.F. are particularly disturbing in the light of the slip which is included in the fine recruiting pamphlet—from which, I notice, sadly, one or two photographs of aircraft have been removed—and in which we are told by the Director-General of the Royal Air Force Manning that half the men in the R.A.F. now are due to leave by 1973. If that is so, I do not know how hon. Members opposite can sit there laughting as they do this evening. They should be a great deal more concerned than they appear to be.
We have constantly criticised the Government and the Secretary of State in particular for the continuing uncertainty they have created over the past four years for those serving the country in the Armed Forces. We have warned the Secretary of State again and again of the likely effect of this not only on those already serving but on those who might otherwise decide to serve. We welcome the Government's belated recognition of the validity of our warnings, which, at the time, they rejected, and we hope they will now recognise the equally damaging effect of the delays imposed by the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board.
The country owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Royal Air Force for their fine devotion to duty It may sometimes appear to them that this is taken for granted. I am sure that is not so in this House and we on this side wish to place on record tonight our personal gratitude for all that they do.
12.23 a.m.
Mr. John Morris: We have had an interesting debate. I shall not detain the House unduly at this late hour. I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) in that he laid on one side large chunks of his speech in fairness to the House at this hour. If I have to be highly selective in the points to which I reply now, I will write to those hon. Members who have raised matters with which I have no time to deal tonight.
There was a certain air of innocence in the hon. Member's remarks just before he sat down when he complained that the

681
House was not allowed to know certain details about figures and numbers. There has been no change in practice under this Government from what the Conservative Government did in regard to numbers, ranges and specifications. If he was not aware of this, I have enlightened him now, so perhaps he need no longer give a picture of injured innocence.
We had a comprehensive speech from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield). I thought at times that it was rather gloomy. When I interrupted him it was in order to indicate that perhaps he should give a rather more balanced picture in discussing the various aircraft projects and the success which had been achieved in collaboration over a period of years. I thought at one stage that there was a measure of inconsistency in what he said about collaboration. In the case of the Jaguar, for example, we have had a successful collaborative venture. We hear little about it, perhaps because of its success and the variants which are in process of being produced.
Mr. Corfield: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is very much easier to co-operate with one other country, as opposed to three, and he must admit that there is a bigger difference of opinion between us and the Germans as to what is wanted than there was between us and the French.
Mr. Morris: I agree that there is in creased difficulty when there are more than two partners, but one can also discuss the collaboration which is taking place on helicopters—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that we are up against some sort of time schedule. Is this debate to be concluded for some procedural reason, or is the hon. Gentleman at liberty to answer the points which have been raised without shortening his speech for some procedural reason?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): At 10 o'clock, the House suspended the Standing Order.
Mr. Morris: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has not been with us for all or, indeed, any part
682
of the debate. I thought, in much the same way as the hon. Member for St. Albans, that, as a matter of courtesy, it would be intolerable to detain the House unduly at this late hour. It was in that spirit that I made my opening remarks. However, we have noted the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate.
The first point raised by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South concerned the Harrier. As he knows, the order for the additional 20 aircraft was announced in November, 1968, as part of our intention to increase our contribution to SACEUR following the Czech crisis.
The Harrier is the first V/STOL aircraft to reach squadron service, and we cannot extol its virtues too highly. It represents a completely new concept of military aviation capabilities, to complement our close-support squadrons of conventional aircraft.
Over the next year or so, our aim will be to explore and exploit the operational advantages of this new capability and so identify the technical and logistic problems of operating it from dispersed bases in the field. The extra power expected from the uprating of the Pegasus engine will permit the Air Force to assess the possibilities of operating the Harrier from the decks of naval vessels as well as from land bases in the way that I outlined in my speech in the Defence debate. The outcome of this experience will show whether it would be right to put more of our effort into V/STOL capabilities, perhaps in the form of more Harriers, or whether the present balance of our air forces should be maintained.
Meanwhile, there is great overseas interest in the Harrier, especially with the advantages of the uprated engine, which is a very different kind of animal. It would be premature, however, to deal with any country or any buyer with whom we might be able to make some contract.
The M.R.C.A. has been raised by a large number of hon. Members, and here I deal briefly with the issue of collaboration. The experience of the last few years has emphasised the dangers of embarking on large advanced military aircraft development projects on our own. That is why we are trying to launch joint projects on a collaborative

683
basis, a number of them in collaboration with our European allies.
Collaboration is not easy at any stage, but it cannot get oft the ground without basic agreement on operational requirements. This, in turn, inevitably involves compromises amongst air forces; for instance, approaching operational problems from differing national standpoints. This is exactly what is happening with the M.R.C.A., the project for a future N.A.T.O combat aircraft which we are discussing with the German, Dutch and Italian Governments. We are now in the final stages of a feasibility study aimed at meeting the aircraft needs of all the participating countries from one basic aircraft design, and it is very worth while spending a good deal of time and effort on this vital initial stage.
It is now very likely that this can be achieved with a degree of commonality amounting to some 80 per cent. It is, however, a feature of the project that it will be able to accommodate each country's particular requirements with regard —particularly in the case of the R.A.F. —to avionics, terrain-following radar, and all-weather capability. Our hopes in this field are now concentrated on the M.R.C.A. project. It would be inconsistent with this type of collaboration to pursue a purely national project or the prospect of collaboration with some other country.
Mr. Dalyell: Some of us are still very curious why there should be different operational requirements between countries for M.R.C.A. in the first place, as between ourselves and Germany. This was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). Are not staffs prone to be too fussy, and cannot we have more than 80 per cent. commonality?
Mr. Morris: This is a difficult point for me to elaborate at this juncture. The various air staffs have been in the course of prolonged discussions which I have followed closely in the last few months. All I am trying to say is this—when the partners geographically are not exactly in the same position as to the potential use of the aircraft, the philosophy of the countries cannot be exactly the same. What we are trying to achieve is a high
684
degree of commonality between the different approaches of the different countries.
I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me on reflection that while these discussions are taking place, and we have the hopes which I have set out today, it would not be useful for me to elaborate any further. What we are trying to achieve is the greatest commonality possible.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) asked a number of questions on the engine. All the studies have so far been carried out on the basis of a Rolls-Royce design, but the actual choice of engine will be a separate decision. All the members of the consortium want the best engine at the cheapest price, and of course we hope a British engine will be chosen. But other possible designs will also have to be considered on an objective basis. These, I hope, will be studied in the very near future.
We have heard some newspaper comment on this, but there is no truth at all in the suggestion that there is, I quote, "a plan to equip the Royal Air Force with the Mirage G".
The French are not at present a member of the M.R.C.A. consortium, and it is this consortium which is at present providing the focus for co-operation on a future European combat aircraft.
Mr. Hastings: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this point, can he tell us anything about the extent of the offers which the French at this moment are making to the Germans over the Mirage G, and their attempts to take them out of this arrangement over the M.R.C.A.?
Mr. Morris: My responsibility is to answer for Her Majesty's Government and not for the German Government, and I am not able to comment any further on what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Malaysia, and a return to Labuan by the R.A.F. and the supply generally of fighter aircraft to Malaysia linked with the proposal for this return. The Government have considered very carefully the question whether we should be justified in stationing R.A.F. aircraft permanently in East Malaysia again, but we do not believe there is at present any threat which would warrant the return

685
of the R.A.F. to Labuan. I can assure the House that we can carry out our obligations in the area, if necessary.
Concerning the Hunters and Harriers, the Government and British aircraft firms are in close and continuing touch with the Malaysian Government about their requirements for fighter aircraft. An evaluation team, headed by chiefs of the air staff of the Royal Malaysian Air Force will be in this country next week to see and discuss the aircraft which might meet their needs. I shall have talks with them. I can assure the House that the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Technology and the firms concerned will give the team all the help and advice that they can. I hope that, as a result of our efforts, the Malaysian Government will buy British aircraft. Certainly they will not find better aircraft anywhere else.
I am sure the House will forgive me if I do not deal with the points made about the offset credit arrangements. I have a large amount of material on this matter and I will write to hon. Members about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked about the types of aircraft used in the Anguillan operation. We used a number of different types: VC10's, Britannias, Hercules, Andovers, and a Comet. It is much too early to give any indication of the cost of the operation. However, I hope that the troops will not be there for very long. We hope for an early withdrawal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) enjoyed himself tremendously in his speech on weather forecasting. We can all remember the times when the weather forecasters are wrong; we never remember the times when they are right. My hon. Friend's catalogue of grievances and his case for more specific and more detailed information has been noted. I was fascinated by what he had to say. He made a point of great value when he said that the aim all the time should be to provide to an even wider range of people the kind of service that is now enjoyed by a large number of industries. This is what we should aim for. Certainly the forecasts should be more accurate. There is not time to deal with
686
the new computer, but I will write to my hon. Friend about it. However, I hope that this new computer, which will be one of the largest in the country, will be able to provide the service with the ability to give an even better service of the kind that my hon. Friend wants.
Mr. Ellis rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. I have, however, no power to stop them.
Mr. Ellis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I should like my hon. Friend to examine how forecasts are made to adduce how well they have been carried out. I think that we need better criteria.
Mr. Morris: I have noted the need for some kind of better inquest machinery.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) has apologised for not being able to stay. I think that my remarks about the transport fleet of the Royal Air Force earlier dealt with the anxieties that he expressed.
There were many other points, but I should like to deal with the point raised fairly late in the debate by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire about the aiming of helicopters. In case he should think that I am avoiding the issue by curtailing my remarks, in courtesy to the House, I will deal with this point immediately.
We have taken a decision to arm helicopters for the Army. They will be armed with the SS11. The order for the SS 11 is a small one to meet—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire raised the matter, and in courtesy to him I should be permitted to reply. As I was saying, the order for the SS11 is a small one to meet an urgent operational requirement to strengthen the anti-tank capabilities of the B.A.O.R. This weapon is already in service with the Royal Navy on the Wasp helicopter which is the naval version of the Scout. This order is without prejudice to any future weapons which may be considered for use in arming Army helicopters. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be unhappy about what I had to say, so out of courtesy to him I thought that I had better inform him of that.
Mr. Hastings: It is madness.
Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance, and I am now having mine.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked about the release of information relating to flying accidents. The practice of not publishing regular statistics of accidents involving Service aircraft is of long standing, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been carrying out a review of this policy, the results of which will be announced in the near future. All useful information about Service aircraft accidents which have a bearing on flight safety is already released to the Board of Trade and others directly responsible for flight safety, as well as to the Ministry of Technology and the aviation companies, on a confidential basis.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that from the point of view of improving flight safety the publication of accident statistics is of less value than the lessons to be learned from the circumstances of individual accidents. Each accident is the subject of detailed investigation and searching analysis, and the results of each case are discussed fully with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology. The Board of Trade makes full use of this knowledge in discharging its responsibility to civil aviation.
I am sure that at this late hour the House will forgive me if I do not deal further with any of the detailed points which have been raised. Perhaps I might be allowed to conclude by saying that the right theories and the right equipment are important, but that they are nothing without the right men—thoroughly professional in training and discipline, organised, responsive, leaving nothing to chance, yet with an adventurous spirit ready to rise to every challenge. The Royal Air Force has a remarkable tradition which combines high professionalism with a bold spirit, and in every way this tradition is fully maintained. It is a great Service, with a great future, which offers a great life to a young man worthy of it.
Question, That the said number be reduced by 1,000 men, put and negatived.
Original Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 118,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

IMMIGRATION APPEALS BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
IMMIGRATION APPEALS BILL
  Clause 3

    APPEAL AGAINST CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION
    12.43 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'of a kind' and insert:
    'restricting the period for which he may remain in the United Kingdom to less than seven or such other number of days as may be'.
    I hope that my views on this Amendment and those that follow will continue the tone of the Committee upstairs, in other words, that in general they will be non-controversial.
    The Government accept the recommendation of the Wilson Committee on this matter, and the Home Secretary intended, under subsection (1)(a), to make an Order which would afford an appeal against any condition which required a Commonwealth citizen to leave the United Kingdom in less than seven days, leaving any passenger admitted for a longer period to apply after entry for an extension of stay and to appeal if the extension were refused. The type of condition against which an immediate appeal would lie was left to be prescribed by Statutory Instrument, because experience might show that seven days was not the right limit for the purpose, and that a shorter or longer period ought to be substituted.
    In discussion in Committee, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) expressed the view that it ought to be made clear on the face of the Clause in what circumstances appeal would be available against the imposition of a condition of admission, and the Amendment meets that point. It makes it clear on the face of the Clause that an immediate appeal will lie against the imposition of a condition only if it is

    689
    one restricting the stay to less than a given number of days, and that this number will at the outset be seven. At the same time, the Amendment preserves a measure of flexibility to enable the Home Secretary to alter this number if an alteration seems justified in the light of experience.
    12.45 a.m.
    Mr. Antony Buck: I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for having moved the Amendment, which meets the point which I raised and which was taken up by my hon. Friend in Committee, as reported in column 38 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee proceedings. In our view, the Amendment is an improvement. It meets the point which was so fully argued in Committee and in the circumstances it would not be to anybody's advantage if at this late hour I wearied the House by deploying all the basic arguments behind it.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 8

    DETERMINATION OF APPEALS
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 1, at end insert:
    (2) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection the adjudicator may review any determination of a question of fact on which the decision or action was based; and for the purposes of paragraph (a)(ii) of that subsection no decision or action which is in accordance with the immigration rules shall be treated as having involved the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State by reason only of the fact that he has been requested by or on behalf of the appellant to depart, or to authorise an officer to depart, from the rules and has refused to do so.
    The Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that we take the Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
    Mr. Rees: Amendment Nos. 3 and No. 4 make consequential changes of wording in the present subsection (2).
    Subsection (1) permits an adjudicator to allow an appeal if he consider that the decision in question was not in accordance with the law or the applicable immigration rules which we discussed in
    690
    Committee, but otherwise, apart from cases involving the exercise of discretion, the appeal must be dismissed.
    There are cases when an entitlement to admission depends on Section 2 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, that is, on the immigrant's satisfying the immigration officer of certain matters— for example, that he is under the age of 16, and that both his parents are living in this countrty. I am advised that it could be argued in such a case that if an immigration officer refused admission because dissatisfied on these facts, his decision would be in accordance with the law and the adjudicator could do nothing. The Amendment makes it clear that the adjudicator is to apply the law to the facts as he sees them. That is the nub and the crux of what lies behind the Amendment.
    The remaining words of the new subsection (2) have a different purpose. In Standing Committee there was a debate— reported in columns 69 to 78 of HANSARD for 11th February—on an Amendment to delete Clause 8(1)(a)(ii), in the course of which the question of appeals against discretionary decisions was discussed at length. The Government remain of the opinion that it is right to allow the appellate authorities to review the exercise of discretion by the Home Secretary or immigration officers, though only within the framework of the immigration rules.
    It was suggested by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who has explained to me why he cannot be here tonight, that the Clause might be amended so as to make this limitation explicit. I agreed to consider the suggestion and the second half of the new subsection (2) is intended to give effect to it.
    The new provision makes it clear that refusal by the Home Secretary to make an exception to the immigration rules in favour of a particular immigrant cannot be reversed on appeal. This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Wilson Committee in paragraph 140 of its Report. So where a person was admittedly seeking to enter for employment and settlement without a voucher, a decision not to admit him could not be reversed on appeal whatever compassionate or other circumstances might be alleged.
    Mr. Buck: The Amendment is useful in that, in its second half, it meets a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friends. Our only doubt is about the efficacy of Clause 8 as a whole. Although we debated this matter at length in Committee, I must record our doubts about the propriety and sense of having appeals overall against discretion. We believe that there is a lot to be said for matters raised on appeal to be confined to matters of fact and of law. The Amendment says that
    "… the adjudicator may review any determination of a question of fact on which the decision …"
    of the immigration officer has been based.
    A provision of this kind should be in the Bill—I am surprised that it needed this Amendment to do that; I should have thought that that would have been the position, even without the Amendment—and as this proposal merely makes the situation clear and points out that the adjudicator will review matters of fact and arrive at his own conclusions on those matters of fact, we have no objection to it. However, I am still not convinced of the need for the Amendment. If the Minister takes the view that it makes for clarity, we will not oppose it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 3, in line 3, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'the foregoing provisions'.
    No. 4, in line 4, leave out 'it applies' and insert 'they apply'.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

  Clause 9

    SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CASES INVOLVING NATIONAL SECURITY
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 30, leave out 'for the purpose'.
    This is a drafting Amendment which deletes words that are now superfluous. It is consequential on an Amendment made in Standing Committee on 11th February; hon. Members will see it referred to in columns 80 and 81 of the Committee OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 10

    REFERENCE OF CASES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 3, leave out from 'refer' to 'the' in line 6 and insert:
    'for consideration under this section any matter relating to the case which was not before the adjudicator or Tribunal.
    (2) Any reference under this section shall be to an adjudicator or to the Tribunal, and the adjudicator or Tribunal shall consider the matter which is the subject of the reference and report to the Secretary of State'.
    The Amendment has two purposes: first, to alter the definition of the circumstances in which the Home Secretary may refer a case back to the appellate authorities for further consideration, and, secondly, to make it clear that a case which, on appeal, went no higher than an adjudicator can be referred to the Tribunal.
    This matter was discussed at some length in Committee, when the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) suggested that the wording of the Clause, namely
    "… the Secretary of State may at any time refer to an adjudicator or the Tribunal any further matter relating to that case which has subsequently been brought to his notice …"
    was too limiting. It was pointed out that a matter might have been brought to the notice of an immigration officer or of the Home Office at an early stage, but its significance might not have been fully appreciated until after the appeal had ben dismissed. The Amendment meets this criticism by enabling the Home Secretary to refer to the appellate authorities any matter which was not before them when the appeal was dismissed.
    Where a case which, on appeal, went no higher than an adjudicator is referred for further consideration under the Clause, it would be useful for the Home Secretary to have a choice between referring it to an adjudicator and referring it to the Tribunal. Reference to an adjudicator may be appropriate if the new matter bears only on the facts of the particular case, and particularly if it involves the taking of fresh oral evidence.
    Reference to the Tribunal may be more appropriate if the new matter raises any

    693
    general question of principle. The Clause us altered by the Amendment, at the cost of some increase in its length, avoids any implication that a case must be referred back at the level at which the appeal was decided.
    In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman)—who has explained to me that he cannot be here tonight—asked whether a case referred under the Clause to an adjudicator would come before the same adjudicator who dealt with it on appeal. The answer is that the assignment of cases to particular adjudicators is not a matter for the Home Secretary but for the Chief Adjudicator under Schedule 1(5) who would no doubt have in mind the desirability in certain cases of bringing a fresh mind to bear on the evidence.
    Mr. Buck: As the Minister indicated, our approach in Committee was to try to be helpful about the general drafting of this Measure, although we made clear our grave doubts about the cost, scope and so forth. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for admitting that the point we raised in connection with this Amendment had some substance, but we question whether the Amendment goes far enough. Would it not be useful for the Minister himself to have power of his own volition to refer a matter where there is doubt to an adjudicator? It is useful that he should have power to refer any new matters to the adjudicator for consideration in a particular case which is the subject of appeal. It might be useful for him to have this power if there is doubt so that it can be considered in a semi-judicial way. Perhaps such a provision could be made in another place.
    As the Amendment was begotten, as it were, by us, we welcome it and hope that the Minister may consider going further and acquiring more discretion.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I looked most carefully at this point and at all the suggestions made in Committee. I think, however, that this is as far as we need to go, but I will look again at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 22

    SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 14, line 25, at end insert:
    (6) No provision of Part I of this Act shall be construed as conferring a right of appeal against any decision or action which was taken before the coming into operation of that provision.
    This is an Amendment for the removal of doubt. The question may be raised in the early stages of the appeal system whether Clauses 2 to 5 confer rights of appeal against decisions taken before the relevant Clause comes into operation. For example, will it be possible on the date when Clause 2(1)(a)—appeal against refusal of admission—comes into operation, to appeal against a decision to refuse admission which was taken the previous day? This will be a question of practical importance if the person concerned is still awaiting removal. The Government are advised that the Bill as it stands would probably not be interpreted as affording a right of appeal against a decision taken before the relevant Clause came into force unless there were some express provision to that effect. Nevertheless, the contrary view could be argued and it would be undesirable to leave a question of such importance open to argument at the very start of the appeal system.
    The Amendment accordingly makes it clear that the Bill confers no right of appeal against a decision taken before the relevant provision comes into operation. There are strong practical reasons for imposing this restriction.
    1.0 a.m.
    Mr. Buck: We on this side are on almost every occasion against retrospective legislation. The Amendment makes it clear that we shall in no circumstances be dealing with or be involved in any way with retrospection, so we welcome it.
    Perhaps the Minister will indicate what is the intended timetable relative to the bringing into operation of the Measure. It would be useful for the House to have this information. A great deal of work must obviously be done to prepare accommodation. It will be necessary to

    695
    prepare the appropriate orders which will govern the procedures of the tribunal and of the adjudicators. We should be interested to hear where there is any prospective timetable or whether indications can be given. We have grave doubts about the whole of the Bill.
    Our view has been made clear that there should be a reorientation of the whole system for the control of immigration, in which control in the country of origin and the introduction of an entry certificate system become virtually universal. As that is our policy, which we shall introduce in due course, we are especially interested in the proposed timetable relative to the bringing into operation of various parts of the Bill. If a system such as that I have described were to come into effect, large parts of the Bill would become superfluous.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am interested to learn that compulsory entry certificates would become universal. Such certificates would lead to great practical problems that the hon. Gentleman knows not of.
    Mr. Buck: Almost universal.
    Mr. Rees: The smal print which we are now given brings us a little closer together. If the argument is as to the need for entry certificates, there is no division between us on the desirability of advertising that people should use entry certificates.
    On the timing of the implementation of Part I, it is still too early to fix a date. It depends, not only on the passage of the legislation, but on the completion of a great many administrative preparations. There are rules of procedure to be drafted and these will be rules of some complexity. They will have to be submitted in draft to the Council on Tribunals for comment. This process can begin while the Bill is in another place, but the rules cannot be made until the Bill has received the Royal Assent. The rules will then be subject to review in Parliament under the negative Resolution procedure. There is the appointment of members of the Tribunal and of adjudicators. Preliminary steps in this direction can be taken while the Bill is before Parliament, but naturally no definite offer of appointment can be made before the Royal Assent. There are preparations to
    696
    be made at the ports by way of ensuring that accommodation is available. We discussed that point in Committee. There will also have to be discussions with the voluntary bodies, a point which we discussed in Committee and about which the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) knows a great deal. Extra staff will be needed at the Home Office to deal with the additional work arising from appeals. I do not want to exaggerate the amount of work involved, but it is considerable. There is certainly a built-in incentive for the Home Office to move as quickly as possible, but I cannot give any precise date. As soon as practical, we shall do so but, as I have indicated, there are a number of practical problems to be dealt with first.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 3

    RELEASE OF APPELLANTS PENDING APPEAL
    Dame Joan Vickers: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 21, line 7, after 'officer' insert 'with a warrant'.
    In Committee the Under-Secretary was kind enough to accept a rather similar Amendment in regard to the powers of immigration officers. He undertook to consider this Amendment, because he was in two minds about it. I had hoped that he would have tabled an Amendment himself at this stage. As he has not, I have tried another method of getting my own way or of safeguarding the position. In Committee the Under-Secretary stated that immigration officers already had powers of arrest comparable with police officers in matters connected with immigration control. I gather that this comes under the Aliens Order, under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I do not think that in either case, however, they have power to arrest for breaking bail, which is the important point of the Amendment.
    I should like to know from the Minister whether these officers have any other powers of arrest except, as the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, at the point of entry at the ports. The hon. Gentleman has kindly sent me a

    697
    letter, but it is rather contradictory to what he said in Committee, because the letter states that
    "one point which perhaps did not emerge clearly during our discussion in Standing Committee is that at most ports the adjudicator will not sit to hear appeals in the precincts of the port itself, but in premises at some distance from the port boundary. At London Airport, for example, the buildings at Harmondsworth that we propose to use are outside the airport perimeter; and at seaports, the adjudicator is likely to make use of buildings in the town that are used by courts or other tribunals."
    In Standing Committee, in reply to one of his hon. Friends, the Minister said:
    "This is to prevent him absconding. Appeals will be heard at the airport. We do not envisage that it will be necessary to have police there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 18th February, 1969; c. 161.]
    Apparently, according to the Minister's letter, the appeals are not to be heard at the airport, unless I have misunderstood him. This makes quite a difference to my proposition.
    I assume that the ordinary civil police will be at the courts, because they normally attend them. The immigration officers will have to do the travelling from the point of entry and from the airport to the courts. This makes a great difference in the whole approach to my suggestion.
    An immigration officer is a member of the executive grade of the Civil Service and is not subject to the Police Code. Therefore, no complaint can be made against him if he makes an unlawful arrest. This is what particularly worries me. He may make a mistake but, I gather, no complaint can be made.
    I regret to say that in some cases, the situation between the immigration officers is not, perhaps, as happy as it was when the 39 immigration officers at London Airport issued their statement supporting the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South west (Mr. Powell)—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the Official Reporters if the hon. Lady speaks up a little.
    Dame Joan Vickers: At this late hour, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to hurry. I am sorry if you do not think that I was speaking loudly enough. Would you like me to repeat what I was saying?
    Mr. Speaker: I was not calling the hon. Lady to order. I was only saying that the Official Reporters would be pleased if the hon. Lady spoke up a little.
    Dame Joan Vickers: The Council of Churches also wrote to the Minister expressing its fears concerning this matter. I do not know whether it has yet received a reply. As the hon. Member was of two minds about this point, if he cannot accept my Amendment—I recognise that he might not be able to; I am not altogether pleased with it, but it was the best way that I could express my feelings about the matter in view of the earlier refusal—perhaps he will consider what action might be taken to safeguard against this undesirable situation.
    My particular worry is that information might be laid to the immigration officer by somebody who has stood surety for an immigrant who might have quarrelled with him, who might not like the immigrant or might be actuated by malice. I do not see how an immigration officer will be able to make a distinction in the case of letters which he receives, as stated in the Bill.
    If an immigration officer receives a letter, must he make the arrest or can he ask another immigration officer or a constable to make the arrest on his behalf? The whole situation is so unclear and so unsatisfactory that if the Minister cannot tonight accept my Amendment, I hope that he will give an assurance to look at the matter, and perhaps an Amendment can be put down in another place.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In answering this debate, I should not like to go back to the days a year ago when 39 immigration officers supported the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Immigration officers have to do a most difficult job. I should be the last to condone what was done, but there is often a strong feeling at the ports that they do no have a great deal of support from the community as a whole in doing what, in many respects, is not the world's most pleasant job. As I said in Standing Committee, any odium there may be is far better put on the politicians who arrange the rules rather than on the people who carry them out.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I made my feeling on that clear in Committee, and I did not want to reiterate it tonight.
    Mr. Rees: Yes. Nevertheless, I felt that some justification of the background to it, without justifying what was done, was called for.
    I should make clear at the outset that immigration officers already have concurrent powers to arrest, without the police, in matters connected with immigration control. So far as I am aware, and so far as the Home Office is aware, there has never been any complaint arising from their exercise. This must be the starting point for me. I could find no example of a situation where there had been complaint. But the power arises from the nature of the job which immigration officers have to do under the 1962 Act and the Aliens Order, and it is vital that it should be there.
    In Committee, I accepted an Amendment which removed from the Bill words which would have given immigration officers as well as the police powers of entry into premises in different parts of the country to effect an arrest. I consider that that was right, because the fewer people that have powers of arrest the better. I was glad to accept that Amendment.
    The Amendment which the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has now put to us arises out of the possibility of bail under the Bill. There may be problems arising from the granting of bail. This is a possibility which I have to take into account because— goodness knows—there are enough problems already arising out of immigration control. Paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 3 permits an appellant who has been released on bail to be arrested without a warrant either by an immigration officer or by a police officer in circumstances in which a person released on bail in criminal proceedings may be arrested under Section 23(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, that is, if the arresting officer has reason to apprehend a breach of recognisance, or if a surety expects that a breach will occur.
    The Amendment—it is defective in drafting but I make no point of that, since such things can be put right—is intended to provide that an immigration officer may exercise this power of arrest only with a warrant. As the hon. Lady
    700
    said, I have already explained to her that the sort of idea which we discussed in Standing Committee was not possible, and she has come back, as she delightfully put it, to try to get her own way, which is always the prerogative of her sex.
    It seemed to be agreed by all hon. Members who spoke on the subject in Committee—and it is accepted by the Government—that it should be left to the police to effect the arrest of a bail-breaker whenever police officers are available. The reason why I do not propose to confine the power of arrest entirely to the police is very much related to what might happen if an appellant who had been on bail turned up at the place where his appeal was to be heard but decided to abscond before the appeal came on for hearing. I recall the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) pointing out in Committee that a similar problem could arise if an appellant were allowed to be on bail during the lunch interval and then decided to abscond.
    It would be inappropriate to the nature of the proceedings of an adjudicator's hearing, as well as wasteful of police manpower, to have police officers in attendance at the hearing of immigration appeals. There being no police officer present, the only person with power to prevent an appellant from absconding in the circumstances I have described would be one of the officers attending appeals on behalf of the immigration service.
    1.15 a.m.
    Perhaps I should make clear one point on which I was thinking aloud in Standing Committee, largely because I wanted to be helpful. The premises in which the appeals will be heard will not always be in the precincts of the port itself. At London Airport the buildings at Harmondsworth that are to be used for the hearing of appeals are outside the airport perimeter. At seaports an adjudicator is likely to make use of buildings in the towns which are used by courts and other tribunals. This means that the port authorities' police will not, as was suggested in Standing Committee, be at hand to arrest an absconding appellant at an immigration officer's request. It also means that I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon.

    701
    Member for North Fylde that the immigration officers' power of arrest should be limited to the port area.
    The Amendment proposes that an immigration officer should still have the power of arrest but only where a warrant has been granted. However, as I have explained, in the kind of situation in which I envisage that an immigration officer might have to exercise the power himself because no police officer was available, there would certainly not be time to apply to a magistrate for a warrant. The Amendment would deny immigration officers any effective power to take action when an appellant absconded.
    As I explained at the beginning, immigration officers have powers of arrest already. I am absolutely sure on investigating this question, as I promised in Committee upstairs that I would, that it is vital they should have. I wrote to the hon. Lady and explained this point. I am equally sure that to have to get a warrant in the case of a person absconding from bail would take time which, in the circumstances, I am equally sure could not be afforded. For those reasons I resist the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  GENOCIDE BILL [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

DISTRICT VALUER (BASINGSTOKE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]
1.18 a.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: It is a time-honoured prerogative of Members of this House to raise on the Adjournment of the House a matter involving an unsatisfactory answer to a Parliamentary Question. There is also the duty that a Member should seek to protect citizens from injustice caused by the Government or those who act on the Government's behalf. This is what I seek to do in this debate.
I am indeed grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he is here to listen to what I have to say at nearly 1.20 a.m. I should perhaps help him by explaining a little of the background. Basically what we are dealing with here is a long series of complaints from myself that an unsatisfactory situation exists, regular reassurances from the Treasury that all is well and the final denouement of an independent Land Tribunal hearing which has shown that all is very much not well.
I should like to sketch in the background. I have in my constituency two expanded towns. They are the towns of Basingstoke and Andover. In both cases the town centres are having to be pulled down and new town centres built. Land outside is being acquired for housing to bring a large population down from London, and that involves compulsory purchase. Nobody likes compulsory purchase, but everybody recognises that in such circumstances it is essential and there is no way round it.
Shortly after I became Member for Basingstoke I started to receive letters on the subject. Like most hon. Members, I run a surgery in my constituency and constituents come to see me. I have had many painful interviews, and a large volume of complaints, with constituents in tears telling me how unfairly they felt that they were being treated. Without any prompting from me, in 1966 the Chamber of Commerce called a public meeting to protest about the situation. I raised the matter in

703
the House in 1965. I tried to raise it in 1966, Mr. Speaker, but did not succeed in catching your eye. I raised it in 1967 and in 1968.
It seems to me that two of three things are happening. One possibility is that my constituents are raising frivolous complaints which have no basis. A second possibility is that the code of compensation is wrong. A third possibility is that there is bad administration in the Minister's Department at Basingstoke.
I rebut the suggestion that my constituents' complaints are frivolous, for two very good reasons. First, in many cases their complaints are supported by the views of their professional advisers. I have made myself unpopular with a number of constituents by saying to them, "I am not prepared simply to accept the story you tell me; I want to know what your own professional adviser tells you." If they have no case, I tell them so, but many of them do have a case.
The first question which I should like to draw to the attention of the Financial Secretary is reminiscent of the dog in the story about Sherlock Holmes—the dog which did not bark in the night. In this case, all the complaints are at Basingstoke and none is at Andover. But both are expanded towns and both fall under the same compensation code. That is indicative of a situation which is special and peculiar to Basingstoke.
The second possibility is that the compensation code is wrong. In fact, I believe that it is unfair. Basically, it provides that the compensation to be paid in respect of compulsory purchase in an expanded town is that which would have been the value if the town had not been an expanded town. This means, at any rate in theory, that a man who receives compensation for compulsory purchase can take his money, leave the town where he is living and buy an equivalent property somewhere else. In practice, this is one of my reasons for suggesting that something is wrong. Very rarely can he do so with the money he gets at Basingstoke. Nevertheless, the code causes hardship. It means that a man must move away from his family, from the place which has been his home, where his relatives, his friends and his work are situated and from the locality in which he has lived all his life. In my
704
view this cannot be a fair and proper way for compensation to work.
It is a curious code of compensation. I have one case in the constituency in which the district valuer offered £400 for three acres because some other attached land had been sold separately for a higher figure for private development. In one case, still not settled, the district valuer is offering £1 for three-quarters of an acre because some of the land attached to it has been sold at the open-market value. I say no more than that this is a curious code which I believe warrants further investigation. I have raised the matter in the House four times. If the Minister agrees that this is an unsatisfactory code I hope that, if his predecessors have not done so, he will make representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to secure a change in it.
A third possibility is that of bad administration at Basingstoke. The compensation code is complex, and I have great sympathy with those who have to administer it. We must not overlook the enormous work load which has fallen on the district valuer's office at Basingstoke during the period of town expansion. It may be that the Treasury has been too tight-fisted in the number of staff it has allowed. I do not know. I am not seeking to attack an individual. I do not have pleasure in raising bad administration in this case, but I have a first duty, as any hon. Member has, to protect the citizens in my constituency.
In July, 1966, I sought to raise the matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, but it was not reached. So in September I wrote a six-page letter to the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury in which I set out the whole case. I am sure that the Minister will find it on his files, but it might be appropriate for me to quote briefly from two passages.
Having set out the situation and said how unsatisfactory it was, I said:
"Therefore, for the above reasons and in view of the unsatisfactory way in which the Compensation Act operates, I hope you will agree with me it is of even greater importance that the District Valuer should lean over backwards to see that he is fair, if not generous, in the compensation given to those who are dispossessed.
I appreciate that the District Valuer in this case found himself in a town in which

705
there was no market value because of the effects of planning blight and therefore had to create a market. The willing sellers who were anxious to retire from business provided the basis of valuation for this market and now this is used as the yardstick against which the unwilling sellers are valued at what seems to me to be an artificially low valuation."
I gave two examples—Mr. Nutt and Mr. Alfred Cole. Alfie Cole recently drove to London in his pony and trap as a demonstration to the Prime Minister at No. 10, Downing Street about his treatment. He also, rather ill-advisedly I think, blocked the main street at Basingstoke with lorry loads of soil, which caused a considerable commotion. I say nothing to condone that way of drawing attention to such problems when there is a Parliamentary way. But if the Minister does nothing about the problem when it is raised he cannot blame me for the consequences.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not there this justification for Mr. Cole, that his Member of Parliament has raised the matter at least three times already without the Government taking any effective action to redress it?
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It speaks for itself.
I went on in the letter:
"In these circumstances and in view of the fact that in approximately half the appeals which have been made the valuation of the District Valuer has not been upheld by the Lands Tribunal, do you not yourself consider that it might be appropriate for one of your superintendent valuers to look more closely at the situation in Basingstoke?"
The then Financial Secretary replied that that had been done. He added:
"As I explained in my letter of 5th April, differences of opinion about value can, in the absence of a negotiated settlement, only be satisfactorily resolved by reference to the Lands Tribunal … clearly the right course … is to get a ruling from the Tribunal."
I may add that many people cannot afford this. The letter continues:
"I am sorry that, in spite of the assurances I have already given, you should maintain your charges about the way the District Valuer is dealing with compensation claims. I can only say that the Revenue tell me that as a result of their investigations they are satisfied that the District Valuer is conscientiously trying to arrive at impartial valuations which will be fair to the claimants as well as to the acquiring authority."
The House will not blame me when I say that I took that as a reasonable, positive assurance from the then Financial Secretary.
706
I wrote to my constituent that the Inland Revenue had carried out this investigation but added:
"I am still not satisfied, but I think the next step must me the reference of further cases to the Lands Tribunal and if this impartial body finds that the District Valuer is incorrect in further cases, then I think the case for an outside investigation will be clear beyond all doubt."
We have had that next hearing in front of the Lands Tribunal, which is the situation which has resulted. For the benefit of the hon. Member I have quotations from the Lands Tribunal proceedings, "E. Kaye … and Personal Representative J. R. Sharp. Reference 551966".
The Tribunal was asked to consider three things. The first was a point of law as to whether the valuation should be made one way or another; the second was one method of valuation and the third was an alternative method. The Tribunal found that, on a point of law, the district valuer had chosen the lower when he should have chosen the higher method. I do not seek to raise this legal question but, given a choice between two alternative methods of valuation, the choice was made against the interests of my constituent.
Let us look at the figures which came up on the valuations. On valuation A the district valuer's figure was £100,000; the Lands Tribunal found that the correct valuation should have been £220,000. On valuation B, the district valuer's valuation was £37,000; the tribunal found that a fair valuation would have been £115,000. The hon. Gentleman cannot defend this. The differences are so enormous. He would find the transcript of the hearing interesting reading. I do not wish to be unfair in any way. Anyone can make a mistake. The question is how these mistakes come about. How was such a large difference arrived at? If there were one error of judgment, it would be understandable, but was it perhaps a long series of errors of judgment all to the disadvantage of my constituent? Almost every option which was open was taken to the disadvantage of the man whose land was being compulsorily purchased.
First there was the refusal to take into account a valid offer for the same piece of land made a few weeks before the compulsory purchase order. It was claimed by the local valuation office that

707
this was not valid because it was made under the threat of compulsory purchase. I will quote from the Lands Tribunal's own report on this. It says:
"Mr. Goodman, cross-examined on this point by Mr. Finer, gave an answer which stemmed logically from his valuation which we confess we find startling. I am sure that the House will find it startling also.
"Question: I want you to assume that Lyon is saying 'I am very interested in this land. I am offering you £276,000 for it, subject to contract. I know that the local authority want it. Never mind, sell it to me just the same because I am willing to take the risk of compulsory purchase.' It is a big firm and that is the situation…. Your evidence is that if someone else came along and offered to write out a cheque, completion with contract, for £95.000 at that moment you would advise Mr. Kaye in all conscientiousness, to take the £95,000? Answer: Yes.
Question: And that strikes you as being perfect commonsense? Answer: Yes."
The Tribunal says:
"With respect to Mr. Goodman, we do not believe that a competent surveyor would have given such advice or, if given, that any man of business would have acted on it."
Secondly, he ignored an earlier and similar transaction in which freehold land which was bought by Gaston Marbaix, claiming that it was not comparable. The Tribunal found that it was comparable and commented:
"Mr. Goodman said the transaction was very complicated, almost too complicated to be of assistance to the Tribunal".
—the two greatest experts on land valuation in the country!
Thirdly, they base their valuation on assumptions that planning permission for access would not be likely to be forthcoming, on which the Tribunal found that it was likely to be granted:
"It is also significant that the area planning officer, in a letter to the district valuer dated 15th July, 1964, said he thought the outline planning permission had lapsed but that, like the district valuer, he was 'of the view that permission might again be granted for a similar access'. Later, it appears that both these gentlemen changed their minds."
But, let it be noted, they changed them to the disadvantage of my constituent.
Finally, the district valuer based his calculation on the astonishing assumption that development of this land would have been delayed for 10 years, a delay which the Lands Tribunal did not find justified. So the Lands Tribunal found against the district valuer. This was a big case, but
708
my concern is with the smaller people who could not afford to bring a case lasting 24 days before the Lands Tribunal.
The compensation code is complex. It is essential that it should be administered with scrupulous fairness and humanity, otherwise great hardship and injustice will be caused to those who have their land and property acquired from them compulsorily. In almost every option which was open to him in this case, the district valuer's office exercised that option to the disadvantage of the citizen. It is more like the action of a horse dealer than that of an impartial valuer. I think that that is a summing-up of it which would be generally accepted in this Chamber at the moment.
The very important question that I want to put to the Financial Secretary is to ask if this valuation was unique. Did the local district valuation office behave in this way on just one occasion? Was it only this constituent who, for some reason which I do not understand, caused this horse-dealing approach to be made, or has this been the cause of the continuous stream of complaints that I have had about the operation of the compensation code in Basingstoke since I have had the honour to represent it in this House?
This is a very important question to which I must ask the Financial Secretary to address his mind. Was it unique, or was this his normal method of doing business?
It should not be forgotten that four cases have gone to the Lands Tribunal. In all of them it has been found that the district valuer's valuation was below the amount awarded by the Tribunal. I know that the hon. Gentleman will say that there were 700 odd cases which were accepted and that only four have gone to appeal, so the district valuer must be right. But do not let him imagine for a moment that there are 700 satisfied customers. I assure him that there are not. There are 700 people, many of whom could not afford to take a case to the Lands Tribunal. Many of them, ignorant of the facts, would have said to themselves, "Here is an independent person who is not seeking to drive a hard bargain on behalf of the local authority. He is an impartial person whose job it is to decide between us.

709
He says that that is what it is worth, so that must be what it is worth."
That is not what has happened when cases have been challenged. There are many people with a good case but who could not afford the expense involved if they lost. Having to pay the Council's legal fees as well as their own, indeed they might lose more than the value of the property that they sought to defend. I am sure that the council spent over £10,000 on this case. A small case might have cost only £1,000, but many of the people concerned could not afford that. Take Mr. Alfie Cole, for example. The bank has lent him more on the value of his land than the district value is prepared to pay for it. He cannot afford to risk any money on an appeal because his land will have gone and he will have an unsecured overdraft left standing against him at the local bank.
I want to allow time for the Financial Secretary to reply, and he has been very patient. But the Lands Tribunal has seen that this constituent has got justice. My question is, what about the others, the small people who could not afford to go to the Lands Tribunal?
I return to my original Question in the House on 28th January, when I asked the Minister
"Would he not agree that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs? What does he propose to do about it?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 1083.]
There was nothing in the answer which I then got which gave me any cause for satisfaction, but I invite the Financial Secretary to do so now.
1.40 a.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will not think me discourteous if I intervene now, because I have the option of either doing that or leaving myself no time in which to reply.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) has asked me to consider the barking dogs of Basingstoke in contrast to the silent dogs of Andover, and I am well aware of the well-known reference in Sherlock Holmes to the dog that did not bark in the night. But the hon. Gentleman's constituents can congratulate themselves that they have a watchdog who was prepared to bark even
710
in the night, because of the extensive consideration given by our colleagues to business earlier before the House.
I do not complain that the hon. Member expresses himself forcibly in defence of his constituents' rights, because he is dealing with a subject of infinite complexity and very considerable difficulty.
I think I have to say at the outset that the district valuer's job is certainly not an enviable one. He has, on the one hand, not to act as a man anxious to drive the hardest possible bargain. He has to act as fairly and impartially as he can to reach a settlement which achieves a fair valuation of the land. It is no victory for him if he acquires for the public authority land at below its market value. There is no district valuer who is appreciated at head office for achieving such an advantage; that is not his job.
On the other hand, he is in the somewhat difficult position that he is the lone guardian of the public purse. It is very easy to be generous with the public purse. It is his duty, however, to protect public funds at the same time as achieving a fair bargain for the member of the public concerned, not altogether a happy situation for a professional man to find himself in, particularly as the area of judgment concerned in hundreds of cases is not susceptible to scientific estimation but only to calculation and assumption within legal rules of great complexity and great difficulty which involve him in solving conundrums about hypothetical values of what might have been the worth of the land but for the development entering into the computation.
I have a good deal of sympathy with all district valuers in fulfilling this task. They have the satisfaction of knowing that at the public cost any member of the public has the assistance of professional advisers. These advisers are exclusively advising the claimant. They have no responsibility to assess a fair value. They do not have this very difficult task but, without wishing to make an unjust claim, to advise their clients to the best of their professional ability.
Of course, if the district valuer errs in favour of a claimant, there is no appeal by the local authority and the money is paid out. But if the district valuer is wrong in the view of the advisers of the

711
claimant, they have the remedy of going to the courts. I know that the remedy, with small people, is an imperfect one, but this is one of the facts of life against which it is useless to prick. We have the same problem about other domestic matters for the enforcement of civil rights. It is a great pity, and perhaps we should look into the possibility of achieving greater economy in the administrative law which is applied to the Lands Tribunal. But there is an ultimate remedy available.
It is of the highest importance that district valuers should not unnecessarily drive the smaller people to the Tribunal, but should seek to reach a fair and equitable compromise. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in inferring that this district valuer has fallen short of the high standards which I confidently expect from district valuers throughout the country. While they are protecting the public funds, they should seek to give fair play to the citizen affected, particularly the smaller one, where the right to go to the Tribunal has a certain academic quality because of the cost. It is wrong to infer from the volume of complaints that this district valuer, or any district valuer, has fallen short of the standards. I cannot accept that.
Imagine the bitterness in the cases cited by the hon. Gentleman where members of the public were offered what amounts to derisory sums for their land on the ground that they had sold other land to private developers at a high price. I can understand them feeling bitter about this.
712
But this is not the district valuer's fault. It is the correct operation of Section 7 of the Act passed in 1961 when, so far as I know, the party opposite was in Government. It may be that the code is unfair, but this is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The hon. Gentleman must speak to some of his hon. Friends about that.
Mr. David Mitchell: I carefully made the point about the £1 offered for three-quarters of an acre in my note on how unsatisfactory the code is and I suggested that the Minister should make representations regarding the code to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman was at no point inaccurate or, although he expressed himself vigorously, unfair; but I cannot accept any imputation of any kind on the district valuer concerned merely because there is a grievance. The code tends to grievance in certain of its workings, and not necessarily just grievance. I will look at that.
In conclusion, it is easy to make errors, in good faith, in valuations. It is no use—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twelve minutes to Two o'clock.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Companies Bill
  Companies Bill
  Unsolicited Books and Magazines
  Unsolicited Books and Magazines
  Factories (Midlothian)
  Factories (Midlothian)
  Grants (Midlothian)
  Grants (Midlothian)
  Solid Fuels (Water Content)
  Solid Fuels (Water Content)
  Accountants
  Accountants
  Investment Rate
  Investment Rate
  Wheat and Barley (Imports)
  Wheat and Barley (Imports)
  Import Duties
  Import Duties
  Special Development Area (Stanley)
  Special Development Area (Stanley)
  Law Commission (Report)
  Law Commission (Report)
  Investment Grant (Grampian Chemicals)
  Investment Grant (Grampian Chemicals)
  Banking Houses and Shipping Companies
  Banking Houses and Shipping Companies
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Hangman's Nooses (Export)
  Hangman's Nooses (Export)
  Tin Imports
  Tin Imports
  Shipping Regulations (United States)
  Shipping Regulations (United States)
  Unemployment (Pembrokeshire)
  Unemployment (Pembrokeshire)
  Under-Developed Countries (Preferential Trade)
  Under-Developed Countries (Preferential Trade)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Sawn Hardwood Mining Timber (Imports)
  Sawn Hardwood Mining Timber (Imports)
  Fishing Vessels (Stabilisers)
  Fishing Vessels (Stabilisers)
  Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Trade Relations)
  Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Trade Relations)
  Trade Liberalisation
  Trade Liberalisation
  Advance Factories (Scotland)
  Advance Factories (Scotland)
  Advance Factory (Peterhead)
  Advance Factory (Peterhead)
  Consultancy Aid Scheme
  Consultancy Aid Scheme
  Advance Factories (Aberdeen)
  Advance Factories (Aberdeen)
  Trade, Industry and Employment (Scotland)
  Trade, Industry and Employment (Scotland)
  Trade and Industry (North-East Scotland)
  Trade and Industry (North-East Scotland)
  Invisible Earnings (Scotland)
  Invisible Earnings (Scotland)
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Hotels (Facilities)
  Hotels (Facilities)
  Selective Employment Tax and Fuel Oil Duties
  Selective Employment Tax and Fuel Oil Duties
  Distribution of Industry
  Distribution of Industry
  Subsidies and Tax Policies
  Subsidies and Tax Policies
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Development Area Status
  Development Area Status
  Waterton Industrial Estate
  Waterton Industrial Estate
  Development Areas (New Jobs)
  Development Areas (New Jobs)
  Art Auctions (Rings)
  Art Auctions (Rings)
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Engineering Industry (Census of Production Forms)
  Engineering Industry (Census of Production Forms)
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
  Advance Factory (Machars of Wigtownshire)
  Advance Factory (Machars of Wigtownshire)
  Industrial Foreign Investments
  Industrial Foreign Investments
  Clearing Banks (Prices and Incomes Board Recommendation)
  Clearing Banks (Prices and Incomes Board Recommendation)
  Trade Fair, Czechoslovakia (Clothing Company)
  Trade Fair, Czechoslovakia (Clothing Company)
  Small Businesses (Consultancy Service)
  Small Businesses (Consultancy Service)
AVIATION
  Air Fares
  Air Fares
  Overseas Borrowing
  Overseas Borrowing
  Airline Pilot Training
  Airline Pilot Training
  Package Holidays (Costs)
  Package Holidays (Costs)
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Meteorological Requirements
  Meteorological Requirements
  Scheduled Services (Passenger Traffic)
  Scheduled Services (Passenger Traffic)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wheat and Barley
  Wheat and Barley
  Wheat (Purchases from United States)
  Wheat (Purchases from United States)
  Cheese Imports
  Cheese Imports
TECHNOLOGY
  Metric Packaging
  Metric Packaging
  Ocean Environment (Development)
  Ocean Environment (Development)
SCOTLAND
  Redundant School Buildings
  Redundant School Buildings
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Schools and Hospitals (Land and Buildings)
  Schools and Hospitals (Land and Buildings)
  Medical Administrators
  Medical Administrators
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Investment Allowances and Grants
  Investment Allowances and Grants
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Investment Income (Tax Relief)
  Investment Income (Tax Relief)
  Surtax
  Surtax
  Investment
  Investment
  Petrol Duty
  Petrol Duty
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  English Electric Vulcan Works, Newton-le-Willows
  English Electric Vulcan Works, Newton-le-Willows
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Beira Patrol
  Beira Patrol
  Royal Naval Air Service Station, Brawdy
  Royal Naval Air Service Station, Brawdy
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Migration (Wales)
  Migration (Wales)
  Development Areas (Depreciation Grants)
  Development Areas (Depreciation Grants)
  Male Employment Objectives
  Male Employment Objectives
  Development Areas (Jobs)
  Development Areas (Jobs)
  Activity Rates
  Activity Rates
  Development Areas (Inducements to Industry)
  Development Areas (Inducements to Industry)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Speed Limit Convictions (Cost of Investigation)
  Speed Limit Convictions (Cost of Investigation)
  Constitutional Commission
  Constitutional Commission
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  National Association of Schoolmasters (Dispute)
  National Association of Schoolmasters (Dispute)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
POST OFFICE
  Wales (Investment)
  Wales (Investment)
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Revenue and Capital Accounts
  Revenue and Capital Accounts
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
GAS
  Light Petroleum Gases (Price)
  Light Petroleum Gases (Price)
COAL
  Smokeless Fuel (North Yorkshire)
  Smokeless Fuel (North Yorkshire)
HOSPITALS
  District General Hospital
  District General Hospital
RAILWAYS
  Euston Station (Taxis)
  Euston Station (Taxis)
ROADS
  Bewdley—Kidderminster By-pass
  Bewdley—Kidderminster By-pass
WALES
  Plasnewydd Clearance Order, Cardiff
  Plasnewydd Clearance Order, Cardiff
  Water Undertakings, Monmouthshire (Amalgamation)
  Water Undertakings, Monmouthshire (Amalgamation)

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

UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC SALARIES
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to set up better machinery for the review of academic salaries in the universities.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Education and Science has, at their request, had exploratory discussions, without commitment by any body, about machinery for settling university academic salaries with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and with the Association of University Teachers. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science cannot anticipate the outcome of these discussions, which will take some time to complete.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask her these supplementary questions? Is she aware of the urgent need to get this long-standing problem tackled? Is she aware that the recent illogical and nsatisfactory Report of the Prices and Incomes Board has nearly caused a strike among university staffs? Further, is she aware of the recent decision of the Council of the University Teachers' Association that they would not accept a further remit to the Board; and does that not make it very clear how urgent it is to get on with efforts to deal with this problem?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is well aware of the
874
urgency of this matter. I am sure the noble Lord will also appreciate that one of the major obstacles to establishing negotiating machinery has been the difficulty, in the absence of any body which represents the interests of the universities as employers, of forming an employers' side to the negotiations. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have been unwilling to accept this role because they see themselves as a part of the academic community and as not having a mandate to commit the governing bodies of the individual universities. This and other points have necessitated prolonged discussions. But I will convey the views of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, is it not absurd that where a very large number of people are employed no one can decide who employs them?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, is it not even more absurd that this particular point has been under discussion, to my certain knowledge, for 15 years, with apparently the same sense of urgency as is prevailing at the moment, and that no progress whatsoever has been made? Can the Government undertake to do something in the next year or so much more dramatic than they have succeeded in doing in the last 15 or 20 years?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I appreciate the feelings with which noble Lords have put their questions, but I think they will agree that the Government are not the only party to these discussions. If the two negotiating bodies cannot come together even on the machinery through which they will negotiate salaries, it is a little hard to put all blame on the Government.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I thank the Government for the many benefits—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she will thank the Government for the many benefits and improvements in status which have flowed to university teaching staffs since this Government came into office? May I further ask her—and I do so as the much-worried treasurer of a university —whether, if additional salaries are

875
authorised as a result of this new machinery, the University Grants Committee will give supplementary grants to the universities to cover the expenditure involved?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend particularly for his expression of gratitude to the Government. This is always very welcome, from whatever source it comes. I will convey to my right honourable friend the other point made by the noble Lord. Naturally, since this matter is very exploratory, the point about additional moneys from the University Grants Committee cannot have a direct reply.

GREECE: SUPPLY OF NAVAL AIRCRAFT
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it has been agreed to supply naval aircraft and aeroplanes to the Government of Greece.]
Tim MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, no request for an export licence for such items has been received, but any such request would be considered in the light of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirements.
LORD BROCK WAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware of the report in Governmental papers in Greece that there has been agreement to supply naval aircraft and aeroplanes? Further, when they are considering the NATO role of Greece, will Her Majesty's Government remember that even the Liberal and Conservative opponents of the present regime say that it was NATO arms that enabled the military coup to be carried out and NATO arms that are now maintaining it?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government will take account of reports of that kind and will give them the weight which they deserve. In answer to the first part of
876
my noble friend's supplementary question, I am afraid that I cannot be responsible for what appears in any newspaper, certainly not for what appears in newspapers in Greece. I can only repeat that no request for an export licence has been received and therefore, of course, no agreement could have been made.

EXPLOITATION OF THE SEA-BED
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to establish international control of the exploitation of sea-beds for mineral and other resources.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we have repeatedly made it clear that we favour the establishment of an international regime governing the exploitation of the sea-bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on February 27 in another place, we are concerting discussions to this end and we will be pursuing this in the present and subsequent meetings of the United Nations Standing Committee on the Peaceful Use of the Sea-bed.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while sincerely welcoming that reply from my noble friend, may I ask him whether urgent consideration will be given to this matter because of the danger that there may be a new submarine colonialism?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BROCKWAY: Oh, yes! Is my noble friend aware that, in the case of the oceans, we are now passing through the same stage as the 1885 division of the colonial territories, and that the danger is that the sea-bed may go to the Great Powers? Apart from that interruption, may I ask this question? In view of the United Nations' endorsement of President Johnson's proposal for an international decade of ocean exploration, are the Government prepared to support the proposal of Avrid Pardo, the Maltese delegate to the United Nations, that there should be an extra-national

877
agency on this matter and that the massive wealth available should be devoted to the needs of the developing countries?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can certainly assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government fully support the principle of an international régime governing the use of the sea-bed, the idea put forward, as he rightly said, by the Maltese Government and subsequently taken up at the United Nations. I entirely agree with my noble friend that this is now becoming a matter of some urgency. I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government are fully seized of the urgency of this problem.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when the Government Report on marine science and technology is likely to be published? It is long overdue.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot give the date. I can only say that we hope and believe that it will be published soon.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in considering that review, it will he borne in mind that it will be very useful to integrate the activities of this country with the international programme which we hope will emerge?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we shall certainly bear in mind the matter raised by my noble friend.

JUVENILE COURTS AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: 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 it is really necessary for the Director of Public Prosecutions to be asked for his consent before a case can be withdrawn in a juvenile court; whether this additional delay is in the best interests of the children concerned, and whether forthcoming changes might not substitute for this the consent of the court.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate that because I have had only short notice of this Question I am not in a position to give any considered reply. Perhaps therefore he will consider re-tabling his question at some convenient future date.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend and understanding his difficulties in the circumstances, may I ask him two questions on minor matters? Would he not agree that it is a bad thing that there should he anything on the Statute Book which makes the trials of juveniles before the juvenile courts any slower than they need be? And would he not agree that a time when major legislation in this field is in progress is a very good time to take a second look at this matter?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in the absence of time to look into this matter, it seems to me that both my noble friend's questions are hypothetical. Therefore I think it would be better if I did not attempt to answer them.

ANGUILLA: THE WEST INDIES ACT 1967
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT D1LHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have already given Private Notice, namely,
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act 1967 only gives power to make laws in certain circumstances, they will correct the Answer given in this House by the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on March 18 in which he sought to justify Government action by reference to this provision."
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I see no need to correct the Answer that I gave in this House yesterday. The position is that the West Indies Act 1967 which establishes the Associated States reserved to the United Kingdom the responsibilities for defence and external affairs. To enable the United Kingdom to carry out those responsibilities, Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act authorises Her Majesty by Order in Council to make such laws

879
for an Associated State as appear to Her Majesty to be appropriate in the interests of the United Kingdom Government's responsibilities for defence and external affairs. The Order in Council governing the action now being undertaken was therefore made appropriately under Section 7(2) of the Act.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord yesterday said that the action taken by Her Majesty's Government was to install a Commissioner. He said nothing—and he could have done so if he wished—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, could the noble and learned Viscount ask a question?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am proposing to ask a supplementary question. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will put it in my own way. Does the noble Lord remember that he said yesterday that the Government policy was to install a High Commissioner and that it was based on Section 7(2)? Does he recognise that Section 7(2) makes provision only for passing laws applying to the whole of an Associated State; and the Associated State here is St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla? On what basis does he say that laws can be passed relating to one part alone of that State?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the position is that Anguilla, as the noble and learned Viscount has rightly said, is certainly constitutionally a part of the Associated State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla; but the authority of the State Government has not been effective in Anguilla since May, 1967. There are no lawfully established courts functioning on the island. It was therefore, in the view of the Government, not possible for them in the circumstances to discharge their constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs. Therefore, under Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act Her Majesty has made an Order in Council which will enable the Government to install Her Majesty's Commissioner upon the island; and all the other action is pursuant to that.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount at this stage whether he will consent to postpone further questioning on this subject until a suitable moment
880
after 3.30 p.m., when I hope to be making a Statement on Anguilla. I can then take up the legal point, as well as other points that arise at that time.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not seek to know anything about what is in the full Statement. May I ask why the noble Lord did not frankly say, as is clearly the case, that this particular Act does not in any way sanction the use of force?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I said in answer to the noble and learned Viscount yesterday that the use of force was purely a hypothetical matter. When I come to make my Statement at a suitable time after 3.30 p.m. I think I shall then be able to deal with realities and not hypotheses.

ANNUAL FARM PRICE REVIEW
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, after the Statement on Anguilla to be made by my noble friend Lord Chalfont, I shall, with the leave of the House make a Statement on the Annual Farm Price Review. Both Statements will be made at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

THE SWANN REPORT: SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND MANPOWER
2.50 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES LORD WYNNE-JONES rose to call attention to the Swann Report on The Flow into Employment of Scientists, Engineers and Technologists [Cmnd. 3760] and the allocation of national resources for research and development: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in initiating this debate I realise that your Lordships are being put to a certain strain in having in successive weeks debates on scientific and technological subjects. I hope, however, that it will be appreciated by your Lordships that the purpose of this debate is to call attention to the significance for our whole economy of scientific research and development and the importance of our maintaining scientific research and development effectively in this country. I am very gratified to find that a number of noble Lords have put down their names to contribute to the debate. I think they will succeed in bringing to it something which is not just an academic

881
or technical contribution, and that is very much to be welcomed.
No doubt your Lordships will all have seen the Swann Report, which is the peg for the debate. It is issued by the Swann Working Group on Manpower for Scientific Growth of the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology. After making a very exhaustive study of the whole position it makes a number of recommendations with regard to manpower so far as scientists, engineers and technologists are concerned. This Report is clearly one of outstanding importance, and therefore it is essential that we should give it close consideration. I do not propose to go through it in detail because I know that many of your Lordships who will be contributing later will be able to say much more than I can on the various aspects of the Swann Report. But there are certain matters in the Report on which I feel I can comment, and therefore I should like to refer to them.
In dealing with the flow of scientists, engineers and technologists into industry the Report, quite rightly and naturally, deals with the educational system. In particular it deals with the university sector of the system. It makes certain recommendations. The Group probably regarded itself as necessarily constricted in its terms of reference, and little reference is made, except indirectly, to the general school system of the country, although I believe that this may be quite crucial to all our discussions. Among the recommendations made in the Swann Report is one which is summarised in particular in paragraph 162, and also is referred to in paragraph 165, in which it is suggested that in order to make scientists better equipped for industry the width of courses given to scientists should be increased. The actual recommendations made, if I may refer to them specifically, are as follows:
"We hope to see experiment in this field—"
that is in the field of widening courses—
"in every university, and we look forward to the day when all science, technology and engineering students gain some broad understanding of the society in which they will work. Only in this way can our educational system produce a well-balanced output of such graduates."
882
A little later they say:
"We conclude that a detailed study of current curricula in science, engineering and technology in university education should be undertaken in relation to career needs and to the balance between specialised and generalised studies."
This appears at first sight to be an excellent suggestion, but we want to bear in mind that while it is highly desirable to have scientists who are well educated it may perhaps be equally desirable to have other people educated in science. Indeed, my Lords, it may be one of the criticisms of our society to-day that very many who have passed through our complete educational system have a knowledge of science which is barely minimal and is quite inadequate for dealing with modern problems. Further, if one is going to put into a university course restricted to three years a further course in these broad studies, there is little doubt that one is bound to reduce the content of the scientific and engineering studies undertaken in the university course.
But the position is perhaps even worse than that, because in another recommendation in paragraph 143 of the Report the Committee suggest that since it is obviously desirable to get a supply of teachers trained in science into our schools, we should extend our teaching courses into the actual university course. They actually recommend that there should be brought into the university courses for science graduates. They say:
"To attract more able graduates to teaching we recommend that experiments should be encouraged, to combine study in a major field of science or technology with preparation for teaching…".
My Lords, if we are to have every scientist and every engineer in the university not only given a broad training in social studies but also given training adequate to turn them into teachers, remembering that it is the intention in our whole school teaching system to have a full year at least of training in teaching, it can be seen that the normal three-year university course would provide very little science or engineering. So it seems to me that the Swann Report starts by making the usual assumption that you can go on pouring more and more into the pot irrespective of the capacity of the pot. That seems to me quite ridiculous.
I suggest that it is here, to begin with, that there is a wrong approach because

883
they have misunderstood the point at which general education should really be given. I submit that general education is a function of our school system. It is highly important that one should have a very general education in schools and not a specialised education. I think that the biggest error which has been made in this country has been the introduction of specialisation too early into the school system, and that it is there that one wants the general education.
Of course, my Lords, general education must also take place in universities and in all colleges, but this general education usually takes place in universities and places of higher education as the result of the whole environment and the way in which students discuss and argue with one another and teach one another. That, surely, is why we do not have a whole set of specialist institutions, each one of them simply teaching a different subject. It is by having all the different subjects together inside an institution of higher education that we are able to get the width of education brought in in a proper way by the students themselves.
The Report goes on to suggest that certain things can be done inside the universities in order to make the training of scientists, technologists and engineers more widespread. There is one recommendation, in paragraph 35 of the Report, which I find very difficult to take seriously. It says:
"We agree that, in science and technology, priority should be given to undergraduate rather than postgraduate places; and we recommend that, to maintain the growth in the numbers of scientists, engineers and technologists who qualify each year, universities should make every effort to accommodate students to study for first degrees in these subjects."
It is a little surprising that a Committee which had on it a number of university people should make that comment, when we find that the Universities Central Committee for Admissions pointed out, in October of last year, that the universities offered a total of 4,859 places in medicine and that 259 were unfilled because there were not enough applicants—and the suggestion is that we should supply more places immediately. In engineering and technology, there were 10,357 places, of which 455 were unfilled, and that in pure science there were 15,946 places, of
884
which 738 were unfilled. That does not make a very good case for saying that the universities should strain every effort to increase the number of places. They have made the effort to provide more places, but the whole point is that the students are not coming forward.
I would submit that that is the real point, which is being completely, or largely, overlooked in this Report. It is the supply of students capable of studying medicine, science and engineering in the universities which is so desperately short and which is getting worse. The figures, which we can find easily in the Statistics of Science and Technology for 1968, show us that in the year 1963 there were 73·7 thousand pupils in schools studying for G.C.E. "A" levels in science and mathematics. In 1965, that figure had risen to 81·4 thousand and, in 1967, it had dropped to 76·7 thousand. We have passed the maximum and we are getting fewer students in schools taking science and mathematics—and this at the very period when the total numbers have increased considerably. For instance, the number of pupils taking other subjects were 83·4 thousand in 1963; 109·6 thousand in 1965 and 118·3 thousand in 1967.
This is the real crisis with which we are faced. It is not a crisis of supplying places for scientists, engineers and medical students in the university but primarily one of supplying the students for existing places. Until we do this, we have no hope at all of getting a proper-expansion of our technology in this country. We shall find that it will grind to a halt. The principal of one technical college has recently stated that in his opinion, at the present rate of development within ten years there will be no teaching of science done in the schools at all because there will be no science teachers to teach it. The position is as bad as that.
The real problem we have to face is not one of minor tinkering, of improvement, of trying to do this a little better, of providing a few extra places; it is one of looking hard at our whole educational system in order to find out what has gone wrong. Why is it that we are not training enough people who are able to profit by the facilities that are available now in universities, polytechnics and other places? I think that one

885
of the reasons—obviously there is a complex of reasons—is that for many years we have ignored the necessity of having school teachers who are educated in science. I believe it is true that not more than 10 per cent. of all those who take training courses in training colleges take science at all. This does not mean that only 10 per cent. are specialists in science but that there are only 10 per cent. who know anything about science, who have ever been exposed to it. In these circumstances, it is almost inevitable that in primary schools there is practically nothing being done. The whole basis which has to be laid in order to get people interested in and excited about science just fails. So we ought to consider going right back to fundamentals and making certain that we get this right.
My main criticisms of the Swann Report is that it does not call attention to this vital factor in our educational system. Of course, this may be due to the fact that Professor Swann is principal of a Scottish university and that in Scotland they have a different system of education. But we have to consider what is happening over the whole of the United Kingdom, and certainly so far as England and Wales are concerned we are woefully deficient. In fact, I would say that we are far more deficient in science training to-day than we ever have been since the national system of education was introduced. That position has been steadily deteriorating. What we have done is to create something good at the top end but failed to produce anything effective far lower down.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is not forgetting or ignoring the fact that at Camberwell, with the Swann Working Party, there was another Working Party under the Chairmanship of Dr. Dainton, the Vice-Chancellor of Nottingham University, which was concerned with the science situation within the schools and which reported on precisely the questions the noble Lord is raising only a few months before the Swann Report was published? Therefore, it would not be reasonable to expect the Swann Committee to reproduce what was already available in the Dainton Report.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, of course I accept my noble friend's comment on this matter. He is perfectly right. But the Swann Report refers specifically to the desirability of getting teachers into the schools, and it is because they have gone so far as to make this reference that I feel they ought to have gone farther. I think their reference, so far as it goes, misses the point.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is riot the noble Lord being rather unfair? It is not right that the Swann Report refers, as I shall refer in my speech, to the Dainton Report with a good deal of approval?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, again I naturally accept the noble Lord's comment. Unfortunately, we are not discussing the Dainton Report, otherwise I might make somewhat similar remarks about that Report. All I am saying is that the Swann Report specifically refers in more than one paragraph to this question of teaching, and I would suggest that they have not made very sensible suggestions. However, since this is obviously a sideline, I will leave that point at the moment.
I should like to refer briefly to one further matter. In the Motion which is before your Lordships I have referred to
"the allocation of national resources for research and developments".
This I think follows on from the Swann Report, and I think it is most important for this and every other country. We allocate resources, but no one seems to have worked out what resources we should allocate. It seems to be left very often to pressure groups, to people who agitate, let us say, for a 300 GeV accelerator to see whether thew can get the money, or it is left to EMBO to see whether it can get the money, and so on. I believe it is far to important to be left undiscussed.
I want to call attention to the position in this country, in America and in the Soviet Union. The reason why I am particularly concerned with this problem is that I was delighted with the speech which the Prime Minister made—the famous Scarborough speech—in October, 1963. The Prime Minister then (he was not Prime Minister at the time, but the Leader of the Opposition) put forward a general programme for highly advanced technology and research in this country.

887
Some people say that this has not been done. Actually, it may surprise your Lordships to hear that it has been carried out at least as well as one could have expected. What I would plead for from the Government is that this should continue in the same way.
In this country, between 1961 and 1964, Government expenditure on civilian research and development—leaving out the military—increased at the rate of 10½ per cent. per annum; but during 1964 to 1967—which is the available period—it increased by 12·2 per cent. per annum. The total national expenditure—that is, including all industrial expenditure, and the military expenditure—from 1961 to 1964 was increasing by 4·3 per cent. per annum, which shows that the Government field was increasing much more rapidly; and from 1964 to 1966, the last available figures, it went up by 4·8 per cent. per annum. So that in this country we have been devoting an increasing amount at an increasing rate to research and development. This is a highly desirable thing provided that we can still get the scientists, engineers and technologists.
In the United States, the position has changed rather dramatically. Last summer it became clear that not only were they not getting any rapid increase, but were actually getting a cut-back in expenditure. The National Science Foundation, NASA and many other research organisations in America have had a drastic cut-back. The Americans are very worried about this. It is interesting when you consider the figure that I have just given—that is, a 12·2 per cent. increase in Government expenditure in this country at the present time—that Donald Hornig, who was the Presidential Adviser for Science in America, was pleading last summer that they might get an increase as high as 10 per cent. So I think it is clear that we have done something in this country.
But do not let us be too satisfied or complacent about it. because I want to call attention to the fact that the country (whether or not we like its mode of Government and its organisation) which for over 38 years has made the most rapid increase in its economy of any country in the world, including the United States and Japan, is the Soviet Union. I
888
am not using Russian figures; I am using figures which have been carefully analysed by an American economist. This American economist states that in the 38 years from 1928 to 1965 in the United States the economy improved by 3·3 per cent. per annum—that is, at a constant value of the dollar—and in the U.S.S.R. it improved by between 5·4 and 6·7 per cent. per annum over the same period. And he says that 5·4 per cent. is the minimum figure he can make fit the statistics. This is a remarkable thing. and I think there is little doubt that it is largely due to the fact that the Soviet Union is the one country that set out from the start to make science the basis of its whole economy. I suggest that we shall he running into grave danger in this country if we fail to give priority to research and development, and the means of supplying the manpower for research and development. I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure all your Lordships will he grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for having given us the opportunity to debate the Swann Report and allied subjects and also for his wide-ranging and penetrating opening speech. He had one or two critical things to say about the Swann Report and he echoed some of the criticisms that your Lordships will have heard and read from university circles, based, it seems to me soundly and rightly, on his deep concern to maintain standards of scholarship. I hope that we all have that same concern, because I believe it is vital to maintain our output of top-level research workers. However, I think it is equally important to ensure that those who are not capable of reaching the top level should receive a university education which is suitable to their talents and appropriate to their future employment.
What we are after is the right balance, and perhaps I may quote a sentence from the Report of the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology on Technological Innovation in Britain, which says:
"What we have to achieve is a new balance, both overall and in particular cases, of the deployment of our technological resources."
It is to this problem that Swann has drawn our attention. I must say

889
that when I first looked at the Swann Report I was delighted to see that it was reasonably short, succinct and most interesting; but when one starts to delve into it it becomes apparent that it is inseparable from other Reports—from the Dainton Report, the Jones Report, the Bosworth Report, the Annual Reports of the University Grants Committee, the Triennial Manpower Survey and the Report that I have just mentioned on technological innovation in Britain.
I must confess that, in view of the complexity of material and the presence of so many distinguished experts in the House, I feel considerable modesty. I approach this subject as a humble, independent observer, and the only interest I have to declare is that I am on the Court of the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire in Cardiff, and I have drawn for my information on that college to illustrate some of my remarks.
On one point all these Reports agree: the economic growth and competitiveness of British industry is involved in the correct solution of our scientific and technological manpower problems. But, having agreed that, they are unable to put forward any definite target figures. What proportion of our students should be reading scientific or technological subjects? What is the right proportion of our effort to put into research? How many Ph.D.s do we require and how many of them should be in the universities, in industry or in the schools? These are all questions so far unanswered, although the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, made some interesting observations on them in his excellent opening speech.
I should like to confine myself to two main aspects of the Swann Report: first, the need for more teachers of science, engineering and mathematics in the schools, and secondly, the need for a better supply of graduates in science and technology to industry. First, the schools. The noble Lord has drawn our attention to the position. The Swann Report finds that in 1965 only 6 per cent. of first-class honours graduates in science entered the schools or teacher-training, and of technologists only 1 per cent. The school situation looks even more serious if we take into account the conclusions of some
890
of the other Reports. Dainton shows that the proportion of "A" level pupils doing science in their first year in the sixth form declined from 41·5 per cent. in 1962 to 31·4 per cent. in 1967. The 1965 Triennial Manpower Survey revealed an overall shortage of supply of qualified scientists and engineers. The Jones Report showed that the net annual loss of scientists and technologists due to emigration rose from nil in 1961 to 2,700 in 1966. As the noble Lord has already told us, the position in the schools is fundamental to the whole problem, and it is here that a swing away from science is causing us the most difficulty with our technological manpower.
Why should this be so in a scientific age? Perhaps it is that young people who enjoy science fiction find science facts tedious and dull. How much more exciting to speculate on the great figures of history than to memorise a mass of scientific facts and formulae! Perhaps it could even be described as a healthy reaction against too early a specialisation in a narrow field. Perhaps science is badly taught in our schools; I think it often is. It may well be within the memory of some of your Lordships that it was usually the "stinks" master who was least able to maintain order. Here there is certainly a legacy from the past. So many of our more able scholars studied arts subjects; many of them ended by teaching these subjects in schools, and it was therefore the arts subjects that were best taught and represented the greatest intellectual challenge to the students. Or perhaps it is the seemingly poor career prospects. So often the scientist ends up in the backroom doing research work, and so rarely finds his way into the front office jobs in management. Or, most likely of all, it is perhaps a combination of all these factors. The effect in any case is a vicious circle. Relatively fewer pupils studying science in the schools means relatively fewer undergraduates reading scientific subjects, and eventually fewer graduates available as teachers in the schools. And so the circle goes on.
More significant too, many teachers in science subjects in the schools are in the older age groups. Over one-third of all graduate mathematicians in maintained schools, and over a quarter of science graduates, were aged fifty or over in March, 1966. See this, my Lords, in

891
the light of the Dainton Report recommendation, that normally all pupils should study mathematics until they leave school, and that breadth, humanity and up-to-dateness must be infused into science teaching.
The Swann Report answer to the problem—or one of its answers—is to propose additional financial inducements to lure graduates into schools, and it suggests that they should be paid preferential salaries. I must say that I very much doubt the practicability of paying teachers of science more than is paid to teachers of other subjects. It runs counter to the whole system of settling teachers' pay at present, and I think it would cause intense bitterness among teachers themselves. Already outside the normal scales of pay for teachers there exist additional awards for graduates, for good honours graduates, for posts of special responsibility and for work in educational priority areas. To go further than this and make distinctions according to the subject taught would involve immense complication. After all, the teacher's skill lies in teaching and it is according to the skill in his teaching that he should be paid. One can well imagine the resentment of an experienced and skilled teacher of, say, French at finding a young and inexperienced and perhaps even inefficient mathematics master paid more than he is.
Another suggestion made by the Swann Committee found no favour with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. This was the suggestion they made that some knowledge and practical experience of school teaching might be introduced into a first degree course. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I think there might well be some possibility of this being worked out, and certainly a scheme on these lines is already in contemplation at the University College of South Wales and awaits only final approval from the Department of Education and Science. The way the scheme would work is that the science departments, in collaboration with the Department and the Institute of Education, have devised courses which involve a significant part of the post-graduate certificate in education.
Thus, a student doing, say, chemistry and physics in the third year of a general
892
course could opt to do chemistry, with education in chemistry, and physics, with education in physics. The idea is that the educational component of this final year should count as a significant fraction of the course leading to a postgraduate certificate in education, which could then be completed by attendance at in-service courses, rather than by a further year's study at the university. Such in-service courses for teachers have been successfully running for some time in Cardiff; for example, the department of chemistry has been taking ten teachers for one day a week for a term, followed by refresher evenings from time to time for all the teachers who have been through those courses. This year they start a more ambitious scheme: a six-week in-service course for teachers of chemistry, which it is hoped also will attract chemists from industry.
I thought the noble Lord was a little unjust to the Swarm Report in his criticism about the consideration of scientists teaching in the schools. To my mind, the Swann Report was dealing entirely with graduates, scientists, engineers and technologists in the sense of graduate scientists, engineers and technologists. But I would go all the way with him in supporting what he said about the need to run better courses in science for those who are going to teach at the colleges of education. After all, of all teachers in maintained schools only 20 per cent. are graduates and the remainder have been trained at the colleges of education. In the colleges, too, the picture is not very encouraging. The proportion of men and women with "O" level mathematics is declining, and of the women only just over half have "O" level mathematics, although "O" level mathematics is not very demanding. Of "A" level subjects passed, there was a fall in the numbers of chemistry, mathematics and physics over the years 1967-68, coupled with a significant rise in arts, British Constitution and Government, economics and sociology.
I cannot help having some sympathy with the proposal of Sir William Alexander, that all students entering colleges of education should have a minimum qualification in mathematics as well as in English, for a very high proportion of them will be called upon to teach the subject in primary schools and much will

893
depend on their imaginative approach. Too often a child is bored by mathematics by the time he enters a secondary school. Therefore I am sure, as was the noble Lord, that we should make a much greater effort to improve the training of teachers in scientific subjects at the colleges of education, and in doing so we should particularly make use of the full range of modern teaching aids.
I should like now to consider a second aspect of the Swann Report, the need for greater co-operation and co-ordination between industry and the universities, to ensure that what is taught at the university is relevant to the demands of industry, and that industry makes the best use of the skilled manpower available. My impression is that a great deal has gone on, and is going on, in that field at the present moment. It seems to have started in December, 1965, when a most important conference convened by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the universities, and the C.B.I., led to the establishment of the Universities and Industries Joint Committee, consisting of seven vice-chancellors or principals and seven leading industrialists.
Already this Committee have produced two useful reports, one on the training and experience appropriate for graduates entering industry, and the other on postgraduate studies, refresher and retraining courses at the universities and the exchange of staff. A third report will follow shortly on the relation between research in industry and the universities. Then a new and most important working party has just been set up, under the chairmanship of Mr. Mumford, of I.C.I., to recommend what action should be taken, more particularly by industry, arising from the recommendations of the Dainton, Swann, Jones and Bosworth Reports. So important has the link with the universities become to the C.B.I. that they have recently appointed a liaison officer whose responsibilities lie entirely in this field.
Equally, the University Grants Committee have wasted no time in giving momentum to the move for collaboration, and they have included in their memorandum of general guidance accompanying the grant allocation for 1967-72 a paragraph on collaboration with industry in which they announced a special finan-
894
cial reserve for pump-priming appropriate schemes. A sub-committee of six, with advisers from the Science Research Council and the Ministry of Technology, has already allocated over £250,000 for this purpose.
1 would also mention an initiative from the students themselves. The National Union of Students is to hold a conference next October, in conjunction with the C.B.I., on graduate recruitment to industry, and it is hoped that the conference will be attended by university appointment officers. In this field, too, liaison can he only of benefit. One fruitful field of inquiry might well be the question of vacation jobs for undergraduates in industry. So often these jobs, when they are available at all, are purely menial and totally uninteresting, and tend only to give industry a bad name among the undergraduate population.
It is essential that this growing collaboration at the top should find its way down to collaboration between faculty and factory, and once again my inquiries at Cardiff surprised me with the amount of work that is going on. I found that all the science, applied science and social science departments at University College are deeply and widely engaged with local industry. I appreciate that it is easier where a university is sited in an industrial area, and perhaps it is better that such areas should act as growth points for this type of collaboration.
One important criticism that has been made of the Swann Report is that its paragraphs dealing with the universities and industry, both in the recommendations and in the statistics, bracket together scientists, engineers and technologists. The figures available seem to show that the requirements of industry are three times as great for engineers as for scientists, while the university output is twice as many scientists as engineers. While it may have been true in the past that many engineers qualified through National Certificates and Institute examinations, this is no longer so, since the great expansion of the universities, and many of them now go to the university. I would stress that it is most important to increase the flow of graduate engineers from the university to industry.
On this point I find myself deeply impressed by the views of Mr. F. L. Bragg,

895
the Chief Research Engineer of the Aero-Engine Division of Rolls-Royce. Speaking with the practical voice of one who has high responsibility in one of our great industries, he points out that industry needs only a few deep specialists—and here, of course, we are back again speculating as to what percentage of university output this should be. Apart from these specialists, the needs of industry are for a large number of graduates who have an appreciation of a wide range of disciplines. That is some answer to Lord Wynne-Jones's point, that industry has not made known its needs. Mr, Bragg gives three reasons. First, the problems are always inter-disciplinary. Second, research, though a vital initial step, is only a small fraction of the later efforts and resources required to apply, produce and sell an idea; and, third, there is a tremendous pressure for change.
His arguments are for a more general type of university course, and certainly they have found an echo in some of the universities. The best known, perhaps, is the Science/Greats course run by Professor Jevons at the University of Manchester. I also found at Cardiff broadly based general degree courses being run in both the arts and science faculties, and an interesting new experiment was begun this year in which a dozen students with arts "A" levels are taking an introductory course to convert to science subjects. I hope that will please the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. Of course, the logical prelude to such broadly based university courses would be wider studies in the sixth form, which in turn depend on university entrance examinations. But that is another and far too long a subject to enter into now.
I conclude, therefore, that the Swann Report is right in laying the greatest emphasis on the essential need for cooperation between the universities, industry and the schools. From what I have been able to discover, it is my impression, first, that a great deal is going on in the closer relationship between the universities and industry. Industry generally, led by the C.B.I., is anxious to play a more constructive part within the universities. The universities generally are responding to the encouragement of the University Grants Committee to cooperate with industry, and in that close
896
collaboration I believe that the more particular problems of the Ph.D. and broad-based courses and similar issues will solve themselves.
Secondly, it is my impression that the problem of attracting more and better graduates of science and engineering into the schools is far from solution. It is not easy to see great progress being made in this field, even if the problems of pay and pensions can be worked out; and I would urge in the meantime that a closer study is made of the contribution which the colleges of education may be able to offer.
3.39 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords. since the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has apparently not yet returned from Anguilla, I hope your Lordships will not mind if I continue with this particular debate. I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for raising this important subject. I hope he will not mind if I do not agree with a great deal of what he said, and I hope your Lordships will not mind if I follow fairly closely the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, because I think it is inevitable in a debate of this sort that we shall have to cover very much the same ground.
I would begin with an acknowledgment of the debt which the country owes to all the people who have been involved in the recent studies of the various aspects of the use of scientific and technological manpower. In my own Party we have recognised the importance of this problem for some considerable time, and under the auspices of the Chief Whip in another place, Mr. Lubbock, we have for some months been preparing a weekend seminar or conference which is to be held in Nottingham on March 28 to 30. We have been fortunate to secure the presence at that conference not only of Professor Swann, whose Report we are now considering, but also Dr. Jones of Mullards and Dr. Dainton, the Vice-Chancellor of Nottingham University.
I mention this because not only would I have been better informed if this debate had taken place a fortnight hence, but because I want to emphasise, as other speakers have, that these Reports must be taken and studied together. Jones deals with the brain-drain; Dainton inquires into the flow of candidates in

897
science and technology into higher education, and Swann examines the flow into employment of scientists, engineers and technologists. If the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, will look at page 50 of the Swann Report, he will see the references they make to Dainton with a good deal of approval. I will not quote it. I do not think it is fair to say that Swann did not deal with this problem of advance through the educational field so far as the schools were concerned.
Although some of the recommendations are bound to be regarded as controversial, I find myself very broadly in agreement with the findings of these various Reports. In particular, on the brain-drain, I am quite sure that we have to resist all the negative approaches, such as physical control of emigration, reimbursement of educational costs borne by the State, restricting university places in certain disciplines or curbing the foreign recruiting agencies. I am quite sure there is no future in this type of approach. Instead we have to create more challenging opportunities in this country, particularly in industry, for talented people. Dainton deals with the various methods to be adopted to encourage more candidates to become scientifically and technologically orientated at school before they enter university, and lie draws attention in this matter to the responsibilities of the education authorities, of Government and of industry. Swann really brings these ideas together and develops them in a most stimulating way. I think the Report is a very valuable one indeed.
I want to deal with only a few major aspects of the problems to which the Swann Report draws attention. The first is that the policy for post-graduate studies should be guided by the need to match these more closely to the requirements of employment, especially in industry. Although I agree with this idea, I think the weakness of it probably is that too few companies in industry know either their own future requirements or how properly to handle people with graduate and post-graduate experience in the scientific and technological field. I regret to say that this is because in many companies there is no proper man-power planning, no adequate career planning, and no attempt to deal with the problems of management suc-
898
cession so that people can see where they are going.
There has also been the tendency to far too high a degree of specialisation coupled with the absence of a broadly based experience. I think it is right to say, and it is brought out in some of these Reports, that scientists generally at university have tended to live rather like a train instead of a hovercraft. I do not mean to say that one should hover so much that one does not pick up any education at all. But a university is a place where, apart from maintaining high academic and intellectual standards—and they must do that; they must not be lowered—they can provide a wealth of interest and of experience if there is an inclination to enjoy it and provision is made for them to enjoy it.
One of the criticisms that one can make of the pure research side of science in a university is that there tends to be so much work to be done that the scientist does not get full value out of the university as a whole. That, coupled with the fact that industry tends to be looked clown on in many university circles, has led to the first-class graduates often seeking university research posts rather than going into industry. I was going to quote, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, did, the speech of Mr. Bragg, the chief research engineer of the aero division of Rolls Royce, made at the Academic Consultative Conference in November, 1968. That was the voice of industrial experience speaking with great authority, and I think it would be well worth while for anyone interested in this to read the whole of that very short address.
I go further and say that if we could get more generalists, that is, people with broader backgrounds coupled with scientific skills, industry could offer them a better chance of reaching the higher branches of line management. Scientists and technologists can be used in industry —in fact must be used in industry—on research and they must be used on specialist technical functions. They may well be used in other fields, such as marketing. My own experience is that very often the best marketeer to-day is the man who can talk on equal terms to other technologists in industry. He is the one who brings back the order which is beyond the capability of the normal sales

899
force, because he is talking the same language and understands the problems involved. But each one of these categories will at some stage want to be considered for line management and so long as they have kept on broadening their horizons, so long as they are gifted with common sense and so long as they have good judgment, they are well placed to go very high indeed, probably to the top, in management.
This is not to say that we do not need specialist post-graduate researchers; of course we do, but as Lord Aberdare said, it is a question of the right balance, and at the present moment the country is out of balance so far as requirement is concerned. Nor do we want to abandon the present post-graduate training system, but I think there is a case for several innovations at the university level. First, the arrangements for some post-graduate courses could be reviewed. I believe this is in fact being done, but rather slowly. And provision might be made for postgraduate theses to be considered from people working in industry without an onerous attendance qualification attached to the degree. Provision, too, could be made for more post-graduate work to be done after a spell in industry.
In the undergraduate field, I believe the most helpful development is along the lines of this Science Greats course such as Professor Jevons has introduced at Manchester and is being considered by other universities at the present moment. In practice, there are considerable difficulties in achieving a more broadly based scientific education. One of the reasons is, as other speakers have pointed out, that we have an unhealthy specialisation at too early an age at school. In England and Wales we are largely split between science and non-science at the age of 15 to 16, but in fact the decisions tend to be taken even earlier than that and young people start being channelled at 13 to 14.
I wonder whether in fact this has not a great deal to do with the decline in the number of people electing to take scientific and engineering courses at the university, because they do not want to get into the narrow specialist field at too early an age. I believe that if we could offer a more general education, certainly much further up the line, before getting
900
to the university, and preferably at the first or second year in the university, more people would opt for that type of faculty and course than do now, when you are forced if you are bright at mathematics to opt for a scientific career for the rest of your life at the age of 13 or 14. It would put me off straight away. This rather blunt division tends, I think, to steer the person with a science bent into the narrow science channel, and the all-rounder then finds himself going into the arts. The all-rounder with an interest in science is not generally catered for. Professor Jevons rightly says that university scientists and technologists must recognise that more broadly based studies do not necessarily entail a lowering of the standards, but only an acceptance of a different kind of standard. This is where I think a lot of people in academic circles are worried, that the standards will be lowered, but in fact it is a different kind of standard. The Science Greats course recognises that it is a fallacy to think that breadth of study is only for people who are incapable of specialisation. There is the level of ability and the type of ability, and there are different types of ability at all levels or different levels of ability in different types. I am quite sure that this approach to teaching is the key to solving many of our future problems of the relationship between science and industry.
I think the American system has particular relevance, too, although it has certain disadvantages. American education is much more general up to a later age than it is in Britain. In universities between 65 and 75 per cent. of the degrees awarded in any one year in America will be generalist rather than specialist. In Britain I think it is right to say that in science and technology something like 85 to 90 per cent. Are specialist degrees. What is more, the demand by industry in Britain for specialists is nothing like this. It has been calculated that the industrial requirement for specialists is as low as 30 per cent., and in respect of the remaining 70 per cent. the demand is for graduates who could have studied one of a variety of disciplines, because what is wanted essentially is a trained mind which is versatile and able to tackle problems in a logical way. If this shows nothing else, it underlines the real need to match

901
university production with industrial demand.
Then there is the question of industry itself. To my mind, industry is not yet closely enough identified with the work and life of the universities to be able to get across to the undergraduates the thrill and the scope which can exist in a well-run organisation. Part of the trouble is that too few of our organisations in business can offer the challenge or the rewards which the graduate needs to attract him. Above all, the graduate wants to know that once he has joined a firm or company his mind will continue to go on being stretched. This, in my experience, is the first demand from the really intelligent graduate. He wants to know that he is not going to be left to contemplate his navel in the maximum security wing of a semi-monopoly. To leave them so is the way to lose graduates from industry.
I think businesses have been generous to the universities; but that is not enough. They must be able to show that they understand the present generation in the university, and that they can use this manpower intelligently in their own interests and in the interests of the employer. Above all, industry must be able to predict their requirements more accurately and to discuss them with the university faculties. I think a great deal is being done in this field through the conference of Vice-Chancellors and the C.B.I.
The final point, which I want to make quite briefly but which I believe is fundamental to the proper use of manpower and not just scientific manpower, is the encouragement of the movement of individuals between the main sectors of employment: universities, schools, industry and government. We must break down the administrative barrier to mobility, and in particular we must find means of achieving a rational and equitable transferability of pensions. I hope that this is something that this Government can do. Could we not get an independent body to examine and to prepare a report on a model pensions scheme which has full transferability in it? Could we not perhaps get the Prices and Incomes Board to do this? It is not a difficult thing. I am told that it could be done possibly in under six months if there were really the authority to get on with the job.
902
This would not commit anybody, but it would show us what could be put into action, if we could get the principle agreed. My Lords, I have said how indebted we are to the authors of these Reports and to their Committee members, not only for what they have said but because they have started a movement in the universities and in industry; and I hope that this debate will improve the impetus.

ANGUILLA: LANDING OF BRITISH FORCES
3.54 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships' House I should like to repeat a Statement on Anguilla that is being made in another place. Perhaps I should say that it is a long Statement. It begins:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a Statement on Anguilla.
"I have to inform the House that action was taken this morning to install Her Majesty's Commissioner on Anguilla. A small military force, accompanied by British police officers, landed on the Island. The military force is acting in support of the civil power, and I am glad to say that the operation, which took place a few hours ago, has proceeded peacefully."
My Lords, perhaps I may break off here, to say that I think all your Lordships will agree that a good deal of the credit for the peaceful nature of this operation must go to all ranks who are taking part in the operation. The Statement continues:
"Independent Commonwealth Governments in the Caribbean were informed of our intention before action was taken, and are in general agreement with our objectives. Governments of the Associated States in the Caribbean have also been kept fully informed and also agree.
"Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla which had been administered as a unified territory since 188: became an Associated State on the 27th February, 1967, following the usual

903
processes of Constitutional advancement. In May of that year the inhabitants of Anguilla ejected the small detachment of State Police from the Island, and subsequently purported to declare themselves independent. Since then there has been no lawful Government on the Island.
"Many attempts have been made to reach a satisfactory settlement of the dispute between the Anguillans and the Central Government. A conference was held in Barbados in July, 1967, and was attended by Ministers from the independent Commonwealth Caribbean Governments—namely, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago—Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the St. Kitts Government and leaders of the Anguillans.
"A further attempt to provide an interim settlement was made in December, 1967, and January, 1968, when an agreement between Her Majesty's Government, the St. Kitts Government and the Anguillan leaders was negotiated by my honourable friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield and the honourable Member for Surbiton. This arrangement, or interim settlement as it came to be known, provided for the introduction of a senior British official, Mr. Tony Lee, to advise on the administration on Anguilla for a period of twelve months during which it was agreed that efforts would be made to negotiate a lasting settlement on lines acceptable to both parties, who undertook to refrain from hostile action during this period.
"Before the expiry of the twelvemonth period, a determined attempt was made to establish whether common ground existed. Talks were held in London last October under the chairmanship of my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, attended by the Premier of St. Kitts and the Anguillan leader, Mr. Webster. At these talks the possibility of a lasting settlement was discussed, and the possibility of extending by agreement the interim settlement. No agreement, however, was reached.
"The Anguillan leader notified me on the 30th December that the interim settlement was at an end. Mr. Lee was
904
then withdrawn from the Island but we arranged for him to pay periodic visits to Anguilla. On the 9th of January for the second time Mr. Webster declared the Island independent of St. Kitts and subsequently announced that all legal ties with the Crown had been severed.
"Now I come to recent events. In the course of his recent visit to the Eastern Caribbean my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary had discussions in St. Kitts with the State Government. He found that they recognised the strength of feeling in Anguilla against the restoration of control over the Island by the State Government. My honourable friend visited Anguilla on the 11th March to put forward our proposals.
"He made clear to the islanders when he arrived that the British Government wanted to restore lawful government in Anguilla and then work out a long-term solution of the island's problems acceptable to all concerned, especially the inhabitants of the Island itself. For this purpose Mr. Lee was to be established on Anguilla as Her Majesty's Commissioner.
"These proposals received an enthusiastic response at the airport from which it was evident that the Anguillans as a whole would have welcomed them. After this reception an armed minority decided that the proposals must not be further discussed with the people of the Island. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary was confronted with a group of armed men who demanded his withdrawal from the Island. After shots had been fired, he decided to leave the island to avoid possible bloodshed.
"Our concern has all along been for the people of Anguilla. We want them to enjoy good government and to enjoy it unintimidated and in freedom. As I told the House yesterday, it is not our purpose to see the Anguillans living under an administration they do not want. We have, however, a responsibility under the West Indies Act. We took action because conditions in Anguilla were such that it was impossible for us to discharge our constitutional responsibilities for

905
defence and external affairs. We have therefore installed in Anguilla a Commissioner in whom certain powers have been vested by an Order in Council made yesterday.
"The whole Caribbean area needs stability in order to make progress. It is an area which is particularly susceptible to exploitation. There is also among these small Islands the danger of fragmentation. The countries of the Commonwealth in the Caribbean attach great importance to the rule of law and to acting in accordance with Constitutions rather than flouting them. A meeting of Heads of Government of Caribbean States last month expressed concern at the continuing deterioration of the situation on Anguilla and called upon Her Majesty's Government to take all the necessary steps, in collaboration with the Government of the State, to confirm the territorial integrity of St. Kitts/Nevis/Anguilla.
"As regards the future, Her Majesty's Commissioner will remain on the Island until a lasting settlement can be negotiated which will pay full regard to the wishes and interests of all concerned, in particular to those of the inhabitants of the Island, who can then go ahead with the development of the possibilities and amenities of their Island."
4.0 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for repeating that Statement, and I have no doubt, and I am sure none of your Lordships has any doubt, that the forces who took part in this operation played their part in an exemplary fashion. I am sure that all your Lordships will be pleased, too, that there has been no bloodshed in this rather curious affair, which might have been written partly by Graham Greene and partly by Lewis Carroll. The first thing, I should have thought, is to reassure the islanders as to why the troops are there. I am bound to say that the whole episode has been a dreadful example of Government bungling. Really none of it should have been allowed to happen. There was plenty of warning and the Government consistently and continually underrated the difficulties. Indeed, I remember listening to a speech made by my noble friend
906
Lord Jellicoe during the passing of the West Indies Bill in this House when he voiced grave misgivings as to what the future of this Associated State might be. I hope the Government will now make clear exactly what they are proposing to do. I must confess to being a little confused.
There are hundreds of questions one could ask, but may I select just four of them? Was this operation undertaken at the request, or with the agreement of Mr. Bradshaw? That is the fist question. If it was not, what is the legal authority of the Government to intervene in the affairs of one constituent of an Associated State? Then may I ask the Government whether they intend to let the islanders of Anguilla decide their own future? Mr. Whitlock, as I understand it, when he went to the Island, said that there would be direct administration by the British Government for some years and then they would be allowed to decide their own future. I have seen what purports to be a copy of what he said; perhaps if I am wrong the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will tell me. But why should it be administered directly for some years? Why cannot the islanders be allowed to decide their own future? Lastly, will the noble Lord give an assurance that the islanders will not be forced to go back under the rule of St. Kitts?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, let me say first that I am surprised that any noble Lord should find this situation at all humorous. I am rather put out by the reference to Lewis Carroll. There seems to be a sort of Ealing Studios syndrome at work here, by which any small island, especially if it has coconut palms, is thought to be funny. I do not think there is anything funny about this situation, and equally, and for this reason, I resent the suggestion that this has been as the noble Lord says, "An example of Government bungling". As I thought I pointed out in the rather long Statement that I had to repeat to your Lordships' House, we have been trying for some time to solve this problem peacefully, and it was only when we discovered that a peaceful solution was not possible that we took the action that we have taken now. I think that having regard to its implications it is singularly inappropriate that this episode should be referred to in light terms, or that it should be the

907
subject of merriment in your Lordships' House.
So far as the specific questions are concerned, as I pointed out in my Statement, we have been continually requested by the State Government to restore law and order in Anguilla, and to that extent we are acting at their request and with their support, but the legal authority for our action is in fact nothing to do with that. The legal authority derives from Section 7 subsection (2) of the West Indies Act, and perhaps I could refresh the noble Lord's memory about that subsection. It gives us the power to make such legislative provision as seems to Her Majesty's Government to be appropriate in the interests of the United Kingdom responsibilities for external and defence affairs which, as the noble Lord will know, were reserved to us when statehood was formulated. The power is thus not confined to legislating about defence and external affairs topics but is wide enough to include making provision for a situation such as the present one where Her Majesty's Government would be, or might be, hindered in the exercise of their responsibilities or prevented from properly exercising them. That is the legal authority for the action we have now taken.
So far as the future of these islands is concerned, I have made it clear, I think, in the original Statement that it is no part of the Government's purpose or policy to see the Anguillans living under any kind of Government or administration they do not want. I do not think I can put anything more clearly than that. I must confess that in the long list of questions that the noble Lord put to me I have now forgotten what the last one was.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, why should it take years to get a settlement? Why cannot the islanders decide their own future quickly?
LORD CHALFONT: No, I think the noble Lord asked me—perhaps I may remind the noble Lord what he asked me—to give an assurance that there would be no question of returning to the direct rule of the Associated States—what the noble Lord called "St. Kitt's". Was that not the question?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord had answered it. I was not very satisfied by his answer, but I am getting used to that.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the noble Lord did ask that question and I did answer it. I am sorry if I am now answering it twice, but I think it is for the convenience of your Lordships' House to say once again that the Anguillans will decide the form of Government they want, and it is no part of our purpose to see them under any kind of Government they do not want.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I would like to associate those on these Benches with what has been said about the typically good conduct of the British troops participating in this operation. Having said that, may I ask whether it is a fact that in no circumstances will the Anguillans come under the rule of Mr. Bradshaw without their own consent? That is to say, may we assume that there will be some kind of plebiscite in Anguilla before that can take place? May I also ask whether it is the Government's view that it would be possible to continue an associated status for the Island of Anguilla indefinitely? Do they think that is possible?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's questions are really much more for the future than for the present short discussion in your Lordships' House. We have now installed Her Majesty's Commissioner on the Island and a good deal of the recommendations for the future of the Island will depend upon what circumstances he finds there, and how he finds the attitude of the people and of their leader. So far as a plebiscite is concerned, I think we should recall that this is a small island with a population of about 6,000, and there are ways of discovering their wishes other than by plebiscite. I think this, too, should be a matter for the future and for whatever recommendations we get from Mr. Lee when he has had a chance to test the temperature of the politics on the Island.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord said the legal authority for the Government's action was Section 7, subsection (2). That is the section that gives power to legislate. Such legal authority as there may be must depend on what legislation has been made by Order in

909
Council. No Order in Council, I understand, has yet been laid. Will the noble Lord give an assurance that one will be laid, and laid as soon as possible, or, if there is no requirement for laying it, to make it public? A Statutory Instrument has been laid, I understand.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, there may be some misunderstanding here. An Order in Council has in fact been approved and laid. It came into effect at midnight. It was made yesterday. There is a copy now available, and this gives the necessary authority to install Her Majesty's Commissioner on the Island.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are shocked by the action which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in the use of troops? Many of us are shocked and are very disturbed by the effect this will have upon peoples in ex-colonial territories throughout the world. I am asking two questions. Why, if the Government now say that they are not prepared to impose on the Anguillan people a constitution not acceptable to them, have they, for over a year, resisted exactly that principle even when the Anguillan people, by an overwhelming majority in referenda, indicated their refusal to be part of the St. Kitts Government. My second question is this. Why have the troops gone to Anguilla itself? Why did not the Government accept the suggestion which I ventured to make yesterday that they should remain in Antigua until there had been a reply from the authorities in Anguilla? Was not that reply to the effect that they would not resist and were prepared to negotiate? If that was their reply, why was it necessary to send the troops to the Island of Anguilla?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend is shocked by the action taken by Her Majesty's Government. The position is that all attempts which we have taken in the past to solve this complicated problem by negotiation have failed. We have been trying hard to do so, and the last episode in the story was when my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, went to Anguilla with a proposal that seemed to be acceptable to the majority of Anguillans only to be confronted with armed
910
persons, who fired shots at the house in which hew as and demanded that he should leave. It seems to me that in that situation, when we decided that the only way now to proceed was to put Her Majesty's Commissioner on the Island under an Order in Council, it was incumbent upon us to ensure that the went ashore in circumstances of security and safety.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CHALFONT: In order to achieve that, we have used the minimum of force. As I have told my noble friend, the operation was carried out quite peacefully. I fail to see that anything has been lost by sending the troops, whereas if we had not taken precautions a great deal might have been lost, including lives.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, in the light of the Statement which has been made by my noble friend, may I repeat the question which I put to him yesterday? Will it now be Mr. Lee's purpose to invite the people of Anguilla to accept, as a first step, direct administration for some time from London?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can certainly say that for a period, at any rate for some time, Her Majesty's Commissioner will remain on the Island. This is a form of direct administration. This will continue for some time. What happens next will depend upon the advice that we receive from Mr. Lee when he has found out a little more about the political possibilities on the Island. May I take the opportunity to correct a statement that I made to the noble and learned Viscount? I am afraid that the Order in Council is not available now. It has been laid, it has been approved, everything is in order legally, but we shall not be able to see it until tomorrow.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if it has been laid in this House, then there should be a copy in the Minute Room. I have been to the Minute Room, and there is no copy. It was not laid yesterday because it would appear on the Minute Paper. Unfortunately, it would seem that as yet it has not been laid. If that be so, all I ask the noble Lord to do is to ensure that it is laid without delay and copies are made available for Members.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will give that undertaking. What I said, at least what I thought I said, was that the Order in Council had been made. It was made and approved and it came into force at midnight. As the noble and learned Viscount will know, it does not have to be presented to Parliament in order to come into force. It will be laid as soon as possible.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and I asked for a categorical assurance that the islanders of Anguilla would not be returned to the Associated States under the rule of St. Kitts against their wishes. That question is capable of an answer "Yes" or "No". The noble Lord did not answer it directly, but merely repeated part of the Statement. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that a great deal of misgiving was caused by the failure of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to answer a question of that kind over the Falkland Islands, when he could have given a "Yes" or "No". I can think of nothing which would do more good in the Island of Anguilla at present than for the noble Lord to come out and say "Yes" to that question.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly reminds me, I have had trouble about this matter of "Yes" and "No" answers before. What I had attempted to do was merely to stand by the assurance which was given by my right honourable friend in another place, that it was no part of our purpose that these people should live under an administration which they do not want. If the noble Lord wants me to say that that includes not living under the State Government of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla if they do not want it, the answer is, Yes.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House why there has been such secrecy in this matter? Why was it not possible for us to have been given this Statement yesterday or the day before, as clearly was the wish both of this House and of another place?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, although the wishes of both this House and the other place are of the greatest importance, it is equally important that, if a military operation is to be carried out, we do not advertise in advance the
912
exact details of where it is going to take place and when.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it the case that the Government withheld this Statement because they feared that some opposition would be engendered in Anguilla?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the very fact that it was thought necessary to mount a military operation indicated that there was a possibility of opposition, otherwise it would not have been necessary to send in troops with Her Majesty's Commissioner. Therefore it was thought right, as in any other military operation, to keep the details secret until the operation had taken place.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to enlarge on the point in his Statement about the group of armed men in Anguilla? There is an implication that the Island has fallen under the dictatorship of a small band of armed men; we have all read stories in the newspapers about the Mafia. Would my noble friend enlarge on this, and tell the House whether some kind of armed dictatorship has been established? I share with my noble friend Lord Brockway the shock at the use of troops in this matter. Could my noble friend give an assurance that this show of force is not a precedent for the use of force in other, bigger and more serious matters?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in regard to the first part of my noble friend's question, all we know is that there are people on the Island who are armed. To what extent they exert political influence is a matter upon which I hope Mr. Lee will be able to advise us quite soon. Certainly they were strong enough to put on a demonstration at the time of the visit by my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. As for the sense of shock felt by my noble friend, I should like to say to him that if he regards this as a show of force, he has totally misunderstood the situation. This was not a show of force. This was a security operation to ensure that Her Majesty's Commissioner could land safely on the Island of Anguilla.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, my understanding is that if it is a security operation it does not come under Section 7(2). It ought to come under Section 7(1)

913
The noble Lord has made no statement about defence or foreign affairs to which Section 7(2) refers.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I disagree that it comes under Section 7(1), which deals with an operation or an action carried out at the request of one of the Governments concerned. Section 7(2) means that Her Majesty's Government can as of right take the action which we have taken and take the necessary steps to see that it is carried out peacefully and effectively.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, does that mean that we are there by right of conquest?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, no, it does not. It means that we are there by the legal authority of Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act.

ANNUAL FARM PRICE REVIEW
4.19 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will now repeat a Statement that is being made in another place about this year's Annual Farm Price Review. It is as follows.
"As a result of the bad harvest weather in many parts of the country cereals production has fallen. This has been one of the main causes of the fallback last year of both net output and net income. Costs are up by £40 million, and the gain normally expected from greater productivity was not realised in full. But with average conditions this year, output, productivity, and income are expected to improve.
"The Government have made it clear that they wish a selective expansion of agriculture to continue on the basis of rising productivity. Beef and pigs, wheat and barley are the commodities where expansion is wanted. We need more acres in cereals, more livestock on a smaller grassland acreage, and more pigs both for pork and bacon.
"The Government have considered this year's Review against this agricultural background, and against the difficult economic situation with which the country is faced. I now turn to the determinations.
914
"On beef, the dairy herd is increasing fast enough to meet our objective, but the rate of expansion of the beef herd is slowing down. We are, therefore, making a substantial increase of 15s. per cwt. on the price, and increasing the beef cow and hill cow subsidy each by £1, while making a neutral determination on milk. This will avoid stimulating too rapid an expansion of milk production, while dairy farmers will of course get the benefit of higher prices for their calves. Moreover, as I have already announced, we are giving greater stability to the milk products market through the agreement on voluntary restraint on cheese imports reached with our major suppliers.
"Pig production is increasing, and to maintain this trend we are raising the guaranteed price for pigs by 6d. a score and increasing by 400,000 the number of pigs to which this higher price will apply.
"As I have said, we want more wheat and barley. So we are raising the guaranteed price for wheat by 1s. 7d. to 29s. per cwt., and barley by 10d. to 26s. per cwt. We are also abolishing the standard quantity for barley. These changes come on top of the large increases made on these commodities last year.
"For the rest, we are putting per 1½d per lb. on sheep which, with last year's increase, will assist the industry to secure our objective of maintaining production. We are also leaving the wool price unchanged. Our aim of self-sufficiency for main crop potatoes is being secured, but because of the cost increase on such a labour intensive crop, we are putting 5s. a ton on the price. In accordance with our announced policy of phasing out the subsidy over five years, we are making the maximum cut on eggs. Oats and sugar beet, where we are not seeking expansion, will still be unchanged. To contain rising expenditure the fertiliser subsidy rate will be reduced by £3 million, but expenditure will still be over £30 million a year.
"The increase that we are putting on the four commodities where expansion is wanted—namely, beef and pigs, wheat and barley—is about £37 million, so giving a significant injection

915
of capital and an incentive on top of costs for these commodities. This is a positive review giving the necessary encouragement where it is needed. The net effect is to increase the value of the guarantees by £34 million."
4.23 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for repeating that Statement for our information here. May I also thank him in so far as he was responsible for the considerable supplementary information that we have been given in the Press over recent days? There are four points about which I should like to ask the noble Lord.
First, in view of the obvious tightness of this award, have the National Farmers' Unions agreed it? Secondly, is there a reduction of net income in the current year, following the exceptionally difficult circumstances of last year—with the bad harvest and foot-and-mouth disease—estimated at £39 million, which would bring the net income for the year to £471 million? If there is, it will be of historic interest, because it means that the net income this year will be less than that in the last Review under the Conservative Government, in 1964, when the figure was £476 million. Thirdly, against this background of financial stringency in the agricultural industry and this Review, which provides no additional finance, plus the under-recoupment of increased costs, is the noble Lord aware that the total effect will be taken to mean that the Government are abandoning the food production expansion programme announced by the Minister last November? Lastly, is the noble Lord aware that as this expansion programme was estimated by the Minister of Agriculture to save £160 million a year net on our food import bill by 1972 this change of policy will cause very general disappointment?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord opposite, who speaks with such authority on agriculture, has been misled by the Press reports that he has seen. I appreciate his disappointment that the Statement which I have made is by no means as pessimistic as he has been led to believe. He asked me whether the National Farmers' Union have agreed this Review. I understand
916
that they have not agreed it, although the actual statement which they will make has still to be made. The noble Lord asked me, if I understood his second question aright, whether the total net income is less than it would have been under the last Review of the régime of Mr. Soames and the Conservative Government. I am sure the answer is, No. I cannot conceive that it is, Yes. But I do not have the figures with me and I must look at the point. The fact of the matter is that the net income has gone up each year until last year. But I will certainly check on that figure.
The third and fourth questions are really one. The noble Lord asked me whether we are abandoning the expansion programme. The answer is, No. The fact of the matter is that the Statement which I have just made gives support to those commodities in which we need expansion, and we believe that these figures will enable the farmers to meet the target set out in the Statement which was made in this House and in another place in November of last year.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I trouble the noble Lord with one further quesion, in the light of his answer on my last point? Does he remember that the "little Neddy" on agriculture, which reported on the possibility of expansion in the industry, estimated that the capital needed by the industry to meet this expansion would average about £155 million per annum by the end of the four-year period? Does the noble Lord really maintain that, after under-recouping the increased costs, these figures give any possibility of providing the extra finance needed to get the expansion that we want?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord were to ask me whether I think that extra capital injected into the industry could have secured an even more rapid rate of expansion, I would agree with him. But if he is saying that the awards do not enable an expansion to take place, then I disagree with him. The fact is that the awards directed to these priority commodities enable extra capital to be injected into the industry in respect of those commodities. I have not seen the statement from the National Farmers' Union, but I should be very surprised if the farmers criticised the awards that have been made in respect

917
of beef or cereals. The fact is that in those two cases—and they are the two most important cases on which we are depending for expansion—the award is quite generous.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I do not think that the award is quite generous in respect of these commodities. It may be generous for cereals, but I certainly do not think that 15s. on beef will be enough to enable a switch to take place. It ought probably to have been more like £1 before it could begin to have any effect. And similarly with sheep meat and mutton. There the increase is 1½d. per lb., and probably should have been 3d. Does the noble Lord really think that this is going to enable selective growth to take place in the industry? It is impossible to reconcile what the noble Lord has said with what the Minister of Agriculture said in November. It was suggested then that, in order to give some kind of selective expansion to save £160 million a year in imported foodstuffs, there would have to be something rather better than what the noble Lord is offering now. This will not give any confidence at all to the industry.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is always very fair, and I listen to him with great interest on these matters because he knows far more about them than I do. But if he is fair he cannot say that there was any figure quoted in the Statement of November of last year. It is wrong to say that the award on beef is less than was stated last November. No figure was stated then. This is in fact the highest award on beef that has been made for 20 years; and, as I said, I should be very surprised if the National Farmers' Union were very critical of this particular item.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, on the particular item of beef, I agree with the noble Lord; but taking the whole figure, the agreed cost is up by £40 million and the Government are offering £34 million, so we are not even keeping pace. And I do not see how this can mean expansion.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord should take into account the fact that there has also been an increase in efficiency, which will yield a saving of £30 million in the coming year. He should also take into account the fact that, if he
918
is considering commodities only, the actual extra value of the award on these commodities is £37 million a year. There has been a saving on fertilisers certainly of £3 million a year, which brings the liability down to £34 million. But on commodities the figure is £37 million a year; and in fact it is the third highest award in the last 20 years.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend a question more on general lines than on detail. Noble Lords know that there have been prolonged discussions and heartrending negotiations which have resulted in this Award. I should like to ask my noble friend to inform the House of the total value of the five Awards under the present Government compared with the last five Awards of the previous Government. Moreover, can my noble friend also comment on the fundamental disagreement which now exists between the N.F.U. and the Conservative Party over major elements of that Party's agricultural policy?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on the first part of my noble friend's question, the Awards over the last five years, allowing for costs and efficiency, amount to £105 million. The Awards for the five previous years, under the previous Administration, also allowing for costs and efficiency, amount to £62 million. So that, again, I really cannot see why noble Lords opposite should be so indignant as they purport to be. On the issue of the National Farmers' Union as against the Common Market policy which the Party opposite would wish to see adopted here, as I understand it the National Farmers' Union are against the situation in which the cost to the housewife would go up, the demand would probably go down and the industry would go back to the sort of insecurity and instability which they knew before the 1947 Act.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question about what the Statement calls "the neutral determination" for milk, which I assume is a new and fancy way of saying that there is no change proposed in the guarantees? The noble Lord has referred to this as a positive Review. Is he aware that over recent years, when Price Reviews have included modest increases in the price

919
of milk, the imports of dairy products at absurdly low prices have dragged down the price of manufactured milk, so that over four years the prices farmers received have shown virtually no change at all? Since this year he is not proposing a small increase, can the noble Lord say by how much farmers can expect the actual price which they will get for their milk to drop?
LORD BESWICK: As a matter of fact, my Lords, the question is not particularly good, especially coming from a member of the Conservative Party: because if there is one weak link in the policy which they propose for agriculture it is in respect of dairy products. This phrase, "a neutral determination", does not mean "no change". I am sorry; but the noble Lord cannot get away with that. It means, in fact, that the standard quantity will be reduced. That will be offset by an increase of 0·4d. a gallon extra, so that the yield will be the same. Although I know the point which the noble Lord makes about the depreciation of the pool price by virtue of the poor prices obtained by the manufactured milk, the fact is that under the voluntary agreement reached yesterday by my right honourable friend with the main suppliers of cheese the situation on manufactured dairy products should be considerably improved.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask one supplementary question? Does that include milk powder?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords; I am referring here only to cheeses.
4.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSER EENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the figures which he gave for the Awards under the present Government and for those under the Conservative Government he has of course forgotten to take into consideration the great depreciation in the purchasing power of the pound under the present Administration, as well as the increase in costs?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am lost in admiration for the sharpness of mind of the noble Viscount opposite. He is quite right: there has been a depreciation of the currency. But it is not sufficient to explain the difference between
920
the £62 million in the Awards during the five years under the Conservatives and the £105 million in the Awards during the five years to which I have referred under the present Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, arising from the noble Lord's answer about last November's increased productivity programme, may I ask him whether the Government have considered that an 8 per cent. bank rate means a 10 per cent. bank overdraft interest in Scotland, and nearly as much in England? Do the Government really consider that this rate of interest, payable on a farmer's overdraft, combined with these very tight increases which they have allowed, will enable anything like the £155 million of extra capital required for this year to be forthcoming?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl knows my view about the high rate of interest. This is an unfortunate factor, but the increased cost which results from that increase in bank rate has been taken into account in these determinations, and the total cost includes the extra cost of borrowing at this rate of interest.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his answer has taken into account the disastrous effect of recent weather on production, particularly in the North of England, where lambing is taking place at the present moment under four or five feet of snow? Obviously, any normal calculation as to what future developments are likely to be must be knocked endways by the prospects, not only there, but also in the Eastern counties on cereals, following the flooding.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right: this has been a dreadful year for farmers, and this is a factor which my right honourable friend has pressed with great force in order to secure, in this very difficult year, the £34 million to which I am referring.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, in view of the fact that bad harvests seldom come singly, may I ask the Government on what grounds they are so assured that the harvest season of 1969 will be a good one?
LORD BESWICK: I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is getting at. The reason why I think this year will be a good one is that I do not believe the weather can be as bad as it was last year, plus the fact that these awards for these commodities should give encouragement to the farmer.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions? First of all, having given what I believe, in contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is generous encouragement to the four commodities where we actually require what they are producing in excess of the present level, does not my noble friend think that it would be dangerous to add very much to the price of either eggs or milk since eggs are already in oversupply and milk is on the edge of it? Does not my noble friend think that we did great damage in the past to the egg situation by over-subsidising producers when we had already reached oversupply? And is he trying to avoid that here?
Secondly, could we have some clarification on the question of recoupment? I do not understand what was said from the other side. As I understand it, the efficiency factor is agreed by the Farmers' Union from the Government at £30 million; the costs are agreed at £40 million, leaving £10 million to be found. It is a convention that has grown up over the last few years (and I have the figures for the last five) that in ordinary circumstances the efficiency factor should be shared between the public and the farmers—which means that we have 15 plus 10, which is 25, and the settlement is another 9, which is a modest injection of capital. Is this the right way of looking at it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on the question of eggs and milk I think it is generally agreed that there is no need, that it would be a disservice, to encourage production of milk more than has taken place in recent years. As for eggs, I agree with my noble friend that it is right to discourage over-production. I am fortified in this feeling that we are right on eggs by what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. So, with the saving that we have made on eggs, we are able to inject into the other commodities a figure of
922
£37 million. Again my noble friend is right. One has to take into account here the efficiency factor agreed with .he Farmers' Union. If one takes that into account, I am then able to say, as a matter of statistical fact, that this Award is the third best Award in the last 20 years.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have had quite a long session on this Statement. I realise that there are many farmers in this House, on both sides, but I think that we ought now to get back to our main debate. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his question. We have gone a very long way in this Price Review, and my noble friend Lord Mitchison has been waiting to make his speech on the Motion before the House.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I was about to ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is aware that we are far from satisfied with his valiant efforts to reply and that we shall wish to return to this with a debate as soon as possible after Easter?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure that the possibility of debate can be discussed through the usual channels.

THE SWANN REPORT: SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND MANPOWER
4.45 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, for the personal compassionate reasons which have led to my being put in rather an unusual place in the list of speakers I am profoundly grateful. I will try to show it by being quite short. It seems to me that what we are bound to discuss to-day is, as has already been pointed out, not merely the Swann Report but three or four other Reports that came out at about the same time. One is the Dainton Report which studied the stage when you go through school to higher education; then there is the Swann Report itself which proceeds from higher education to employment; and then there is the Report curiously known as the "Brain-drain" which, in fact, studies what happens when you are in employment. We are a funny country. We

923
consolidate our Acts of Parliament; we never consolidate our Blue Books; and to the mass of Blue Books that I have mentioned already there might properly be added the Second Report of the Council on Scientific Policy which came out at the same time as The Brain-Drain; that is, in October, 1967. The other two were issued about a year later.
I begin with education and I will try to be short. I am no educationist, but I have never seen why a sound education of a general character could not be founded on science instead of on the 18th century tradition of Greek, Latin and the like, upon which I was personally brought up. I am sure that it could be done. I have seen quite enough science, not personally but among relations and friends, to feel even more strongly that not only would it be a good foundation for education but that it might well prove to be a better one. If it is to have that foundation, then I think what is needed is the type of general scientist to whom other speakers and these Reports have referred. I would merely make this remark about general scientists and specialised scientists. The problem confronting science at present is very like the problem confronting doctors and might well be considered in the same way. Doctors are finding that medical science is becoming so complex, so varied and so advanced that no single doctor can be anything like a specialist in the whole of it; and their way out of it is to try to provide general practitioners with a degree of specialisation in partnerships. It clearly does not apply in that form to scientists, but the same problem is really happening over science. Your Lordships may be aware that the number of Fellows of the Royal Society has had to be increased from time to time and that the reason for it is the growing complexity of science. Therefore, if general education is to be based on science it will have to be on general science and not on specialisation until at any rate a rather later stage.
There are three classes of scientists that we have to consider. First, there is the Government scientist. All I would say about the Government scientist is that a good many years ago—three or four years ago now; I have not looked it up —there appeared a Report called the
924
Gibbs-Zuckerman Report. It was so called because Gibbs died early in the preparation of the Report and his place was taken by Sir Solly Zuckerman. What they stressed very strongly, and I think rightly, was that scientists in the Civil Service ought to have the same status and the same opportunities as those who went into the Administrative class. I feel sure that in principle that is right. As the Fulton Report is now being considered, I hope that it will be one of the points that they will bear in mind.
I turn now from that group to another group of scientists: those who go to universities. I hope that they are fairly crafty people. Since they know so much more about it than I do, they appear to have disappeared to get their tea while I am making this speech. Whether they have done that or not, I would only say to them that I think that their difficulties depend, no doubt immediately, on the Dainton difficulty of filling places at schools, but ultimately on the hopes of the young person about his or her future career—and the hopes of scientists in this country are not as bright as they ought to be. That is the real reason why there is the difficulty mentioned in the Dainton Report and referred to in the Swann Report. I think that we really might be rather kinder to Professor Michael Swann. He has done a great deal of excellent public work, particularly in the way of Reports and this one is a very good specimen. But I would ask your Lordships to remember one thing about it. The last chapter but one—it is true it is quite a short one—is about the future work that remains to be done; and one, at any rate, of the subsidiary reports inside, signed, among others, by someone I know quite well, is what I would call an interim report. It indicates what further work has to be done. Again and again through the whole of the Report Professor Swann makes perfectly clear that he is producing what, I repeat, I would call an interim report which contains a large number of final conclusions but also indicates a large number of subjects which remain to be studied.
My Lords, this is becoming a very complicated world, not least in the field of science. It is perfectly true that we go on again and again examining this and that and finding yet more to be

925
examined. I sometimes feel that there ought to be an examiner of examiners who would consider what ought to be done within the time and facilities of people. This, of course, is particularly the case in these scientific reports. They are written by people who are very busy on other things, whose interests are primarily scientific and who give very generously indeed of their time and expert knowledge. I think that we ought to be particularly grateful to such people. May I take the opportunity of thanking my noble friend warmly for introducing this subject and giving us the opportunity to discuss it again. I find it a fascinating subject, and I am certain that I am not the only person who does so.
My Lords, I come on to the third group of scientists. I have said nothing, or practically nothing, about university scientists, but I would ask your Lordships to consider whether the question of motivation, the question of future careers, is not really just as important in the case of university scientists as in others. This is very difficult to analyse and a good deal of the reports are taken up in analysing it. I shall not try to analyse it again. It is when one comes to industry that I feel rather ashamed of my own country. It is not the large companies who are at fault—they do it fairly well. It is said, "Well, the small companies and undertakings cannot do it", but, my Lords, they can. There are such things as research associations. It is done in other countries. In Japan twice as many people are employed on research and development as are employed in this country, or were at the time of the last Report of the Council for Scientific Policy. Really, we ought to be rather ashamed of ourselves, ought we not? The Reports become extremely eloquent about this. It obviously moves the writers.
I will not trouble your Lordships with what you may well have read already. There is a whole passage about it. Most of it is in the Brain-Drain Report, some of it is elsewhere. In the Swann Report one chapter concludes with words that I will read because the passage is quite short and they really are written eloquence:
"We therefore recommend that industry should vigorously recruit persons qualified in science, engineering and technology, especially the ablest graduates in these fields; should
926
see that they are fully and effectively employed and that attractive and changing careers are open to them; should define more clearly its requirements for employment to give guidance to educationalists; and, using to the full the provisions of the Industrial Training Act, should become intimately involved in the planning, conduct and support of post-graduate and post-experience education and training which is intended to meet these requirements."
My Lords, those are fine words but we are a very long way from their fulfilment, and I should have thought that this ought to be considered at the highest level. I was very relieved to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that something is being done already. He mentioned one or two cases, but the immensity and importance of the job are both so great that I hope more is going to be done and more active encouragement given.
There are, I think, two points: first, salaries and pensions. In one of these Reports pensions are mentioned and, of course transferability is important. In America salaries are, or were when the Brain-Drain Report was written, about three times greater than they are here. People who have children to bring up and other responsibilities have to consider this kind of thing. In fact, if you find that some job or another, even quite a simple job, is not being done to perfection, one of the first things to look at is how much they pay the people concerned, and that is so in this case. Our salaries badly need alteration. There is yet another point. We have lot got out of the habit of looking at scientists as people whom we employ to get scientific conclusions. We do not allow them the independence they get not only in America but in a number of other countries. Though again this applies much less to the larger companies than to others, it is a varying national deficiency and is made perfectly clear in the Reports that I have mentioned.
What we have to do, my Lords, is to see that the scientist has a status equal to the ad-man, or the manager, or somebody of that sort. They are getting well ahead of the poor scientist, whose work will be far more important to the country in the long run than anything by way of management, or ad-men, or the like. I am quite certain that until we can revise the views of the ordinary businessman about scientists we shall not get much further.

927
Industry can afford it. Recently over £2 million was given by industry to the funds of the Tory Party. That included, for instance, £25,000 from Hambros and, rather to my surprise, £10,000 from Marks and Spencer. These kinds of contribution are minimal in importance, whatever view you take of it, compared to what ought to be given or contributed to science. It is on the future of science in this country that, in my view, the happiness of people living in it, their opportunities of development as human beings and, in the long run, their opportunities for peaceful survival in a crowded and quarrelsome world largely depend; and I beg your Lordships on this and every other occasion not to take it too hard if some of us say something about contributions to Tory Party funds or the like. This is a matter which profoundly concerns the whole country.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I would begin by joining other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for bringing forward his Motion on the Swann Report and on the application of greater resources to research. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail into the implications of the Dainton and Brain-Drain Reports. May I be permitted by the noble Lord and others to take up his particular point about the Second Report of the Council for Scientific Policy, because that Report and others have drawn attention to the matter to which, in rising to address your Lordships for the first time, I wish to call attention.
I have in mind not only the need pointed out by this Motion for a greater or, at any rate, an intensive allocation of national resources to research; I should like also to refer to the application of research to natural resources and, indeed, to our national assets. How sadly we, as a nation, take these for granted is perhaps not generally recognised, although we have had the discovery of North Sea gas and the identification of potash deposits in Yorkshire and in the Highlands to remind us of their importance. But how casually we take our national assets, which deserve greater research, is shown by the fact that to-day,
928
134 years after the Geological Survey was established, we still do not possess a 6-inch geological survey map in solid and drift editions of every part of these Islands, let alone an aero-magnetic survey.
In this matter I have an interest to declare because in my practice as a consultant in economic geography, advising companies on location, I am concerned at every turn with natural resources. The problem of our natural resources and their neglect has concerned Committee after Committee since the war. Some ten years ago the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) set up the Elgood Committee to survey this field. They, in turn, convened a symposium of thinkers whose thoughts were with some difficulty compressed into a quite substantial volume. They not only identified a whole range of quarters where natural resources demanded research, but also recommended that there should be established a National Resources Association which would do two things: catalogue our assets in terms of natural resources and watch out for new industrial and commercial applications as fresh cost-benefit combinations and multiple-use opportunities became apparent. That idea reappeared in the recommendations of the Trend Committee on Civil Science, which suggested that we might well establish an Industrial Research Development Association, But, alas! that idea evaporated in the white heat of technological misjudgment as Mintech, chose to pursue its rather prosaic preference for machine tools, telecommunications, electronics and computers.
We neglect natural resources at our peril, not least if we have regard to the under-active areas of Britain, whether they be the Highlands and Borders of Scotland, the North of England, Wales, South-West Britain, or indeed an area like the sad little Grewash Valley of the Midlands. I take it that "Neddy's" second Report, Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth, published six years ago, established the need in terms of the national, United Kingdom, interests for extensive investment in those areas. Certainly the balance of payments subsequently has done nothing to weaken or diminish that case. If we as a country are to recover our influence in the world it will be, morals and morale apart,

929
thanks to our economic and industrial power. We simply cannot afford to have sick areas of the country. We simply cannot afford to have our natural resources and our national assets ignored, instead of conserved and developed.
Only this past week a Select Committee in another place has recommended extensive investment in the production of carbon fibres, the idea itself issuing from years of research. The petrochemicals industry, which we know to-day and which is worth millions in export, is the product of research set in motion some thirty years ago. What, then, of some of the opportunities for natural resources research picked out by the Elgood Committee a decade ago, yet still ignored? If petro-chemicals, why not chemicals from wood, from sugar beet, from some of our biological resources, including surplus milk—perhaps not a very happy allusion on the clay of the Price Review, but never mind! What about some of our biological resources which deserve consideration, conservation and development? There are quite simple, modest ideas—if you like, "off-beat" ideas—like the cultivation of beavers for fur or of bog-birch for wood inlay on ground in the Highlands and elsewhere too sick and soggy for normal afforestation. What about peat, if only for thermal insulation? What about even the modest worm, farmed by the multi-multi-millions for export to reactivate desert land in hungry places? What about waste? What about making stock feed out of surplus skim-milk, and out of fish and slaughterhouse offal which at present is tossed away? These again are natural resources and national assets.
Not many weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, who I am glad to see has put his name down to speak this afternoon, reminded the House of the possibilities of waste. He spoke of the copper, zinc and lead to be had from the colliery bings in Scotland and the tips of England and Wales; of the alkali and valuable trace metals to be had from the slate tips of Wales; the mica to be had from the koalin tips of Cornwall; of the pummice to be won from industrial waste. All these, surely, are assets that merit research.
And what about some of our topographical assets? What about our cli-
930
mate, so often considered to be inclement? The gale force winds, the scouring tides of the Pentland Firth—could we not harness these to the dispersal of effluent, smoke and smell? What about the deep water? we have the Thames, the Clyde, the Humber and the Tees vying for waterside industrial investment. What about the deepest water of all, the six-mile channel, 20 fathoms deep, in Loch Eriboll, on the North coast of Scotland, the very base as it were of the Great Circle submarine, sub-polar freight route of tomorrow from industrial Europe to the industrial Asia? What about some lesser considered topographical assets we have whether they be the minor barrage opportunities, such as Duddon Bay, in Cumberland, the mud flats at Harwich and Spurn Bight —crying out for a harbour wall; places where there is a rise and fall of the tide of 14 feet, such as at Loch Bain, on Eddrachillis Bay, up in Assynt, in Sutherland, where there is a tidal flow crying out to be harnessed for a tidal pumped-storage hydro? These are all natural resources; they are national assets demanding research.
What about our Regional Economic Planning Councils? It seems that they have no mandate to look at natural resources in depth. Certainly they have no natural resources member as such, appointed to each of them, although some of them enjoy the company of a geographer within their number. Would it not be possible for the Department of Economic Affairs to invite the Regional Economic Councils to imitate the Elgood Committee by getting together a body of like thinkers to report on the natural resources in each area, watching put for new opportunities as economic occasions determine and change? What about inviting our regional universities to set up panels to look at natural resources and consider possible uses? They could begin with a score of geological studies brought together by the host cities when the British Association has foregathered for one of its annual conferences. These are merely examples of the kind of natural resource which I believe w: could look at and into which we could really research—natural resources which we neglect at our peril.
The case that I should like to introduce into this debate, my Lords, since

931
it is, after all, one not only on the Swann Report, but on the allocation of resources to research, is that we apply research to resources; that we develop a wholly catholic and (shall I say?) active policy of review, always bearing in mind that to use our resources wisely, to enjoy them fully, and to hand them on to future generations enhanced and improved, demands a coherent, a virile and versatile policy of review, recovery and research.
5.11 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take the opportunity of being the first to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. We have listened to a speech of great eloquence and knowledge, and I hope that we shall have the benefit of both in the years to come.
I should like to add my thanks to those that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has already received for opening the debate this afternoon. His Motion draws attention to a most important document. It is one that I read with great interest, and I found myself in agreement with many of the views it expressed. What I found curious, however, was the lack of indication of the extent to which the developments proposed in some of the most important and, to me, the most acceptable of those recommendations were already in hand. There are at least two considerable educational organisations in the United Kingdom, with which I am personally concerned, working on the lines indicated by some of the most important of the Committee's recommendations. I feel that it would have been a great advantage to all of us interested in higher education if their work, and indeed that of other institutions known to be working on similar lines, had been appraised in the context of the recommendations in the Report.
If I may come to the things of which I have special knowledge, in 1956 there was brought into being the National Council for Technological Awards, with the objective of providing awards of degree level to students in colleges of technology who achieved the necessary standards. These, in the following few years, proved to be in every case honours standards, and the courses, for the successful completion of which the
932
Diploma in Technology was given, had a most important characteristic: they were all sandwich courses. Most, but not all, of these provided for alternate half years in college and industry.
In 1956 the sandwich course was certainly not unknown, but it was uncommon. The result of the work of the new Council, in conjunction with the colleges associated with it, and with industry, which was also well represented on its boards and committees, was to bring into increasing popularity this form of education. It meant virtually simultaneously education for the academic and practical part of a profession, and I believe that it is increasingly influential in changing attitudes to higher education in scientific and particularly in technological fields. The Swann Report, so far as I can discover, does not discuss the sandwich course either as a piece of educational experience or in its influence in changing attitudes, to which in Chapter VIII they devote several paragraphs. The Report concludes this section of its discussion with these words:
"…we look forward to the day when all science, technology and engineering students gain some broad understanding of the society in which they will work. Only in this way can our educational system produce a well-balanced output of such graduates."
I suggest that the well-constructed sandwich course goes a very long way towards doing just this, and this is undoubtedly the view of a number of highly experienced educators.
During the eight-year period of the existence of the National Council of Technology Awards, ten of the leading colleges of technology were designated colleges of advanced technology and concentrated solely on work of undergraduate and similar status. There is no doubt that these places of learning developed, under highly experienced direction, on the basis of the N.C.T.A. sandwich courses in the most extraordinary way. They were given a great opportunity. They took it, and have boldly ignored the older convention of full-time study for degrees.
I now come to an important point. When, as a result of the Robbins Report of 1963, these ten CATS became universities, and so became detached from the N.C.T.A., they did not abandon their sandwich courses and turn to the convention of full-time study in technological subjects. So far as I am aware, their

933
policy has remained the same. I do not mean that, in so far as they have introduced Arts and sociological subjects into their curricula now that they have attained university status, they have made all these sandwich courses, too. With a few exceptions, I believe they have not displaced sandwich courses. But I think it might well be a good thing if they did. Arts and sociological students are as much in need of gaining, to use the Swann words, a
"broad understanding of the society in which they will work",
as are engineers and other technologists; and, as I have said, the sandwich course is a great aid to broad understanding.
Now, my Lords, when the CATS achieved their apotheosis, the National Council for Technology Awards lost two-thirds of its clientele. But the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, had dealt with this difficulty in his Report. He and his colleagues summed up the work of the N.C.T.A. as being so successful that they recommended that the N.C.T.A. system of awards for work of university standard in colleges not universities should be extended by a new council, called the council for National Academic Awards, beyond the scientific and technological fields into any area to which it could be satisfactorily applied. Further, under the new Council, successful students would receive degrees. And so to-day, my Lords, because the Robbins' recommendation was implemented, we find young people studying in colleges and polytechnics for degrees carrying the conventional B.A. and B.Sc. labels, not only in the conventional disciplines, but in business studies, ceramics, librarianship, nautical studies, printing technology, quantity surveying, public administration and other professional areas. In many cases these, too, are sandwich courses. There is even a sandwich course in law. To-day there are 15,500 people studying for Council of National Academic Award degrees, a complement greater than that of any British university, I think, except the University of London.
It seems to me strange that this great development of the sandwich course, in which there is such potential for further change and so much of social interest, should have received little notice in the Report of the Swann Committee. Conceivably I am biased, because, declaring my
934
interest, I am not only the first Chairman of the C.N.A.A., but I was the last Chairman of the N.C.T.A. But I feel a little disappointed—and my eminent colleagues on the Council also feel disappointed—when the fact that we are actually doing some of the good things which the Swann Report recommends should be done is not given some prominence. For example, the Council's scheme already provides opportunities for personnel employed in industry to work for its research degrees, and the great majority of the programmes being carried out in colleges involve collaboration with industry or are related to industrial interests. There are at present 475 candidates registered for research degrees, and of these 371 have industrial supervision. I do not know whether your Lordships find these figures at all impressive. If not, they may become impressive when it is remembered that the Council is only four years old and first published its regulations for research degrees less than three years ago.
An important section of the Swann Report is that headed "Policy for Postgraduate Studies"—paragraphs 131 to 134. A number of the suggestions in those paragraphs are covered by the Council's existing schemes—for example, a greater emphasis on post-graduate courses which are vocationally aimed, and the participation of industry in planning and teaching on post-graduate courses. The Council is indeed in a strong position to help to meet any need which exists for courses consisting of relatively short periods of post-graduate and post-experience education and training. It probably could frame regulations enabling graduates to qualify for a higher degree by following a series of short related courses of study, even over art extended period.
I hope your Lordships will forgive what might be thought to be propaganda on behalf of the educational organisation of which I am Chairman. I suppose it is. But I have realised that, despite our public relations efforts, people are only dimly aware of the work which is going on. At any rate, having been a little critical, may I say how much I agree with a great deal of the Swann Report. I agree, for example, despite the persuasive opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, with the proposed shift of emphasis in

935
favour of more broadly-based first degrees in science, engineering and technology. So far, in the Council for National Academic Awards there are no first degree courses of this broad character—not in the sense of producing the so-called science-based generalists—but the Council is very well placed to encourage the development of such courses, and has decided to start to do so. I should indeed like to feel that the Council for National Academic Awards could be seen as an ideal instrument to implement other of the Swann proposals.
I should like to comment, on the statement at the beginning of Chapter VII, that in the context of our present manpower troubles we require that the educational system should produce persons of high ability who are willing to apply their talents in industry and the schools, and not, as at present, almost exclusively in higher education and pure research.
As one who has in the past employed large numbers of graduates in an industry not superficially very glamorous, I found that we got more first-class honours people from among our own student apprentices, educated on sandwich courses, than by recruiting from full-time courses in the universities. Secondly, these sandwich people were immediately employable on graduation, whereas the full-timers had to have quite lengthy periods of practical training after being engaged. I believe that extension of the sandwich system in such ways that the young men and women learn at firsthand of the opportunities, the charms and the satisfactions of professional careers in industry while they are being educated, would be one of the most effective contributions towards solving some of the problems with which the Swann Report deals.
And now, my Lords, if your Lordships can bear with me a few minutes longer, I want to speak of another and quite different educational institution and to take as my text two phrases from the Summary of Recommendations in Chapter XII of the Swann Report. In paragraph 2 of that chapter we read:
"There should therefore be a change of emphasis towards shorter periods of postgraduate study and the trend from research to advanced course work should be accelerated. The proportion of students following postgraduate studies after a period in employment
936
(that is, post-experience students) should increase rapidly".
May I add that for many years a great contribution to this trend has taken place at Cranfield. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has told us of some considerable activity in the same direction at Cardiff. These things are going on. I have reason to believe that at Cranfield also we are not well known to your Lordships, and I feel I cannot escape some responsibility for that because I am Chairman of the Governors there.
I should like to tell your Lordships that Cranfield began a quarter of a century ago as the College of Aeronautics. It is still officially called the College of Aeronautics, but to-day two-thirds of its work is in advanced engineering, advanced technology and management studies, and it is likely soon to be called the Cranfield Institute of Technology. Its work has always been wholly postgraduate. Its longest courses last for two years; its shortest courses for a few weeks. I will not bore your Lordships with the development of this unique establishment, entry to which requires a good degree or a professional equivalent. The point I want to make strongly is that there are to-day and every day over 500 people working in this place, over 90 per cent. of whom are post-experience students—mature people doing just what is recommended in paragraph 15 of Chapter XII, in which it is said:
"In due course universities should come to regard as part of their normal provision post-experience courses for mature scientists, engineers and technologists."
What universities should come to regard in due course as part of their normal provision has been the normal provision at Cranfield for a quarter of a century. For the first half of that time the work was pretty well exclusively in the field of aeronautics, but latterly, as I have already said, it has spread over a whole spectrum of management, engineering and technological activities.
That paragraph of the chapter which I have mentioned continues:
"Employers should be closely involved in the mounting of post-experience courses so that successful completion is linked with career prospects".
That, too, describes quite precisely what has long happened at Cranfield. Not only are employers concerned with the character of the courses; they are concerned

937
with the character of the researches and the projects which are done at Cranfield, and great companies maintain a continuous stream of people through the college.
So just for once, my Lords, I think we are already doing in this country what we are told we ought to be doing. The situation is not so bad as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, appeared to think it was when he was speaking a few minutes ago. I suggest that it is most fortunate that we already have here two strong and growing organisations which have for some time been doing some of the things which the Swann Report recommends; and I believe that the experience of these organisations, and of the others where similar policies operate but of which I have not so intimate a knowledge, can be of the greatest value to the universities and polytechnics and colleges which are anxious to do as the Swann Report proposes.
5.28 p.m.
LORD MAIS: My Lords, as I also am a comparatively new Member of this noble House, may I presume to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on his maiden speech and to say that if this was a maiden effort we look forward to some outstanding performances in the future.
My Lords, I hope I shall not appear to be over-critical of the Swann Report, for that most certainly is not my intention. It is not so much what is in the Report but what is not in the Report which causes me concern. It is supposed to deal with the flow of engineers and scientists into employment, and in this connection I feel that it covers a comparatively narrow field. So far as I am concerned—and I speak from the point of view of an engineer, not a scientist—it certainly does not really deal with the problem of engineers. I am leaving out any reference to scientists—I am not one —but I have been an engineer for nearly forty years and have some slight knowledge of the requirements of an engineer, particularly the training, the manner in which he should qualify and the course that he should follow after he has qualified in the form of post-graduate education.
I appreciate that there is a very great demand for engineers and scientists in education and in research. Nevertheless,
938
possibly there is even greater demand for them in industry. I find myself rather following the line of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for the Report states that 50 per cent. of the technologists and 10 per cent. of the scientists come from sources other than universities. If your Lordships will turn to paragraph 17 on page 6 of the Report you will see that in fact it repeats virtually what I have said:
"Half of the technologists and ate-tenth of the scientists qualifying in 1966 did so through routes other than university degrees … These routes are important, especially since quite different patterns of employment would almost certainly be found for persons who qualify through them."
Now I come to the point that really worries me. To continue the quotation from the Report:
"Information was not available that would have enabled us to include these persons in the picture of flow."
I am not quite certain what "picture of flow" means; it conjures up to me pictures of a rippling brook, but I am quite sure that is not what was intended. The fact remains that this Report did not take into account 50 per cent. of the engineers who qualified in 1966, and I suspect that if we took the years 1967 and 1968 it could even be more.
As the Report did not deal with it, may we consider for a moment the ways in which a young man can become an engineer? There are in fact three ways. The first way is covered in the Swann Report: he goes to university and he does a full-time course, at the end of which he gets an engineering degree. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said, he is then not really trained, and before he can become a corporate member of his institution he has to do two years with a professional firm or in industry, at the end of which he must produce a thesis or a testimony of studies, and go for an oral. If he succeeds in those, then—and then only—does he become a corporate member of his professional institution.
The second way is through the advanced colleges of technology, where until recently he obtained a diploma of technology, which was the equivalent of a degree and gave him similar exemptions from his professional examination. Now they will turn over to the C.N.A.A. degree, with the same effect. These

939
courses at the advanced colleges of technology can be taken in the form of a sandwich course, and from my experience sandwich courses—or part-time courses, which I will come to in a moment—are probably the best for engineers.
Then there is the third and last way, and again from my experience by far the greater number of engineers have qualified, do qualify and may well continue for several years to come to qualify, through this particular source. I refer to the technical colleges. Thousands of young men go to these technical colleges to take part-time courses, with the object either of sitting the professional examination of their institution direct, or of taking ordinary national certificates, higher national certificates or higher national diplomas which give them partial exemption from their professional examinations. It is a long, hard course which usually takes about five or six years, but it produces a practical and excellent engineer.
May we now review the position as it is at the moment? If we are to give this Report proper consideration we cannot do so in the splendid isolation of university candidates only. The Report states that a substantial number of leading engineers to-day qualified by taking the examinations of the professional institutions and not a university degree. I would say that the majority of them in fact did it by means of a part-time course. That is confirmed in the Report, and I will quote it because it adds something to which I have not already referred. I am quoting from paragraph 40 on page 20:
" … in the past, many of the best"—
engineers, and I emphasise "best"—
"have attained their professional qualifications through non-degree courses. If recent trends continue, industry will have increasingly to"
rely for the future on graduates from universities or from C.N.A.A. Why should this be? I do not agree at all. Personally I do not believe that the output of engineers from universities will drastically increase during the next five years, and as far as C.N.A.A. graduates— if you like to call them that—are concerned, they are really taking the place of the old holders of diplomas in technology; and here, again, although there will be an increase it will not have a marked
940
effect on the availability for industry. Therefore we come back to the technical colleges, and it is upon those that, in my opinion, industry will rely for at least another five years—and longer, I hope—for the main source of supply of their engineers.
Secondly, there is the type of student for whom a part-time course is far more suitable than three years' full-time study, particularly in engineering, where they can spend part of their time in industry seeing the work done, and part of it learning the academic and theoretical side. If we are in any doubt about this, may I say that there are at this moment 86,000 students studying engineering and science at technical colleges and polytechnics. They are following the higher national diploma and higher national certificate courses, but in spite of the obvious need for this type of course— and there would not be 86,000 students taking it if there were not a great need —there is a trend and a tendency to do away with this part-time form of education, not only from the educationists' point of view but also, I regret to say, from the point of view of the professional institutions.
The professional institutions are now requiring what virtually amounts to a university standard: they are asking for two "A" levels—and that is a minimum—before they will accept the boy or young man as a student. They are also saying—and it will come into being quite soon—that it will not be possible to obtain a professional qualification unless the student has done a full-time course comparable to a university course. May we just think for a moment what this means? It means that a young man virtually will not be able to qualify unless he is prepared to do two or three years full time. This will knock out straight away the late developer, the young man who leaves school perhaps earlier than he would like to, the young man who perhaps takes three or four years to make up his mind whether he wants to be an engineer; and what to me is much more important is the fact that it practically cripples the boy or young man who starts on the tools or on the bench as an apprentice and after he has done two or three years either has the ambition to go on or is picked out by his employer as one who is fit

941
to go on. By that time he will be nigh on 20 or 21, and in these days of early marriage he could well be married.
As a top apprentice in his last year he will be earning something like £18 or £19 a week, if he is good. With the old part-time course it was possible, if the employer thought it right, to continue to give him a day release plus two evenings a week, and over another five years he could become a qualified engineer. But it will be a very different story if in the future he is asked to forgo his £18 a week or more as a craftsman and to take a grant (if he can get it) for what it is worth, and go back to two or three year's full-time course. My bet is that very few of them will do it. This disturbs me very much indeed. I would go even further and put the clock completely the other way; that is, have a number of places reserved at universities for young men to be allowed to gain entry on a higher national certificate, with nothing to do with "A" levels at all, because so many of them may not have a chance to get them. I believe this could be done; I do not know whether in fact it is being done, but it is a matter of urgency and it should be.
The object of this debate, though it may be I have wandered a little, is the additional flow of engineers and scientists into employment. May I raise one point which I think may have a discouraging effect on some young men taking up engineering? There is the feeling, perhaps not widespread but it is there, with young men taking up either scientific or engineering degrees that there is an uncertainly about promotion to the higher echelons of management. I do not mean head of a technical department in their own particular line, but I mean administrative management at the head of their business. This applies equally in Government Departments as in industry. I have yet to find a Permanent Secretary who started in a technical department of Government service. It may be I have been unlucky and missed them, but they certainly have not been in the Ministry of Public Building and Works, which I should have thought a very suitable place for them.
It is essential that those among the scientists and engineers who have the ability and the necessary qualities are
942
given the opportunity to rise to higher appointments, and I hope that is what the Swann Report had in mind irk paragraph 4, Chapter XII, where it says:
"Industry should vigorously recruit persons qualified in science, engineering and technology, especially the ablest graduates in these fields; should see that they are fully and effectively employed, and that attractive and challenging careers are open to them."
I entirely agree. I would add one thing: why limit it to the ablest graduates? There are other people who are equally able among engineers and scientists who are not necessarily graduates.
Possibly one reason why an insufficient number of engineers rise as high as they would like is because of the degree courses and the general professional examinations for engineers. They confine themselves almost entirely to technical subjects; and I am pleased to say the Swann Report does refer to this in paragraph 13, Chapter XII. It suggests that other subjects, such as economics, sociology and law should be introduced. I would add two more, because they represent one of the weaknesses of engineers, as I know to my cost, and they are a knowledge of business finance and a knowledge of business management. You cannot go very far during a university course, but you can teach students the rudiments and whet their appetite or open their eyes to the fact that being a good engineer is not necessarily enough.
To sumnaarise, so far as engineers are concerned, now that the professional institutions have followed the same line as the university as regards full-time courses and have raised their entry levels I am extremely worried about the provision of engineers. I believe that if we are not careful, if this is followed through to the end, we shall finish up with fewer engineers, not more. Secondly, and this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, do universities really have a close enough liaison with industry? So far as the technical colleges and the colleges of advanced technology are concerned, they have a strong representation of industry on their boards of governors, and those boards meet—certainly the one I am on does—once a month, and there is a very close liaison between industry and the educational staff of the college. I should like to see this carried a little further with the universities.

943
Lastly—and I will not burden your Lordships for long—may I go back to where I started, and that is Chapter II, paragraph 17, page 6, and I will repeat it again:
"Information was not available that would have enabled us"—
that is, the Swann Committee—
"to include these persons …. We hope future studies will do this."
"These persons" are the ones I have been referring to. They are the part-time students, the students who take sandwich courses, the students who do not go to university. I beg those who have the power to do so to see that another study takes place, and it should take place as a matter of urgency. If and when this study is undertaken it should include among its members a reasonable representation from industry, and its terms of reference should be such as to allow them to review the whole situation, and not just a part of it.
I feel that the Swann Committee were unfortunately restricted by their terms of reference. I would say, in case I have appeared to be over-critical, that having regard to the limitations placed upon them it was an excellent Report and a great contribution to engineering and science. May I also say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones for giving us an opportunity to debate this subject, and in particular for giving me an opportunity to ride a rather favourite hobby-horse of mine in this noble House.
5.47 p.m.
LORD TODD: My Lords, may I first say how grateful I, too, am to my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones for introducing this debate, and may I also, before going further, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on a most interesting maiden speech. I should like to devote my attention largely to certain general matters arising from the Swann Report. I must confess that the Swann Report seems to me to be a little like the curate's egg; it is good in parts. I find I agree with some of it, but I am distinctly critical of certain aspects. The Report very properly draws attention to a number of problems—the need for more graduates in industry with scientific and especially engineering training, the short
944
age of school science teachers, and the dangers of undue specialisation in university courses—and it seeks to offer suggestions as to how these might be tackled.
The problems themselves, of course, have been recognised for years, and we have had warnings about them repeatedly sounded by all kinds of bodies and individuals. It is extremely difficult to get precise information about even the extent of these problems, still less to find the reasons for their very existence. So much is admitted in many parts of the text of the Swann Report, and more study of the various factors is frequently suggested. The inadequacy of statistical information is also admitted. These admissions, however, do not prevent the authors from in some cases making rather sweeping generalisations and on them basing recommendations, some of which, at least to my mind, convey to lay readers—and these include many civil servants and politicians—impressions that are misleading and could in certain circumstances be dangerous.
I shall not bore your Lordships by quoting at length all the points which could be faulted, but I would just mention one or two things which rather worry me and which I think worry a number of other scientists and technologists. Although it is admitted in the Introduction to the Report that the statistics of qualified scientists and engineers are confined to those graduating from universities, and omit the 25 per cent.—or, in the case of engineers, as the noble Lord, Lord Mais, said, nearly 50 per cent.—qualifying by other routes, and it is also admitted that there are wide variations, not only between science and technology but between individual subjects in each area, these facts tend to get blurred and at times forgotten in the later parts of the Report where attempts are made to pull everything together and to generalise. It seems to me, too, that too little attention has been paid to the difference which exists between different universities as regards their courses and the different levels of their entrants.
As an example of the danger of generalisation, I may mention that there is a tendency in the Report to compare university practice in Britain rather unfavourably with its American counterpart with regard to the flow of graduates into

945
industry. If one looks at specific cases it is rather interesting to note that the Cambridge engineering school produced 145 Ph.D.s between 1965 and 1968. The present employment of 121 of these is known and the distribution is: industry 62 per cent., university or other teaching 30 per cent. and other employment 8 per cent. That is the pattern of employment distribution used in the Swann Report. The output from Princeton, which is an American school of similar size and type to Cambridge, over the period 1961 to 1968 has a corresponding distribution of 40 per cent. in industry, 40 per cent. in university teaching and 20 per cent. in other kinds of employment. I know, too, that the figures from my own chemistry department in Cambridge differ quite substantially from the alleged national average figures quoted in the Swann Report.
Although I do not think the Report adds materially to our knowledge of the problems it discusses, I do not wish to be merely destructive. All of these problems are important, and it is only right that we should seek a solution to them. As the Swann Report rightly recognises, all of them are grounded in our educational patterns, which, like our social attitudes, seem to be rather slow to change —perhaps too slow for the times in which we live. Our educational system has been built up over a long period into a kind of pyramid, and the result has been that our universities, at least in the pre-Robbins period, were meant to be highly selective instruments for extending the frontiers of knowledge by research and for imparting knowledge and inspiration at the highest level to what I suppose could be called an intellectual élite selected through the school system.
This pattern is seen in its most highly developed form in England and Wales—somewhat less so in Scotland. It may have been marred by poor selection—in fact, it was doubtless marred by poor selection—and no doubt an appreciable, though not in my opinion a large, pool of high talent was missed. But its object was clear enough, and our academic record shows that, by and large, it worked. It inevitably brought in its train the specialised Honours degree, and in turn that caused specialisation to creep inexorably downwards into the schools. It is because of this system that we always appear to have a much smaller proportion
946
of our young people going to university than do other countries which employ different patterns of education in which selection is made at a much later stage.
Now what has happened to us? The Robbins Report called for a great increase in higher education, and action was taken to create a mass of new universities and to increase rapidly the number of students. By and large, we have done this, or tried to do it, by duplicating in all these universities our traditional pattern of specialised university education, with its emphasis on scholarship and research. That pattern was designed for only a small proportion of each age group, and it simply is not suitable for the majority of people who are now entering the universities. This, incidentally, is probably one of the factors involved in student unrest.
The Swann Report recommends that universities should look to their courses. That is quite proper. It also recommends that they should undertake a fundamental re-examination of the Ph.D. There is nothing wrong with the Ph.D. in science and technology when it is properly used. It is meant to provide rigorous training in, and experience of, original research for the ablest students who have the capacity for creative work and why will go, in most cases, into research and development, in industry or into university work.
These are the real élite on whom we depend for leadership and advances in science and technology, in industry as well as at the universities. They are vitally important to this nation and they must be given every opportunity to develop their talents to the full. Their number is relatively small. I doubt myself whether it amounts to as much as 10 per cent. of those now entering our universities. At the present time of great expansion in the number of our universities, and with the desire of all to develop large research schools, I have little doubt that we are pushing considerably more than this proportion through the Ph.D. courses.
For those in excess of my, roughly, 10 per cent. and for many other currently taking science or engineering courses some other form of training would be preferable. This, again, is a view which is expressed in the Swami Report, and it is implicit in a good number

947
of the recommendations. But I do not believe that the answer for such students is to be found simply in advanced courses unless these advanced courses include an element of research. The educational value of even a small experience of research should not be underestimated. Courses can impart facts, but experience of research teaches people how to approach problems. I believe that my views on this will be shared by many industrialists.
I have recently had to spend a great deal of time acting as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Medical Research, a task, incidentally, which in the last two and a half years has made my participation in the work of your Lordships' House less frequent than I would have wished. In studying medical education, I was repeatedly struck by the close similarities between medical education and engineering education, and I wonder whether we ought not perhaps to consider the pattern that my Commission have recommended for medicine as something which might be applied almost equally to engineering and, with some modifications, perhaps to science and technology in general.
We have proposed—I put this quite briefly—that the undergraduate medical course should be made much more flexible than it now is by moving over to a unit type of course; that is to say, a unit system containing a wide range of electives so that the varying interests and inclinations of individual students can be given much more scope than they are at present. We recommend that on completion of this general course the undergraduate undergoes, say, a three-year course of professional training in which he would pursue a highly organised course of in-service and university training appropriate to his future professional interests; that is to say, whether he proposed to be a surgeon, a general practitioner or what-have-you.
This course of training, we reckon, should be organised and controlled jointly by the universities and the profession. I believe that this type of thing is not dissimilar from what the authors of the Swann Report may have been thinking about. Why should we not adopt something of this type? Why should we not adopt it for engineering in the universities and extend it, with appropriate
948
modifications, to other fields of science and technology? There have indeed, already been some interesting moves in this direction in some of the technical colleges and technological universities. My noble friend Lord Kings Norton has already drawn attention to a number of things which bear a relation to this and which are in progress. I do not myself use the phrase "sandwich course". To be quite frank, I do not much like the expression.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, I did not invent it.
LORD TODD: My Lords, postgraduate vocational training of this type, of course, presents some difficulties—this we know—but surely these can be surmounted as they have been in certain individual cases. The reason I do not like this term "sandwich courses" is that I am not proposing simply that a man should spend some time in industrial employment and some time at a university. What I envisage is a three-year course in which the nature and the content of both the industrial and the academic components is carefully controlled, and I would hope that at some point during this three-year period there would be some experience of research offered to the man taking it. Of course, I know it is always possible to raise the bogey of industrial security when this sort of thing is proposed, but I think it really is only a bogey, and that it should not be allowed to block the way forward; because if we had courses of this type more widespread than we have them now we should get a readier flow of recruits into industry—something which of course we should all like to see.
The specialised training to the Ph.D., by research, would still continue more or less as we know it now, and it would continue for the small group of the more gifted people I mentioned earlier. But, of course, if such students are to have proper opportunities they must get them in research schools that are large enough to be viable and in association with others of like quality in other fields. This, it seems to me, points clearly to the development of at least two types of university. There will be a few large universities that stand out as the spearheads of specialist training and research, with large graduate schools, and there will be others that will concentrate largely on

949
generalised unit type courses, and perhaps with this mixed industry/university type training at post-graduate level.
This kind of differentiation between universities is, of course, not new; it can be seen in other countries—for example in the United States. I am sure we must come to this change. If we persist in trying to run all the universities that we now have in this country on our traditional pattern, we shall achieve, at the very best, a general level of mediocrity—and mediocrity is one of the things this country cannot afford at the present time.
My Lords, in December, 1963, we debated the Robbins Report in this House. On that occasion I was virtually alone in criticising certain aspects of the Report that had a good deal to do with the subject we are discussing to-day, and I also criticised what I considered was the rather euphoric attitude of the main Political Parties to that Report. I predicted some of the troubles that have followed from its adoption. I said at the time that its implementation would lead us inevitably to a position in which we should have to accept a hierarchy among universities in which a few would be institutions at a very high level and the others would do much more general work and less research—rather like the suggestion I have just made for science and technology, but I did at the time extend it to cover all fields of higher education. I must say that to-day, more than five years later, I find little to change and much to reinforce the views which I then expressed.
Finally, the Swann Report discusses the teacher shortage. For this, there is no easy solution. It is not simply a question of salary. The trouble is that many people do not regard school teaching as a congenial occupation, and it is just about as naïve to think that people can be forced into uncongenial occupations by offering slight increases in salary as it is to think it can be done by denying to them the opportunity to do something else, like research, which they may prefer to do. One of the troubles is that the desire to teach among those who enter the universities on an Honours course in science is small, and the pattern of all Honours courses is such that by the time they have finished the course all but the most determined have had the
950
desire to teach either blunted or completely removed.
I do not believe that we shall get any answer here until science is taught to everyone in schools as a normal cultural subject, on all fours with subjects like English and history, and until at least one science subject comes to be regarded as a natural, and indeed a necessary, component of any general arts courses in the universities or in the training colleges. I do not myself believe that a highly specialised training in an individual science is necessary for any but a very small amount of the most advanced work in schools, and I think that a generally trained person, a person with a general arts course and one science subject, could meet most of the needs quite adequately. I think that, my Lords, because when it comes to interesting children in science and technology, or indeed in anything else, how they are taught is a great deal more important than what they are taught.
6.7 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, along with other noble Lords who have already spoken, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for initiating this debate. Before commencing my remarks, I should like to express my regret that owing to a previous engagement I shall not be able to be present at the later stages of the debate.
There are two problems referred to in the Report before us on which I should like to touch. The first is the swing away from science in our schools, referred to in passing, and the second is the inter-related problem of the shortage of high-class scientists to teach in our schools; and the importance of both of these problems has been discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, when opening this debate. As he pointed out, they are the crux of the matter we are discussing this afternoon. Just over a year ago we debated science policy and manpower, and in that debate I referred to the need for more information to be given to young people about careers. This subject is of such importance, not only in relation to to-day's debate but also for the future happiness of every boy and girl, whatever career he or she may be thinking of taking up, that I feel I must return to it to-day—in the first place, if I may, in general terms.

951
I cannot help feeling that much of the unrest and indiscipline among students that is giving rise to so much concern at the present time is due to the fact that they have never been given a definite aim in life. Many, when choosing a career —one of the most important decisions in life—may have only a fragmentary and superficial knowledge of all the options that are open to them—in particular, of the opportunities to do work that is useful as well as interesting. Some seem to make the decision almost by chance, depending perhaps on the personality and influence of a teacher.
Indecision about a career appears to be increasing, according to a Report recently published by the Public Schools Appointments Bureau. Of those leaving the public schools last year, 18 per cent. had not decided on a career. This compares with 11 per cent. in 1963, 16 per cent. in 1965, and 17 per cent. in 1967. As the Report points out, this trend probably reflects the increasing numbers opting for the arts, many of whom at that stage will not yet have made up their minds—the tendency in fact which is at the root of the problem we are discussing.
Schools, of course, vary greatly in the amount of instruction they give on careers. Some, for example, arrange discussion groups of teachers, parents, pupils and visiting authorities. But even the most advanced cannot hope to cover all aspects of the subject adequately in the time at present devoted to it. The subject is so important that I feel it ought to be an integral part of the curriculum, commencing preferably at the age of about fifteen, when the pupils will have to decide what main ladder or stream they will follow for the remaining years of their school life.
During that year, the student would receive instruction, perhaps followed by some form of examination, on a wide range of careers. This might be followed by less general instruction appropriate to the stream chosen. Instruction might be by books, through visiting lecturers, but particularly—as I mentioned in the debate a year ago—by the greater use of films. These might be produced under the direction of professional and other official organisations and covering the widest possible range of careers. They would give some indication as to what
952
would be involved in study later on at school or university, career prospects, and above all, the contribution that he or she might make to the community. Use might also be made of the new Polytel videotape for use with television sets.
Such a series of films, if they were to be comprehensive, including some time in each devoted to question and answer, and if they were to be regularly brought up to date, would be expensive, but their value would be out of all proportion to their cost. If, in these days of financial stringency, the cost could not be met, at least fully, from Government sources, here is an opportunity for a private philanthropist or foundation. I can think of few ways of spending money that would have such far-reaching effects for good. For many young people the future would begin to make some sense. Not only would such great professions as those of medicine and nursing be brought to life, but also the less publicised fields of biological science applied to food production and population control that are so vital if we are to meet the threat of world famine to which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, referred so movingly in the debate a year ago.
A career in technology could be shown to be what it is: a chance to make a personal contribution to the industrial prosperity of the country, on which all our hopes of raising our own standard of living and aiding the under-privileged countries of the world must depend. A career as a science teacher could be shown to be what it is: a chance to attract many youngsters, by enthusiasm and the highest standards of teaching, into some of the most worthwhile walks of life. If the science teacher is to do this he must have the practical applications of his subject constantly before him, and in that sense would have to be very much a science careers master himself. A proper emphasis on the importance of the science teacher to the community would, I believe, do much to remedy the present shortage. This is not to say that many financial incentives to teach science are not also very important, as is stressed in the Report we are now discussing. I believe that preferential salaries for science teachers would be acceptable to the great bulk of the teaching profession, once it was made fully

953
aware of the issues involved. It might be that industry would help in meeting these supplementary payments in the case of individual schools. A headmaster of my acquaintance told me that he thought such contributions would be more valuable than science scholarships or bursaries for students at the present time.
My Lords, apart from the part which can be played by schools there are many other ways in which the student can be helped to choose the right career, and would not wish to minimise their importance. There are the organisations specifically set up to advise students on careers, and also articles in the Press, and in television and radio programmes, on the subject from time to time. In this connection I should like to see television used much more. A regular serial, bringing out all the interest and diversity of different scientific careers and making them live, might have as great an attraction for young people as Dixon of Dock Green has had for an older generation. Perhaps a certain Member of your Lordships' House who was here earlier this afternoon might even write the script.
For those who are already thinking of a scientific career, an association has been organised by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, known as B.A.Y.S., or the British Association of Young Scientists. This has a central headquarters, 22 branches and area committees which arrange local scientific programmes; and local branches are still being set up. It aims at giving young people the opportunity, through membership of a national scientific organisation, to become acquainted with science, and it stresses the opportunity which this provides to plan and realise programmes of instruction which they themselves want.
It is, however, not only by such means and in the schools that stimulation of an interest in the practical applications of science is so essential. This applies equally to the university—perhaps even more so as the student becomes less generalised in his approach, and if more emphasis can be placed on applied, and less on pure, research in the university, the need for which is also brought out in the Report. The Report also emphasises that it is important that the technologist destined for a career in
954
industry should have a knowledge of other fields, such as business administration and economics, if he is to be able to take advantage fully of all opportunities for advancement open to him. In general, it rightly emphasises the need for every scientist to gain some broad understanding of the society in which he will work. A greater knowledge of the careers of others, acquired during school days, would lay the foundation for this.
The value of the technologist to the community is, of course, not confined to the part he may play in improving industrial efficiency. Space technology involving the use of satellites is coming to be recognised as likely to be of the greatest value in mapping the vast areas of the world for economic and food purposes. For example, there is the possibility of the detection of oil and mineral bearing areas, of crop disease and, in the sea, of areas of plankton for the development of the fishing industry. Engineering technology also, in its contribution to the great problems of irrigating the non-fertile areas of the world, must be of vital importance in the fight to produce enough food for the expanding world population.
There seems to be a tendency by many to regard non-medical science as something soulless, unrelated to human needs, and, if it has any possible application to the military sphere, as something essentially evil. A more idealistic approach to a career in science, with the emphasis on its usefulness to ethers, would in my view do much to reverse the present trend. But the attracting of young people into a scientific canter is only one side of the coin. On the other side, when they have so chosen, there must be an adequate career structure, opportunities and facilities for research for them, particularly in the all-important applied fields, whether in industry, university or full-time research institute. In industry it must be possible for them to attain the highest level in management, particularly if they have had the broader training envisaged. In fact, in many fields this is essential if there is to be an improvement in efficiency. But I do not wish to enlarge on the place of the technologist in industry, as many of your Lordships are much more qualified to do so than I am.

955
So far as Government-financed institutes are concerned, one comes round once again to the problem of priorities in financing education and science—priorities that are so difficult to establish in these days of over-extension of the nation's educational resources. I do not intend to repeat all that I said on this subject on the last occasion, but it seems to me that the establishment of adequate priorities for all fields of applied science is vital for the future of the country, whatever has to be sacrificed in the field of higher education in this time of financial stringency. On this depends our very standards of living, our position in the world and our ability to help the underdeveloped countries in their problems, problems that are so much greater than our own.
6.20 p.m.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, we have been privileged this afternoon, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, to discuss one of the important documents of our time. It is the third of the great papers which have emanated in the last two or three years from the councils for science policy, and it has to be considered in the light of the implications of the associated documents which came out about the same time. I think it is particularly notable because it has thrown up a great many problems, many of which still lack solution, and one must not necessarily be critical of it because it has been less successful in solving the problems than it has been in isolating them.
It is a document which has had a rather unfavourable reception in some universities, I think because it has called attention to the shortcomings and complacencies of some of these institutions, and has made them realise that they are not immune from criticism as perhaps they had thought they should be. It is a document for which we should be extremely grateful and much has been said about it this afternoon with which I agree. On looking at the list of speakers I find that our debate is only half over and the hour is late. However, with your Lordships' permission I should like to refer to one or two important points which have not yet been touched upon.
I should first like to refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord
956
Mais. He drew attention to the fact that of all the engineers in this country more than half have had no first-hand experience of university life. He reminded your Lordships—and it is very important that we should be reminded of this—that the system which produced so many of these men is in danger of collapse. The points which he made should be very earnestly considered by the Department of Education, which should particularly concern itself with the apparent collapse of the Higher National Certificate.
Last year in Manchester the number of students who came forward to take that examination was less than half as big as it had been only two years before. The reason is that the Higher National Certificate has lost its claim to be one stage on the route to profesional qualification, which it has had ever since it was founded twenty or thirty years ago. I regard its departure with very great misgivings, and I fear that it will deprive us of the opportunity of educating the men who are perhaps the assistants of the professional engineers, the technicians whom we so frequently and so dreadfully neglect in all our considerations of scientific manpower.
It is notorious that in every country in the world there are at least three or four, and sometimes as many as five, technicians for every professional engineer. There is what one can describe as an almost inevitable hierarchical structure of engineering organisations, and however the men in them have arrived there, four or five of them are acting as technicians for every one who is acting as a professional engineer. If you have too few technicians, the inevitable consequence is that some of your best engineers have to take on work which is not as good as that which they had expected and they have to become technicians, graduates though they may be. That is extravagant, wasteful and dangerous and it is a situation at which we seem to be arriving despite all that has been said in the past to warn us. That is perhaps a matter which is outside the terms of the Motion this afternoon, and after that brief reference I should now like to pass on to other things.
The Swann Report has drawn our attention to the controversy now raging in universities between claims of research and original scholarship on the one hand,

957
and the claims of teaching on the other. It is an extraordinary thing that this controversy was first raised, to my knowledge, about 120 years ago in Oxford, and its repercussions were such as very nearly to destroy the university in the resultant row between Mark Pattison on the one hand, and Jowett on the other. Pattison felt—and I think that nowadays we should agree with him—that a university which fails to add to the sum total of human knowledge can hardly call itself an intellectual centre at all; and Jowett believed that a man who had learned the history of the Peloponnesian war was thereby qualified to go and govern some part of the Sudan and cope with the problems of an insurgent tribe. It was his view which dominated Oxford until the beginning of this century.
The argument is a very difficult one and it has still to be resolved completely, because in the end any intellectual establishment must engage both in scholarship and in teaching, and the balance is finely drawn and constantly has to be checked. But the point to which I must address myself is the effect that this has on what I regard as the most important and perhaps the most neglected parts of the educational system; namely, the process by which a college graduate, an ordinary man who has taken a degree, is converted into a professional man. The noble Lord, Lord Todd, in referring to this aspect a few moments ago, described in outline the way in which the medical profession—which is, of course, the most highly organised and the most highly renowned of all the technologies—solves this problem by making use of the teaching hospitals and post-graduate schools of various kinds.
The same kind of thing has to be done in the education of engineers and, traditionally, the task can be done in one of two ways. The most familiar, perhaps, is the mechanism by which a young man who has taken his first degree joins a research school organised in a university, participates in the work of the research school, serves his apprenticeship to an established research worker, and learns gradually how to apply the principles which he had been studying in a rather abstract sense while he was a student. This is a mechanism which is well-known, well-established and all-important.
958
But, of course, another mechanism has been established in England for many years and I am astonished that no one has referred to it this afternoon. For very many years, almost all the engineers in this country learned to become engineers by an educational process which was divided quite sharply into two parts. They studied engineering in a university. If they went to Cambridge they called it Mechanical Sciences but, nevertheless, they studied engineering for three years. After that they joined as graduate apprentices in one of the great industrial firms. For a very long time—in fact, I think, for nearly thirty years—almost all the graduate apprentices in England went to only one firm, the great firm of Metropolitan Vickers. When one looks at the list of graduates who went through that school, it is a roll-call which includes almost every well-known engineer of his day. John Cockcroft went there before he became a physicist and a mathematician The first Lord Nelson, who founded the English Electric Company, was a graduate apprentice of Metropolitan Vickers. So was Sir Denning Pearson the present Chairman and Managing Director of Rolls Royce. So, of course, was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, who is among us this afternoon.
This system was so famous and so successful in solving the problem to which the Swann Committeee drew our attention—namely, the problem of integrating universities and industry—that it dominated the whole educational work of this country, and it is not too much to say, of the world as a whole. Twenty-five or thirty years ago it was a commonplace to say that all the engineers of England could be divided into two categories—those who once worked in Metropolitan Vickers and those who still work there. One can hardly go to the Argentine, or elsewhere in South America or South Africa, without finding that the chief engineer of the railway or of the mine has been at Manchester at some time in his life.
This was a most dramatically successful organisation, and I think it is true to say that for the twenty years during which it was at its peak, which I would say were between, say, 1920 and 1940, it did more and spent more on the education of engineers than all the universities in this country put together. I find

959
it quite astonishing that the Swann Committee should have ignored the dramatic contributions which it made, and even more that it should have ignored the fact that this tremendously important and most successful enterprise should at this moment be collapsing in ruins. I think it true to say that the events of the last year have done more harm to the education of engineers in this country than any event that I can remember, and I doubt if any process that I can imagine can recover the ground which seems to have been lost. This year, instead of recruiting about 200 post-graduate apprentices, as has traditionally been the case, I believe the number is 10.
What is more, this is only a part of the story, my Lords, because after Lord Nelson had left Metropolitan Vickers he founded his own post-graduate school in the English Electric Company, and that, too, is in ruins at this moment. It is true to say that Rolls Royce, whose chairman was himself an apprentice at Metropolitan Vickers, has taken on about 400 young men this year—the largest number that the company has ever been able to accept. It is true, too, that the British Motor Corporation, for the first time in its history, is beginning to accept post-graduate apprentices. It is also true that other firms are doing better than they have done before. But I find it quite disquieting, to put it at its lowest, that the best school we have ever had—the school which was founded by Arthur Fleming nearly fifty years ago to do a most essential job—should collapse unlamented and almost unnoticed.
I remember that on the very first occasion on which I had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House we were discussing the Industrial Training Bill, and that it was then obvious that the system had to be changed if only because it was unreasonable that one large firm should carry the whole cost of the education of the post-graduate apprentices for the whole of British industry. It was the hope of us all at that time that the financial provisions of the Industrial Training Bill would make it possible for the burden to be more equitably shared. But this great opportunity seems to have been lost, and I can only urge the Government that they should use such influence as they have
960
to try to see whether, even at this late stage, something can be saved from what otherwise seems to me to be a great educational and national disaster.
My Lords, we have to-day been talking about the basic problems of associating ourselves, our universities and our young men with the total industrial pattern of the country—and we have many problems to solve. Furthermore, we have to realise, I think, that the educational process—and this was a point very well made by the Swann Committee—cannot any longer end when a man is 21 or thereabouts. It is the great curse of this country's industry that apprentices are expected to serve their time between the ages of 16 and 21, and that what a man has not learnt by the age of 21 he can never learn from the age of 21 onwards. No man can ever become qualified as a skilled man in the technical sense in more than one trade. This I believe to be nationally disastrous, and a very great source of weakness to the whole of British industry as well as to the skilled men who work in it.
But the same argument applies just as strongly to the education of the skilled man, the very skilled man, the professional man, the engineer. It has been said that the growth of knowledge in this country is such that a man's whole discipline has changed dramatically in about ten years; in other words, the total amount of knowledge doubles in that length of time. So, supposing that such a paragon ever existed, a man who had learnt all that there was to know in one discipline when he graduated would be totally out of date ten years later. Information is growing at a quite explosive rate, and the educational world has not really come to terms with this growth in any country in the world. The Germans have attempted to cope with it by increasing the length of university courses almost indefinitely, and when I was last there I saw curves showing the ages of German engineers on graduation and found that an alarming number were still studying at the age of 33. This is one of the primary causes of the academic unrest in Germany, and is due to the fact that the German tradition is that a man may not graduate until he has learnt all that there is to know about his particular discipline. This is manifestly impossible, and the strain is disrupting, and

961
may destroy, some of the university centres of Europe.
Our own system has been to allow men to graduate at an early age, and this has meant the grotesque over-specialisation which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and by other speakers. I think it is inevitable that we shall have to reform our educational system completely and expect as a matter of course that men will come back to college, to university, many times during the course of their lifetimes—and, furthermore, do this as a perfectly normal and inevitable part of the ordinary conventional academic process. If I may take a particular example of this, I think that the Department of Education and Science should take as much responsibility for the re-education of science masters halfway through their professional lives as it now takes for the education of these men to the level of their first degree. This we cannot afford to do, and we have never even contemplated it; but I believe the university machine must be adapted to do it.
At the moment, the financial implications of such changes have baffled the combined ingenuities of the University Grants Committee, of the Department of Education and Science and of all the directors and controllers of all the Industrial Training Boards with whom I have spoken. The U.G.C. very properly say that it is not their responsibility to finance courses of three, four, five or six months for middle-aged men. The Industrial Training Boards have never got around to devising a mechanism by which they can pay for it, either. I myself have been negotiating this many a year to try to organise courses of this kind, and I have, I am afraid, almost totally failed. I would urge the Government that we must bring our people up-to-date continuously, we must abandon the folly of assuming that they can learn everything before they graduate, and we must so re-organise the financial structure of our educational machine as to make these courses properly financed. They must be given wherever the need arises, be it in university, be it in industry or be it in the local parish hall if necessary.
One of the most interesting experiences of my life has been to go to Canada and to see the extraordinary ramifications
962
of the system of part-time education which has sprung up there. It is not going too far to say that anybody of any age can qualify himself in any profession whatsoever by part-time study if he wishes to do so. We have never come to grips with this idea in this country. We have, in fact, destroyed more than we have created in the last few years. The work to which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, referred has been extremely valuable; but it is not even remotely comparable to the needs of the time and it does not by any means match the achievements of the other countries such as Sweden, Russia and America.
We have to face a total change in the structure of our educational machine; we have to face the possibility that men may qualify themselves for their professions by an irregular and unfamiliar route; we have to face the possibility that knowledge is changing so rapidly that people cannot hope to keep up with it except by specialist part-time courses in middle life. We have to transform the nature of our university machine.
In most countries the universities have accepted the responsibility for running such courses. A professor in the University of Moscow may be required to organise part-time courses, correspondence courses, or whatever the need may be. University staff in some parts of Australia have responsibility thrust upon them. It is the same in Canada. There is no such system here. I look forward to the transformation of the educational machine into a much more flexible and variegated enterprise capable of handling not the problems of the last century but the problems of the 21st century which will soon be upon us.
6.41 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lauderdale on his maiden speech and thank him for drawing attention to the latter half of this Motion. It is indeed well to be reminded of our natural resources and how they must be explored and developed. I am glad that he should have informed us of the Elgood Report; it is a subject which these of us in Scotland who are concerned with these matters hold in high regard. I trust that the noble Earl will forgive me if I do not develop his thesis but confine

963
myself to the problem of human resources.
We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for introducing this debate, and I agree with him entirely in what he said about the supply of students from the schools and the fact that we are more deficient in science education than ever before. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has said what he has said, and in such a forceful way. I had a feeling, as this debate progressed, that we were going to fail to realise how fundamentally important this is for the country. When Lord Bowden said that this Report was one of the more important documents of our time, and when he added that our present system was in danger of collapse, I do not think he was in any way exaggerating. I hope that we shall give—not only we ourselves, but the wider audience beyond this House—full consideration, full realisation, to the weight of these points emphasised by the noble Lord. I am sure that all of us were most impressed by those examples which he gave.
My Lords, the Swann Report itself also underlines and emphasises the importance of this subject to the nation. One could have wished this had been better recognised by some of the speakers, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I quote, very briefly, two or three passages from the opening pages of the Report. We have been discussing the pages towards the end of the Report; but let us take these words in the introduction discussing the falling proportion of pupils following science in the schools. This is the statement from the introduction on page vii of the Report The Committee say, speaking of the situation:
"…we consider that it will deteriorate unless the swing away from science in the schools is halted."
Then on page 2 of the Report proper, we see the statement:
"…the figures reveal a positively dangerous situation."
And on page 3:
"…we propose that education take the initiative in dealing with these problems."
What is happening? In their recently-published Report the University Central Council on Admissions give the shortfall for the United Kingdom of candidates
964
in science and technology to enter the universities last October as 1,200—that is to say, there were 1,200 vacant places at the universities in science and technology. The places have been, as it were, paid for; the money has been put up. Yet they are not being taken; they are not being filled. Of that total of 1,200 vacant places,450 were in engineering and technology, and 730 in science—roughly 4½ per cent. short. Compare that, my Lords, with the excess of applicants for the social studies. There are many reasons for this shortfall. The reasons one might give for it would depend upon the particular discipline that one studied at the university. But the issue which we are facing here is not an academic one that can be discussed in the common rooms of the universities; it is a vital one to the future of this country. The shortage of mathematics and science graduates lies at the root of the problem of providing adequate scientific and technological manpower.
I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Aberdare who thought that the encouragement of teachers in science by special preference, as mentioned in the Report, was unwise. I would wholeheartedly support what the Swann Report says in its recommendation on the teachers. The Report refers in paragraph 136 to:
"incentives for able scientists and technologists to enter teaching…a merit addition to salary…greater…salary increments for appropriate industrial experience…additional responsibilities…for the maintenance and safety of laboratories and expensive equipment…"
I think that the long-term question of differential pay will have to be faced and that we should not burke it now; because only thus, by preferential salaries, can account be taken of national needs and the requirements of the economy. After all, what is money for but to match the law of supply and demand? If the demand is greater than the supply, then the money must be used to increase the supply. We must recognise that this policy advocated in the Swann Report is against existing educational policy and will certainly be most unpopular with the teaching profession. Nevertheless, as the Report says:
"We believe that the situation is so serious, and the ultimate welfare of the teaching profession so dependent on a solution to our

965
scientific and industrial problems, that the time has come for fresh thinking by all concerned."
What is happening at the present moment? There are almost positive disincentives for men to go in for teaching in science and mathematics. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, mentioned the in-service training of teachers and the difficulties being encountered in getting arrangements for their payment. The last time we discussed this (I think it was on the Dainton Report) I drew attention to cases where local education authorities in Scotland were refusing to allow teachers off for an in-service year or for any in-service course, or to allow them a grant of money to pay their expenses. Some of those problems were smoothed out; but some were not, and we lost several potentially good teachers of mathematics. They would have got honours degrees in mathematics on top of their other qualifications. For instance, students at the Heriot-Watt University do two years of part-time training followed by one year of full-time education in mathematics. That qualifies them for an honours degree and they are exactly the people needed to break this log-jam. There are still difficulties, I understand, and I think this is a case where the Department of Education and Science ought to impose its will on the local authorities, because it is usually the local authorities that are preventing action being taken.
Then, my Lords, what about the retired teacher of mathematics? If a retired teacher comes back to teaching he loses his pension. He may well be as fit and able as on the day he retired, but it he comes back, in the case of an emergency or to fill up in a situation where no other teacher can be obtained because of the acute shortage of teachers of mathematics, he cannot draw his salary and his pension. It is better financially for such a person to seek work outside the education system.
There are of course other reasons for the shortage of scientists and mathematicians. A much higher standard is required for a first degree in mathematics and science than for the majority of the degrees acquired in social science Another point which is no doubt affecting the supply of young pupils coming up
966
to study mathematics and science at the universities is that some of our science and mathematics teaching is not very well done. This is something which must be looked into. New ways of teaching mathematics are being developed. I know of one school, Glasgow Academy, where the teaching of mathematics is entirely up to date, and an astonishing proportion of its pupils come forward for their scholarships and entrance to universities in mathematics. It can be done, my Lords, and this is the place where the mathematicians, scientists and professors must, as it were, "get cracking".
The noble Lord, Lord Todd, said—and I agree with him—that how the subject is taught is more important than what is taught. I should like also to say how much I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, about a general education based on science. I think that if this were developed, and science took the place of the classics, as in the olden days, one would get a better flow of youth coming up to the universities in scientific subjects. At the, same time I think that we must avoid looking only for the highly intelligent people, from our schools to come into science and into mathematics and technology. There is a danger that we may put too great an emphasis on that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has recently expounded, the creative mathematician is all-important; but a subsequent letter to The Times from Professor Noble, of Wisconsin University, indicated the importance for the run-of-the-mill student of a reasonably easily obtained first degree. I think that in some universities the first degree in science and mathematics is made too difficult. Professor Noble gave us the American slang term, and talked about the intelligent and the "slobs". I think we must deliberately cater for both types, as the American system is doing, and realise that the "slob" is extremely important and can make as great a contribution as the creative, intelligent person. My Lords, speaking as a "slob" myself, I would say that my excuse is that the whole material prosperity of our country depends upon our finding a proper solution to this problem. Unless we are very careful and get a move on, we shall be too late.
6.58 p.m.
LORD ENERGLYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for his reference to myself because it enables me to extend further congratulations to him on a most stimulating account of a subject which is very close to my heart. In fact, the brilliant way in which he expressed my thoughts filled me with great envy. I hope that your Lordships' House will be privileged to hear the noble Earl on many other occasions.
I should like briefly, in the same vein as the noble Lord, Lord Todd, to refer to the dangers of some of the sweeping generalisations in this Report. I refer to page 91 whereon there are three primary recommendations. To take the essence of these:
"Policy for postgraduate studies and awards should be guided by the need to match these more closely to the requirements of employment, especially in industry."
Then, secondly:
"…a change of emphasis towards shorter periods of postgraduate study and the trend from research to advanced course work should be accelerated,"
And thirdly, the purpose of the Ph.D. should be used
"to bring within its scope other forms of postgraduate training more closely orientated to the requirements of industry."
Superficially nobody could quarrel with that statement, but a number of really serious and dangerous areas of activity are implied.
If we veer as strongly as this away from fundamental research, where would be the place for young scientists who wish to thrust out and attempt what is regarded as impossible to-day? If advanced training courses are to replace research schools, this, as my noble friend Lord Todd said, could be disastrous for British research. Besides, in attempting to convert postgraduate studies into training courses the universities will of necessity have to meet the ever-changing, transient trends of a particular industry, and this would mean that certain universities might closely attach themselves to neighbouring industries. That is all very well so long as that industry is flourishing, but not so wonderful if it begins to run into heavy weather or requires new techniques.
If we look at this problem from that point of view, I suggest that industry is
968
potentially more competent to deal with such post-graduate training of men in industry than the universities themselves. because the dons will not only have to teach these advanced techniques but at the same time will have desperately, almost hopelessly, to try to find some time for their own researches, while constantly changing their courses to meet the changing needs of the immediate industry.
Coupled with this is the dangerous plea for the evaluation of the degree of doctor of philosophy. This is not, and I hope never will be, a distinctive title which is awarded exclusively for advanced training courses. Studying for a doctorate enables a young man for the very first time in his life, possibly for the only time in his life, to tackle with his supervisor a problem concerning which neither he nor his adviser knows the answer. Moreover, this is probably the only time in his life when he will be able to do a piece of work thrusting out into the unknown, learn what this involves in terms of emotion and disappointment, and, what is much more important, indulge in completely dedicated labour in search of its solution. This can come about only once in a man's life. It is at this point I would look before we allow this trend to get out of hand. Another impact of this trend—and here we can see its dangerous side—is that small departments will practically disintegrate, and only well-endowed universities will be able to continue their research schools and so produce the doctors of philosophy as we understand them to-day.
I would remind your Lordships' House that this Report does not really bring out and give credit to the flourishing courses in biochemistry, molecular biology, chemical engineering and production engineering, all of which illustrate that the universities are not unaware of the need for making a change. I am able to say that at the University of Nottingham we are setting up a new subject—new for this country, for Europe and probably for the world—which is going to be called exploration science and which will meet many of the points mentioned in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. This science is designed deliberately and is vocationally directed to anticipate the needs of the next decade for the development of resources which at the moment we regard as unworkable. At the present

969
time it has been calculated that something of the order of £35,000 million worth of raw materials are being extracted from the earth's crust every year, and clearly something must be done to make this wasting asset survive as long as we possibly can make it. That is the object of setting up this new science: to meet this problem by training scientists to go out with sophisticated equipment and a wide range of expertise in search of these potentially viable natural resources.
It is the mental freedom to be able to think like this which makes British universities unique in the world. If we accept these recommendations, I feel, as in the tragic story recounted by my noble friend Lord Bowden, that we may yet see many of our institutions decay and become like other universities throughout the world. If we go too far in developing post-graduate work into advanced training schemes, where shall we hope to find the young men who can undertake original work? Where can we find, for example, the young scientist who perhaps may discover how to prevent the mineral apatite from growing at fantastic speed in human coronary arteries? The young scientist who discovers how this killer actually grows will not only have rid us of the terror of coronary thrombosis but at the same time will have discovered a new way of forming calcium phosphate and other similar substances into minerals of great value to the electronics industry.
Where are we going to find the young scientist to study the combinations of iron with alumina and silicia, the combination of minerals which prevents our exploiting the low grade iron ore in the earth's crust? The young scientist who can break this molecule will quadruple the iron ore resources of the world. If he does it in Britain, we shall be able to reduce by something like 70 per cent. the need for importing iron ore into this country. We have already proved that if we could break this molecule, we could exist on our own low-grade ores for the next hundred years. Where can this kind of work he done? I suggest that the natural place is the fundamental research schools of the universities, which have always been the natural organisations for this research. This recommendation of the Swann Report is, I think, one of the most dangerous of all its recom
970
mendations. There are many such examples of the creative ideas of scientists moving potentially and realistically into industry at the present time. The bridge into industry has taken many years of patient work to build, and frankly, reading this Report, I feel that the authors of the Report are not aware of the two-way traffic that is already crossing that bridge.
When history is told, I think we shall find that we are passing through this technological revolution that we hear about and that many are unaware of it. This is not surprising, because if we recall the work of Bessemer, for example, we could never have foretold what a global impact his work would have on the economy of the world. Scientific discoveries often move very silently into a technological explosion. Who would have thought that growing fibres of carbon, and finding that they had enormous strength, was of great industrial significance? Yet we find at this moment of time that these carbon whiskers are going to revolutionise the use of plastics, which may replace metals. Making carbon whiskers, as I understand it, is rather expensive, but there might be some young Ph.D. student somewhere studying the hair that grows on a scorpion, or studying the way in which a bird produces its feathers, and in this way discover a new way of growing fibres cheaper, easier and better than at the present time, and so recreate what is already a viable proposition into an industrial explosion.
I gather from this Report that there is something wrong with British research. But the Report is not very clear as to what this might be, and neither am I. I see fundamentally little that is wrong. The Committee also make general attacks upon industry and the way it treats its scientists. They want them to move about freely.
"between the main sectors of employment—universities, schools, industry and Government".
My Lords, this is a pious hope, because the Report reveals that there is a shortage of manpower, and there is just not enough to go round. Why blame industry for being unable to spread it about in this way?
Finally, I should like to be a little more positive, perhaps, and suggest that, in this Report some consideration might

971
have been given to the possibilities that now exist, and have never existed so well as now, for the young scientist who makes a discovery and is able to move with it into industrial production. This is the ideal way for a man to leave a university school of research and get into industry. As a result of the enlightened and enlarged work of the National Research Development Corporation, we now have this facility, and this is being exploited to a great extent. I would suggest to those of your Lordships who do not read the Reports of the Corporation that they are in themselves an education.
My point, my Lords, is this. Perhaps industry might themselves look at the functions of the N.R.D.C., because they could make as great a use of it as we in the research departments are doing at the present time. In this way, in my opinion, we should remove one of the great barriers that has put a kind of tollgate on this two-way bridge into industry —this matter of security. Industry has its research departments only because it wants to keep ahead of its competitors. Therefore, it has to have some control over the security of its ideas. If, as was urged in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Arwyn on March 12, there was a uniformity of patent law even throughout Europe, the work of the N.R.D.C. could be made much easier, the interchange to universities and industry could be made much easier, and one of the major obstacles, in my opinion, for collaboration between fundamental research schools and industry would be removed.
7.15 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, I should like to associate myself in the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for introducing so effectively this debate. I should declare a personal interest in the debate, because, as your Lordships may have noticed, I was a member of the Swann Committee: indeed, I am even more vulnerable than that, because as Chairman of the Committee on Manpower Resources I attached myself to the Dainton, the Jones and the Bosworth Working Parties, in the hope that I could help to ensure that these were reasonably well co-ordinated. This is why I was discourteous enough,
972
if I may say so, to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, to interrupt his speech.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: The noble Lord was not discourteous at all.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: Unfortunately, my mind does not work quickly enough to deal with the various comments that have been made on the Report, and I have not had enough experience of your Lordships' House—in particular, I have not sat on the Front Bench—and, therefore, I am looking forward with great interest to hearing how the noble Lord, Lord Brown, deals with these various comments. The temptation, in consequence, is perhaps not to speak. On the other hand, a number of points have not been touched on as fully as I think they might have been, and, therefore, if your Lordships will allow me I will make a few remarks.
Several of your Lordships have touched on the question as to whether the supply of men and women who have devoted themselves to the advanced study of science, technology and engineering is adequate for our national purposes. I want to say that the quantification of this situation is extremely difficult. A major reason for difficulty is that we do not yet know how to distinguish quantitatively between the forecast demand of employers, particularly of industrial employers, and their need for qualified scientists, technologists and engineers: in other words, the difference between their willingness to employ and their need to employ.
This difficulty can work both ways. Forecast demand can be an understatement of need, in the case, for example, of firm which has been, and is, unresponsive to the process of technological change; has not yet learned how to recruit, train and employ qualified manpower, and whose forecast demand—if it has a demand—is therefore likely to bear no relationship whatever to the need for its progress and even perhaps its survival. Or there may be a corresponding discrepancy with a firm which has over the years regularly employed large numbers of qualified manpower, but which, because of uncertainty, financial or otherwise, may feel unable to initiate new developments which would increase its need, and therefore its demand for qualified manpower. On the other hand, the discrepancy may

973
occur in the reverse direction. For example, I hold the view that many of our existing scientists, technologists and engineers are not being used effectively, and for the reason that they are not being supported adequately by a sufficient number of well-enough qualified technical supporting manpower, whether as technician engineers at the Higher National Certificate level or technicians at the City and Guilds London Institute level.
Whether or not there is a shortage at the level of qualified manpower, I believe there is an unquestionable shortage, and a very serious shortage, at the level of technical supporting manpower. So long as we fail to deal with this situation, as I believe we are doing, and as certainly two noble Lords have mentioned this afternoon, so long shall we continue to use some of our highly qualified manpower for work for which they are not well prepared educationally, against which they react psychologically and which they will try to avoid at the expense to this country, if need be, of their joining the brain-drain.
My Lords, I have presumed on several occasions during the last few years to say that it is high time the Robbins spotlight was shifted from degrees and the universities to courses which lead to diplomas and certificates, rather than to degrees; to courses which serve the educational needs of young people who do not possess the kind of analytical abilities which properly are required for university entry yet who are perfectly capable of understanding and assimilating the highly sophisticated technical skills that are of great importance to industry. I am therefore deeply concerned (I think that the noble Lords, Lord Mais and Lord Bowden, touched on this same question) by the apparent, if not evident, desire of the recently created polytechnics to walk away from this problem; their desire to discard part-time courses leading to Higher National Certificates and other qualifications, and the effect which this is likely to have on the sense of importance and of status attaching to these courses, and the awards associated with them, and the deflating effect this is likely to have on the staff and the colleges which are then left to deal with this problem. My impression is that there is within the technical colleges a feeling of real con
974
cern and of anxiety, if not depression, at the way in which the situation is being deflated.
I am not a wholehearted supporter of comprehensiveness in education. But I am in no doubt of my support for what the Secretary of State for Education and Science said a few weeks ago, to the effect that:
"the polytechnic principle will stand or fall on the success they achieve in maintaining the student mix (as between degree and non-degree students) which the comprehensive principle applied at this stage of education implies."
I would go further than he does, and would add, "which the staffing requirements of industry demand". If we pretend that by increasing the number of our graduate engineers we are really solving more than a part of our industrial problem we are grossly misleading ourselves.
The point I am trying to make is that if and when we deal effectively with the technician problem—and the industrial training boards are of course devoting a good deal of attention to this question—and when we have exploited more fully the potentialities of the computer and automation, it may be we shall find that industry requires fewer scientists and technologists at graduate level if an it at present thinks it does. I do not think it will, but I say that this may be: we just do not know. Studies of our manpower situation carried out merely by analysing, as I am afraid we have done, mainly the requirements at graduate level without making a simultaneous assessment of need and demand at supporting level, could give us quite wrong answers to the requirements at graduate level.
It is essential however (and here I shall be touching on what some others of your Lordships have said), not to concentrate too much on this purely vocational requirement and situation. Those of your Lordships who heard me speak last week will perhaps remember that I referred to the impact of scientific and technological progress on society and the problems it was raising for society. I think there is equally no doubt that we are in great need of many more young reople who have pursued science and technology —but not wholly science and technology: I should like it to be mixed with sociology and economics—up to degree level, and

975
who would then enter life with the same open-mindedness as has characterised the arts graduates, in the knowelge that they would be better prepared for responsible service within a community, the progress of which is increasingly dependent on our ability to assimilate the potentialities of scientific and technological progress. This touches on something which the noble Lord, Lord Todd, said. I should like to think of this as a responsibility for some of our new universities.
These graduates would not of course be adequately prepared to perform the scientific and technical functions in industry which are involved in research, development, design, production, marketing and the maintenance of equipment. But, equally, the graduates who follow courses in science and technology much more closely akin to present courses in these subjects would, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has given, also be inadequately prepared, though perhaps to a less degree. It will then rest with employers, particularly industrial employers, to attract from this larger, as I would hope, body of science and technology-based graduates a sufficiency to meet their essentially scientific and technological requirements. As for the rest, I would hope that these would go out into the community, as I have mentioned, with the same open-mindedness on employment as has characterised the arts graduate.
As for the scientific and technological requirements of industry, it would then be the responsibility of industry, having recruited a sufficiency from this large body of graduates, to see that they were properly recruited, and that they received initial training of the quality to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, referred. I was depressed, if I may say so, by the severity of the situation which he depicted. I myself am deeply disturbed by this, although I was not aware of the situation quantitatively. I fear greatly that much of British industry is not dealing as effectively as it should with its graduate recruits, and I am quite sure that a lot of British industry has not yet learned how to employ these people to the full extent of their potentialities.
976
My Lords, may I now touch on a question which really arises from this?—and it has been touched on already by several previous speakers. I was particularly interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, about the question of the maintenance of standards. I do not know quite how to interpret this. If one is thinking of the educational process, not merely of scientists and technologists but of our graduates generally as confined within a three-year undergraduate course, I think we must recognise that the attainment of a degree, a diploma or a certificate in the early twenties, or even sooner, is no longer the end of the process of formal education. It is merely the end of a preliminary phase of a process which will have to continue throughout a career.
Industry and our educational institutions, whether they be universities, polytechnics or technical colleges, must face up to a responsibility which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, said, has hardly yet been touched. This is one of the reasons why I believe that the Swann Report is right, even to the extent perhaps of over-emphasising the need for a closer partnership between the universities and industry, not at the cost of submerging the needs of pure research but certainly at the cost of identifying with pure research many men who are not going to make an important contribution to it and who will then become antipathetic to the kind of environment in industry or in teaching where their services are desperately required.
Finally, my Lords, may I touch on an aspect that has not received much information but which flows a little from what I have just said? Some anxiety has been expressed this afternoon as to whether this country is spending enough on research and development. I myself would hope that we can continue to spend at least as much as we are now doing, but I think it came out of last week's debate that what we refer to as the "technological gap" between this country and Europe and the United States is not even primarily concerned with research and development; that in fact when we refer to the technological gap (which is a catchphrase that tends to be misunderstood) we must not relate

977
this just to research and development but must relate it to the whole process that flows from development, through design, production, marketing, and so on, to all the functions with which productive industry is concerned.
If our gross national product, if the strength of our economy, could be related precisely to our expenditure on research and development, this country would have no present anxieties. In fact it is not so relatable; and I suggest that while expenditure on research and development is vital to the maintenance of good health in the universities, and essential to progressive industry—firms such as Rolls-Royce—nevertheless this is only part of what is required, and we shall not achieve through further research and development the strengthening of our economy unless several other things happen.
One is that we must recognise, and must somehow get young people to recognise, that the quality of intellect required in design, production and marketing needs to be of the same level as, though it is different in motivation from, that required in research and development. Secondly, we have to devise means of achieving a much greater mobility of people between these spheres. This is why I am deeply concerned about the extent to which we in this country separate a great deal of our research and development, physically and therefore to some extent intellectually, from the productive environment. I would not mind this if we had achieved reasonable mobility, but we have not: and I think we are paying a very great price for it.
I would extend this need for mobility to the universities. I would accept, as was implied in previous speeches, that there is an encouraging movement in this direction. I think we have a great deal further to go, and I am not more than partially encouraged by the speed at which we are moving.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him for a moment on this interesting point of the separation of research? I entirely see his point with regard to development, but I would have thought the Americans had shown, in,
978
for instance, the Bell Telephone Laboratories, and other places, that there was a great advantage in having the basic research separated.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, I do not disagree with that. Nevertheless, I would think it on the whole beneficial if we are not thinking of research as embracing only pure research. But when we move over to research in the departments of technology I would have said there was everything to be gained by as close as possible an association between them. I accept that this cannot be a physical association, but it can be achieved by a greater degree of mobility than we have yet achieved, though it has been achieved in some other countries—including the United States of America. And if one refers, as the noble Lord has done, to the Bell Telephone Laboratories there is an intimate personal association between the people in the research laboratories of Bell Telephones and the people on the design and production side. So that, while I do not deny the point, on the whole I would still prefer to swing the pendulum a little in the reverse direction, if only by way of emphasis.
My final point, my Lords, is that we shall not achieve an adequate result from our research and development expenditure unless we have, in addition to what I have mentioned, more enlightened, more informed and more sympathetic management. I am one of those who hold the opinion that taking British industry as a whole—and of course there are many notable exceptions—the standard of management is much less professional and much less understanding and sympathetic towards the kind of motivation that comes from research and development than is the case in some other countries. Therefore, when I refer to the need for in-career education I hope that an increasing number of those who show managerial potentialities will be allowed to participate through courses within universities and in business schools. I am quite convinced that a certificate or diploma in management studies does not make a manager, but I am equally sure that many of those who reveal those qualities would be the better managers for having one. This I regard, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, does, as a very important part of our in-career education.
7.38 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I should like to follow those who have spoken before me in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on his maiden speech, and I shall listen with great interest and attention in the future to what he has to say, particularly on the subject which he has expounded so well to-day. I would also thank my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones for giving us the opportunity for this debate, and also, if I may in his absence, the Principal of my university, the Chairman of the Swann Committee, for having given us the pretext for, and indeed the substance of, a very interesting debate. I am much reinforced in what I am going to say by what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, has just said. I was rather timid—I always am in the presence of so many formidable people in the scientific world—about what I was going to say, but this is it.
In the early days of war-time operational research, when scientists were trying to find out why radar was so very effective in laboratories and on the test bench but was not working on the antiaircraft sites, they sent out distinguished scientists to find out what was wrong, and they discovered some interesting human factors. For instance, there was in Hyde Park, and indeed on anti-aircraft sites generally, an extra man on each battery strength, and nobody could explain what he was there for. Research showed that he was the man who had held the head of the horse in the days of the old Horse Artillery, and they had just forgotten about him. Before we get too agitated, too desperate and too anxious about the shortage of scientists, we should find out how many scientists are holding the heads of imaginary horses. I think we should find that there are quite a number of imaginary horses in academic science, in industry, and in the scientific Civil Service. I would follow the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on this point: I think we should find somebody to hold the head of the horse for the scientist.
I do not pretend to be a one-man manpower committee, but a few years ago I did a fairly thorough inquiry, which was published, not in the distinguished company of the Report we are discussing today but in one of those vulgar popular
980
journals, into how science was being used in industry. We had been pretty successful in impressing industrialists that to keep up with the Joneses they had to hire science graduates. This was about ten to twelve years ago and it is rather ironical, in the light of the Swann Report we are discussing, that at that time the concern was that industry with its higher salary scales and so on was robbing the hen roost of the academic world and the Government scientific service.
We had had the Scientific Manpower Survey of 1956 which predicted the likely demands. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has pointed out how difficult it is to quantify, because looking at that Report one tends to be rather reproachful. The Survey stressed the need for chemists and physicists and engineers, and it played down the demand for biologists; there was practically no future for them. As I went round the various industries I found that most of them, encouraged by exhortation from the top and from distinguished scientific bodies, had in fact hired their quota of tame magicians, highly qualified science graduates, preferably Ph.D., because it looked much more impressive in the annual report.
A certain disillusionment had begun to set in on both sides. I asked the head of a science-based enterprise, a very substantial one, how many scientists he had on his board. He replied, "Two, and that is two too many". His complaint was that they were empire-builders, always increasing the scientific staffs in research and development, and the lay directors were quite helpless because they did not know what they were talking about and did not know whether or not these people were necessary. But his main complaint was that they did not know when to freeze. When the production engineer was trying to get Mark I on the production line the scientists were already thinking of Mark III because they had been reading the stop-press improvements that had turned up in the latest scientific literature. The board did not know whether their competitors were liable to produce Mark II. This board chairman complained that their scientific education, by its specialised limitations, had crippled their common-sense judgment—and this is where I

981
would follow the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in saying that one of the important things is to distinguish between science and sense. That is unfair to the scientists, including the very distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who have been conspicuously successful businessmen. But I think in general he had a point.
In the laboratories I found disgruntled scientists who, having taken their first-class degrees into industry, complained that in programme research they were no more than glorified laboratory technicians. In fact they were, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out, actually doing glorified technicians work with practically no backing of adequately trained people. The industrialists also complained that in the manning table the exact scientists tended to be intractable. They were research men who could not be moved around other departments or even promoted through the managerial stream. What they had found, in spite of the prediction of the unlikely demand for biologists, was that biology graduates were much more amenable. When they had made their effective laboratory contributions they could adapt themselves to other jobs even in the commercial or marketing departments. Perhaps this is because biologists are accustomed to dealing with a greater range of variables.
Perhaps this mobility, this versatility, may be regarded as a waste of a Ph.D. or a highly qualified scientist. I do not think so. I think this has come out of our debate to-day. I think that science should permeate the thinking of industry and commerce, and even of public life and politicians and everybody else, so that there is not the conflict between the scientist and the lay members of an industrial board. Anyway, it is better to be adaptable than to be a Ph.D. holding the head of an imaginary horse in an industrial laboratory.
That brings me to the point of which I thoroughly approve in the Swann Report. I know that my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones has a certain qualified attitude to this. I believe in the broadening of the educational base of the scientist. I am quite sure that we shall get more and better scientists and technologists by putting imagination into their general education and giving them this versatility that we have misgivings about. To me, science is no more than natural
982
curiosity which begins from the moment a child asks "Why?" If by over-specialisation at an immature age we regiment and direct that curiosity into a predestined curriculum, we can lose those lively minds that later might burgeon as original scientists, the kind of scientists the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, was talking about, the flint and tinder of new ideas.
I compare this process which is still going on in our school life—and here I am talking about the Dainton Report rather than the Swann Report—to the little evacuees during the war. I had quite a lot to do with them in London during the "blitz". It was quite pathetic when one went to the East. End of London and found little children with labels on them. They could not read them because they were upside down. The labels said where they were going, but the children did not know where. They were taken to Paddington and put on a train and they did not get off the train until they reached their reception area. That is what we have been doing to the youngsters in terms of science. At a very immature age, at 12 or 15, we say to them: "You have got all the qualities of science and you are going to be a good scientist". And so we put a little label on them and put them on the railway. They never get off to look around and pick the buttercups, and eventually they get off in some siding called cyto-genetics and they have never had a glimpse of what the meaning of things might be.
A few months ago I was asked by an educational society to talk on the subject, "Teaching science in the year 2000". I said that I hoped that in the year 2000 we would not be teaching science as we are now teaching it, because in an imaginative educational system science would be subsumed. It would be the nature of everybody's education and not some select few. It would be in the blood corpuscles of every pupil and in the thinking of every student. My noble friend Lord Snow would have lost his two cultures.
Of course we need more mathematics, more mathematics teachers, more mathematical thinking. But it must not be the brimstone and treacle maths, the way I learned it, where I was given maths because "Learn it, damn you, it good for you", which, incidentally, has

983
crippled my mathematics ever since. Nor is "new maths" or new devices for teaching numeracy sufficient. I think we must realise that mathematics is a language which opens up, which it did not do to me, a wide vista, a new world of experience. I have discovered in the case of my own family that pure maths is the poetry of numeracy, the conceptual language. We need them not only as a tool but as the poetry of mathematics.
As the Swann Report itself says, it has to be read in conjunction with the Dainton Report and the Jones Report, and in relation to it we have to take into account the science fallout in schools and the brain-drain. In the past twenty years —I say this as one of the salesmen of science—we have oversold science, certainly science in the terms of its pay packet. We tried to sell it, and I think we at one stage succeeded by saying, "You take a degree and there is a cheque. Take it to the billet and draw the cash. You get married the morning after you graduate, and you have a motor car as well".
The figures produced by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones show the fall away from science and the increase in the number of those going into the humanities and social sciences. I believe that this also is part of the student protest. It is partly a revolt against science itself. I know I am being mystical in relation to what science is, but I really feel that this is so. Indeed, in the British Association a few years ago—I think Lord Bowden was there; I am not sure that he was not the chairman of the meeting—we asked modern secondary schoolchildren why they were not going into science. One of them, a child of 15, said, "Physics is bombs; chemistry is insecticides".
I think we have to find a new motivation other than that of the salesman, because, as has been pointed out, we have 1,200 vacant places, 4½ per cent. short of what is necessary. In this field. I think we have to convince the girls that science is a good thing. It is not just a question of getting girls to go into science, something that we wish they would do. Curiously enough, we get a lot of girls going into biology, et cetera, but fewer going into physics and chemistry. It is not only that I want to get the
984
girls interested; I want also to persuade them not to discourage their boy-friends from going into science. This factor of female discouragement has been around for quite a while. It was borne in upon me by my son, when he was at Cambridge. He said, "There's no future in nuclear physics because you can't date a girl by saying you are at the Cavendish Laboratory".
Apropos the brain drain, we are deeply concerned with the loss to America of the graduates we produce in engineering and so on. But I have just come back from America and I would say again what I have said before, that instead of going out and persuading the renegades, the people who have gone out and are afraid to come back because they have lost face —if you go out to make your fortune you do not come back to the job you have left—we should be going out now and recruiting American scientists. Because part of the process which has been pointed out this afternoon, of the cutback in American science, is that they have committed themselves far too much to the needs of a dictated economy programme, to crash programmes, et cetera, and they are now finding that their pure science and their real, genuine interests are being curtailed. I think we could reap a rich harvest by going out and claiming their scientists in return for those which have been taken from us.
My last point is this. We have been discussing how we can do all this. I was fascinated by what Lord Kings Norton and others have said about how the Report itself overlooks the kind of things that we should now be seeking. I am going to offer one more. It is one that I am not sure has been mentioned in your Lordships' House before. But there is a really imaginative approach to this problem; namely, the Open University—the university of the second chance, as I want to call it—bringing back the part-time people, the people, many of them scientists or potential scientists, who missed their opportunity, and really starting on broadening the educational approach, the topping up, the picking up, and the reinforcement.
7.55 p.m.
LORD TEDDER: My Lords, coming in at No. 15 I feel as I felt at school when coming in at No. 9: my colleagues' great

985
anxiety was that I should get out as quickly as possible, and my anxiety was to show how good I was. This is only the second occasion since succeeding my father than I have got up to speak in your Lordships' House. I had hoped that when the proposals for the reform of this House were being discussed provision would be made for stronger representation of scientists here, although in view of the speeches and the quality of the scientists present this evening your Lordships may feel that there are too many. I am sorry that I cannot accept that view. I feel that some of the troubles that we are discussing stem from the lack of scientists in all branches of government. Until the reform that I hope will come, I still feel it my duty to come as a practising scientist and speak in your Lordships' House. The views I express are necessarily my own, but on this occasion I have been fortunate in having had opportunities of discussion with a large number of my colleagues in various universities, and I have found great unanimity between my opinion and theirs.
The first point I wish to make concerns the data on which, of necessity, Professor Swann and his colleagues had to be dependent. The data refers to a period of quite unprecedented university expansion. At the time of the Robbins Report many people were convinced that there would not be enough highly qualified people to provide the necessary teaching staff for the university expansion envisaged in that Report. In practice, by and large, universities have expanded at the projected rate with but little lowering of the standard of the staff recruited. You cannot have it both ways. Quite rightly in my view, university expansion must come first, and we are now entering a decade when industry can expect to benefit from this expansion.
How completely the situation has changed just during the last year I can show your Lordships, by some figures relating specifically to chemistry. In the years from 1964 to 1967 between 400 and 500 students graduated with a degree of Ph.D. in chemistry, and every year approximately 20 per cent. of those went straight into industry. Last year this figure rocketed to 36 per cent.; in other words, almost double in the period of just one year. And that coincides with the slow-
986
ing down of university expansion. So my first point is that the tide has turned and is, in fact, already flowing strongly the other way. The Science Research Council has in addition applied, as they say, a touch of the rudder by the introduction of the Co-operative Awards for Pure Science. I think we have to be most careful about altering the course when the tide has turned, and I am apprehensive that further touches of the rudder will throw us even further off course and in the opposite direction.
I now wish to turn and become egocentric, in so far as I wish to talk about chemistry and the relationships between university chemistry departments and the chemical industry. The Swann Report, Chapter VII, paragraph 113. reports that the Ph.D. training is widely held in industry to be irrelevant to industry, and at worst turns graduates permanently away from industry. It goes on, however, to say:
"Some parts of industry—notally the chemical industry—do not share this view."
Professor Kelsall's survey quoted in the Swann Report, shows that during the last ten years, out of science graduates with higher degrees—that is, a Ph.D. or an M.Sc.—only 25 per cent. were working in industry. However, when we come to look at the breakdown of these figures we find that for chemistry the percentage was 42 per cent., for physics 23 per cent., for mathematics 7 per cent., and for biology 4 per cent.
The Royal Institute of Chemistry has collected figures from the heads of university chemistry departments, and these show that out of 4,022 chemists graduating with a degree of Ph.D. between the years 1958 and 1967, 15½6 per cent. are now teaching in universities, whereas 29 per cent. are at present working in British industry. There are, in addition, 7 per cent. working in industry abroad, and 6½5 per cent. in the Civil Service and in research institutions. The important feature in these figures is that even during this period of unprecedented university expansion twice as many Ph.D.s in chemistry have gone into industry than have gone into university teaching. So the complaint that we are "eating our own brood", or whatever the phrase is, is not proven so far as chemistry is concerned.

987
The Swann Report refers to all branches of science, but repeatedly emphasises that the situation is different for different disciplines. The point I wish to make is that the situation in chemistry has never been as serious as it has been in some other sciences. I trust that neither the Ministry nor the Science Research Council will be prodded by the Swann Report into applying some blunt instrument to alter the flow of scientists into industry, but that they will make sure that any changes they propose are selective.
I should now like to turn to one particular recommendation of the Report which I view with concern, and I am afraid that I cannot agree with some of the views expressed by your Lordships this afternoon. I wish to refer to paragraph 133, sub-paragraph (a), which ends:
"…the move from research to selected advanced course work should be accelerated."
On the first occasion I spoke in your Lordships' House I drew attention to the tremendous strain put on an undergraduate reading science at the present time. I would, if I may, repeat the analogy I made at that time. I compared a student reading a modern language with a student reading a natural science. I likened the knowledge of a science student who gained three very good "A" levels in his G.C.E. examination to the knowledge of a language student who had just learned the alphabet. At the end of a three-year university course in England, or a four-year course in Scotland, the science graduate will have reached about the same stage in his knowledge of science as the language student would have reached in his G.C.E. at Ordinary level. In other words, a natural science student graduating with an Honours degree is barely literate in his subject, certainly if his subject is chemistry. Literacy may be reached at an earlier stage in the student's career in some other branches of science.
However this may be, a modern science student cannot hope to attain more than the borders of literacy in his subject in a university course. It is only when he stays on to do research that he gains an opportunity to look at his subject critically and acquires the knowledge and experience necessary to make reasoned judgments. All unnecessary detail has long
988
since been thrust out of our courses, and yet our students still have to work at top pressure all the time at the receiving end, never having an opportunity to develop for themselves until they commence postgraduate research. To suggest that three or four years of high pressure course work of this kind should now be surmounted with yet a further year of advanced course work absolutely appals me. I cannot imagine a more certain way of squeezing all the drive and initiative out of our young men and women.
At the present time an able student who stays on to do a Ph.D. learns a little about the techniques of research and acquires specialist knowledge in some particular branch of his subject. The important point is that he is taught to think for himself. Few people would disagree that the best education is guided self-education, and the best thing about Ph.D. research is that it encourages a student to use his own initiative and make his own judgments. I regret to say that I have had to come to the conclusion that the criticism of some industrialists of Ph.D.s is based on the fact that they do not like young men to have initiative and use their own judgment.
Unfortunately, British industry regards a man with a Ph.D. in chemistry as suitable only for employment as a research chemist, and this is tantamount to assuming that an historian or classicist is fit only for employment as an historian or as a teacher. I would suggest that a research degree is a general education ideally suited to present-day needs. I can see some noble Lords are looking horrified. May I add that I do not mean necessarily a Ph.D. degree. I think that there is a very good case for a majority of students doing only one year rather than three years, and only the best staying on to do three years. My third point is a criticism of one specific suggestion made in the Swann Report, and that is the suggestion which refers to the extension of advanced course work. I cannot say how much I oppose and am horrified by this suggestion.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having been rather technical and for having quoted so many figures, numbers of students and percentages. I now wish to turn to a much more general discussion of the Swann Report, and I

989
would begin by quoting from paragraphs 7 and 8:
"Only through joint action by education and employers, especially in industry, can progress be made in solving present manpower problems.
"Nevertheless we propose that education take the initiative in dealing with these problems."
I cannot help but note that the Committee had eight members, and six of these were from university. I am seriously concerned that universities are over sensitive to comments and criticism from outside and tend to react prematurely. They tend to bend before the wind blows, and I hope the noble Lord, Professor Lord Jackson of Burnley, will forgive me if I say that I believe he and his colleagues have done neither the universities nor the country good service by proposing that almost all the changes to correct an admittedly undesirable situation should come from action in the universities.
I should like to refer to the Jones Report on the Brain Drain, on which Committee, of course, the noble Lord, Professor Lord Jackson, also served. Paragraph 49 of that Report reads:
"There is a feeling that North America is a young man's country in which ability of young people counts more than age, experience and seniority; thus when ambitious young men come forward with suggestions whether for research development, production or marketing, they are given more encouragements, support and responsibility than in the United Kingdom."
Then, taking it two lines further down:
"…the policy thought to exist in the United Kingdom of insisting that a young man should prove himself for a substantial period before any real responsibility is given to him."
These are not feelings and thoughts; these are cold, hard facts.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to Table 14, page 89, of the Swann Report, in which the characteristics of their own jobs as seen by scientists and technologists are tabulated. It is very noticeable that scientists and technologists in industry see far less scope for initiative than do their counterparts in university. Surely it is an extraordinary thing that a university teacher should have more scope for initiative than a technologist in industry. I recently had the opportunity of talking to someone in the electronics industry who had, for a number of years, worked in British industry but had fairly
990
recently transferred to an American firm working in this country. He was quite astounded by the difference in attitude in his American company and the responsibility and opportunities for exercise of initiative given to young men who had only recently joined the firm, a matter of six months to a year, compared to what he was used to in the British firm for which he had worked many years. He had nothing but praise for the effect both on the productivity of the firm and the morale of its employees.
I cannot over-emphasise the difference in atmosphere of industrial laboratories that I have visited in the United States and in the United Kingdom. But no matter what we may do in the universities to try to encourage our students to go into industry, there will remain one all-powerful source of propaganda persuading them from taking this course. This propaganda comes from the disillusioned and frustrated students who have started an industrial career—and I am not talking about those who have got to Ph.D; I am talking about those who have gone straight from university into industry without doing a higher degree.
Finally, let me add that I have never noticed any signs of our students being reluctant to get "their hands dirty", as has been suggested by some industrialists to me. On the contrary, if they cm see good reason for it, I am sure they will be the first people to be in it up to their armpits. I beg those of your Lordships who are associated with industry which employs scientists and technologists to do all you can to encourage the management of the firms with which you are associated to give young men and women responsibility and opportunity to prove themselves. I hope that I have made my fourth point abundantly clear. It is my opinion that improved recruitment of scientists and technologists into industry can only come about when there is a change in the attitude in most managements towards the junior scientists and technologists which they employ. Thus, I cannot accept the suggestion in the Swann Report that the majority of the reforms must be on the university side.
I am afraid that I may have given your Lordships the impression that I am self-satisfied and complacent about the university side. Nothing could be further from the truth. It may also

991
appear that all I have said is critical of the Swann Report. Again this is not true, and there are many of their suggestions and recommendations which I welcome most warmly. I would particularly welcome more extensive contacts with industry with an opportunity to learn something of their problems. I feel that it is significant that during the twenty years that I have been a scientist in British industry, I have had more contacts and approaches from American industry than I have ever had from British industry.
I would particularly welcome the recommendation in paragraph 175 of the Swann Report which suggests that universities should come to regard as part of their normal provision post-experience courses for mature scientists, engineers and technologists. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, on this point. This kind of provision could be of tremendous benefit to us all; we could learn from them and they could learn from us. I also view with interest the recommendations in paragraphs 156, 162 and 165, all of which lean towards the idea of a broader scientific degree. Certainly in universities we have spent a great deal of time discussing ideas along these lines, and I would greatly welcome the opportunity of holding joint discussions with industry.
I wonder whether at the same time there is not possibly also the need for some new specialist degree. Here I may be talking out of turn, but I feel that a good deal of the criticism of universities in the Swann Report is aimed at physics and engineering rather than at chemistry. I wonder whether the hiving off of electronics and mathematical physics as separate subjects might not be to everybody's advantage. Perhaps in chemistry we might hive off something called material science. May I suggest that the electronics industry should think of founding a chair of electronic physics at the University of St. Andrews, and that the jute and plastics industry should think of founding a chair of material science at the university of Dundee? Seriously, my Lords, let industry and the universities stop slinging mud at each other. I have thrown some this
992
evening, but it is little compared with what we have had thrown at us.
I should like to make some specific suggestions about the reorganisation of university research. At present the major portion of university research is carried on by graduate research students working for the degree of Ph.D. Some of these students, as has been said in this debate, regard themselves as being no more than pairs of hands. One of the difficulties of the present system is that young university staff in science depend on their proven ability in research for advancement in their career. I am not critical of this procedure since I am sure that it is the only way to obtain the best teachers. However, it may mean that the post-graduate student is not always employed in the best project from an educational point of view.
I should like to suggest that in experimental science departments in universities additional establishment should be created so that each full-time member of the teaching staff with more than five years' seniority has a graduate assistant to carry out the experimental work which is at present carried out by the Ph.D. student. The advantages would be that it would enable the university lecturer to plan his research on a long-term basis without having to be sure that the project which he was suggesting would yield definite results within three years, while at the same time the research students could be provided with projects of definite educational value. Such a scheme would need considerable working out to ensure that the new technical assistance would be provided with a suitable career structure.
If university staff could be guaranteed help of this kind there would be less pressure on their part to retain students for research; although I have emphasised that in my view a period of research at university on completion of the normal degree course is most beneficial. I visualise fewer students doing three years' research, although I hope that as many as at present would stay on for one year's post-graduate research. Therefore, my final point is that a substantial increase in technical help in the science departments in universities should be envisaged. Some people may be horrified at this suggestion because they think that this is a request for more money.

993
I do not think it is, because most of the cost could probably be met by the decline in the number of research students, or at least in the length of time at which these research students stay at university.
I apologise for having spoken for so long at the end of this debate, but the issues raised by the Swann Report are complex and in a sense I am necessarily concerned with many aspects of them. I have made five points when, for my speech to have had a telling effect, I should have made only one. May I quickly summarise the points that I have made?
First, the data on which the Report is based refer to a period of exceptional university expansion which has now ceased, so that without any positive action the flow of top quality scientists into industry has already started to increase. Secondly, I wish to emphasise a point repeatedly made in the Report but ignored in some of the commentaries upon it—namely, that the flow of able scientists from universities to industry varies from subject to subject and, being egocentric, I wanted to point out that throughout the last ten years the chemical industry has had the lion's share. My third and final specific point referred to the recommendation that there should be specialist courses on top of the present degree courses. I cannot over-emphasise how bad educationally I believe this to be.
I then turned to make two general points. The first was that the universities were over-sensitive, and bend before the wind blows, and that in my view they must now stand up firmly or the priceless asset of the high standard of academic scientific teaching in this country will be destroyed. However, I should like universities, the University Grants Committee and the Science Research Council to consider the possibility of shorter periods of research for students not intending an academic orresearch-orientated career, coupled at the same time with a substantial increase in technical assistance in universities.
Let us have more contacts between industry and universities, but until we get a changing attitude throughout this country, we shall never get out of our present troubles. The real crux of our
994
problems was more fully aired in the Jones Report, The Brain-drain, than on the Swann Report. Rigid and hierarchical staff structures in industry, in the Civil Service, and sometimes in universities, must be dissolved. The drive, initiative and originality of youth must be given scope. Age, seniority and experience must be used to guide the enthusiasm of youth, not to suppress it. We shall not get better scientists in industry by ruining the universities, but only by making a career in industry more challenging.
8.19 p.m.
LORD HILL OF WIVENHOE: My Lords, it is with temerity that I intervene in a debate on such a highly technical subject, but I was a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the T.U.C. for some seventeen or eighteen years. We were advised by three professors who gave us assistance on the highly technical aspects of the subject. It gave our research committee a lot of joy to think that there were so many vacancies in this field. We could not understand why this country was so short of the electrical engineers and scientists required. It was on that basis that we fought this issue; and we met Minister after Minister about the sad shortage. When the allocation was increased the craftsmen's side of the trade union movement thought that some of our brilliant apprentices ought to be picked up from the shops and found places in universities, but of course there was not much of that done. I am surprised that places in universities for electrical engineers and scientists are not filled, and I think we should search for the brilliant lads who are in engineering and other industries. When a lad comes into industry he likes it immensely, and will go to evening classes to improve his knowledge. Why cannot we find places in universities for those boys?
Many years ago I knew employees who never thought of sending their sons straight from school to university: they insisted upon their serving an apprenticeship. It was after that that they went to university, not neglecting their education in the meantime. But that altitude seems to have been lost. If these brilliant boys could go to university they would not be robbing anybody else, because the vacancies are there, and we

995
ought to recruit from two sources—straight from school or from the workshop. I am surprised that there is this number of vacant places, because I thought it would take many more years to reach that position.
I should now like to say a few words about the other side of this subject; that is, the allocation of funds for research and the like. I was a member of the British Welding Research Association for some fifteen years. That Association had a most difficult time because, although a research association covering a given industry can put a levy on every employer, an association covering many industries cannot do that. The Welding Research Association received modest amounts of money, ranging from £50 to £250, but we could never get sufficient by way of grant from the various firms in the industry. The full grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research would still have been only about £300,000 or £400,000, which was totally inadequate to meet our requirements.
The Welding Research Station is just outside Cambridge. It took about ten years to build it up, but had the necessary money been available we could have built it up in three years, and we should all have benefited as a consequence. It may surprise your Lordships to know that it was the Welding Research Association which discovered why jet planes blew themselves to pieces in the air, and discovered how deficiency could arise in the metal. A lot of people would not have believed that, but the Research Station has pulsating machines that are used for that type of work.
I used to go to the National Production Advisory Council for the industry, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Chairman, to appeal for the Welding Research Association. On three or four occasions we had our full grant, but we ought to have had more. As no one wants to impose a levy on himself for an association that is covering a variety of industries, one must take what comes. Then for a few years I was a member of the British Ship Research Association, which confines itself to shipping and shipbuilding. It is quite obvious that levies can be imposed for that Association, because it covers only one industry. But if that
996
industry is down in the dumps, as it has been from time to time, and is not able to pay its way, let alone undertake any research, the Association is bound to find itself in a very difficult situation unless someone is generous and fills the kitty when necessary.
It is very hard work to persuade Governments—and I do not blame any particular Government—to hand out money for research. Sometimes they throw it out like a Scotsman with no arms. On one occasion we had Lord Hailsham (as he then was) before a committee talking about getting more money for cancer research. He convinced our committee that, even if they had all the money in the world, they would not achieve much more for cancer research than is being achieved now. He may have been quite right. But it is amazing how Ministers of State find all the excuses under the sun to avoid handing money to very worthy causes. My Lords, the allocation of funds for scientific purposes is absolutely essential. We have very intricate industries in this country to-day—the situation is very different from what it was years ago—and unless we can find the necessary money to finance research we shall eventually go down the drain. I sincerely hope that what has been said in this debate will reach the ears of Ministers, and that they will recognise that sufficient money should be allocated for research purposes to put this country on its feet, not only for to-day but for ever after.
8.28 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, at this late hour I have jettisoned as much of my speech as I can, but I cannot jettison my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on his maiden speech, and my thanks to my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones for initiating the debate. I must also express the gratitude of the whole House to Professor Swann for his Report, and our pleasure at seeing him listening to this debate this afternoon.
There are just two points that I want to make tonight. The first is that there are a great many changes which ought to come about in university departments. The second is that it is not at all clear how, under the present conditions of university autonomy, these changes are to be brought about. Some of these changes are undoubtedly being brought

997
about by the action of the Scientific Research Council. They are increasing the number of advanced course awards which they select for relevance to industrial needs. They are encouraging post-experience courses—and this is absolutely vital if we are (as the Americans would say) to "retread" our industrial technologists when their tyres become a little worn. The Scientific Research Council is also encouraging co-operation between pure science departments and industry by making a number of cooperative awards, and the figure for this is rising from something like 90 in 1967 to about 180 in 1969. Above all, the S.R.C. is encouraging universities to institute the new type of Ph.D., of which we have heard a great deal this evening. But this is only the beginning: there is a very great deal more to be done.
For instance, why is it that, in universities, departments of architecture accept as an axiom that those who teach architecture must be practising architects, yet in engineering departments no-one seems to think it odd that so few of the staff hold a position in an industrial firm? Then again, why is it that so much of our graduate training concentrates upon producing men who expect to engage in research and development in industry? I understand that only a small part of industrial technology is concerned with research and development: most technologists are needed to solve problems in, for example, maintenance and design; that is to say, to improve existing products rather than to invent new ones.
I make these suggestions simply in order to show that there are many of us in the universities who entirely applaud the spirit of the Swann Report, and of the equally important Lighthill Report of the Royal Society on Postgraduate Training in Engineering and Technology, which was published this January but which has not: been mentioned much in this debate. But if attitudes in the universities have to change, as has been said so often this evening, so have attitudes in industry got to change. For instance, while British industry gave in answer to one inquiry the reply that there was no shortage of qualified scientists and engineers, the Brooking Institute, on the other hand, said that there was an acute
998
shortage. Let me put that another way. If United States firms snap up British Ph.D.s in technology, why are these Ph.D.s not snapped up by firms in Britain?
The Swann Report singled out the record of Ph.D.s in physics as an example of how few graduates go into industry and how university physics departments eat their own children. But what encouragement, except perhaps from Mullards, do physicists get to go into industry? Moreover, it seems to me that there is some doubt whether some of the deductions in the Swann Report about physicists are quite so clear-cut as they seem to be. For instance, the 'United States channel fewer physicists per head of the population into industry than Britain does. Moreover, I think the Swann figures did not take into account the number of physicists who go into Government research establishments, which are in fact a branch of industry rather than an offshoot of the universities. If you add those physicists in with the physicists in industry, you get figures which are not totally dissimilar to those in chemistry and which show the relationship of chemistry departments to the chemical industry.
Time and again, as we have often heard in this debate, the heads of university departments complain that industry does not know how to use the graduates that the universities turn out. Sc often one hears that they are given jobs on "O"-level basis, and that the two-year graduate trainee schemes too often train them in outmoded industrial techniques. Further, the mechanical engineering industry is accused of not understanding the potentiality of its graduates because it is too much a conglomeration of family-run businesses. But even if we take a large company such as Esso, which has uniform international performance standards, why is it that 90 per cent. of the board in the United States are qualified scientists or engineers, that 50 per cent. of the board in Germany are qualified scientists or engineers but only 17 per cent. in Britain? These are figures which I think people ought to ponder.
My Lords, we have identified a problem. We may have identified it two decades too late, but we have identified it, and we are well on the way to discovering sensible remedies. May I now come

999
to my second point? How can we get the remedies taken? How do we persuade university departments to change their ways, their curricula, their teaching? Some people will say, "Let the Government do this". The Government are almost certain to refuse—and very wisely. Why should the Minister of State put herself in the position of being accused of interference in the affairs of the autonomous universities? She may use her powers of persuasion—and they are very great—but she, very wisely, will not lay down rules. Then, other people say, "Let the U.G.C. do this". But the U.G.C.'s subject committees are at present much more pressure groups for expanding (and perhaps at the same time rationalising) a subject than for advising on the curriculum in first and postgraduate degrees.
Then again, others might suggest that the Scientific Research Council should enter the lists as persuaders. They are indeed able to induce change by the way they allocate their post-graduate awards, but I would guess that they would rightly say that their reputation for impartiality and fair dealing would be impaired if they were asked to become arbiters. Then, of course, there is the Royal Society, with all its great prestige. Could not that act as an arbiter and as a persuader? Nearly ten years ago the Royal Society advised universities to abolish the old departments of zoology, botany, genetics and so forth, and to organise biological studies into a school of biology so that there could be far greater flexibility and so that new subjects could grow and old, outworn subjects be decently put to sleep. The new universities, of course, are organised on these lines; and some of the old ones may also be now. But certainly Cambridge and London, to name two of the most distinguished biological centres in this country, are not. They have disregarded the Royal Society's proposal, and have no intention of changing.
Moreover, if we take the issue we are now debating, the Lighthill Report is full of wisdom, so it seems to me, but its recommendation that all the Ph.D. work in the subject should be concentrated in a few large engineering schools will not commend itself to the vast majority of engineering departments in
1000
universities, because they are small. It will commend itself all the less in view of the fact that the Lighthill Committee were composed of four professors of engineering, all from Imperial College, which could be expected to be the principal beneficiary of their proposal. This is the problem which we are up against, my Lords, and I remember well saying to Lord Blackett in 1963 how difficult it was to get university departments to change their ways. He then said, "There is one simple way: offer them earmarked grants. Those who want to change will take the money and will then forge ahead". But to-day there is no possibility of operating in that way. Universities will in fact have to cut back on one activity if they want to develop another. Funds are so short that that is quite inevitable. So we come back to the problem: how are we to persuade university departments to change the kind of work they are doing and the content of the courses which lead to first or higher degrees?
I remember having a discussion with Lord Brown on this subject some years ago, when we were talking about the transmogrification (if I may call it that) of the College of Advanced Technology, which is now Brunel University. I was much more of Lord Brown's way of thinking than perhaps he may have thought at the time. But one is up against the difficulty that in the university form of government there is no one body which can say definitely, "This is the line and this will be taken". I think that this is going to lead in future years to universities having to re-think their structure of government—but that is too long a story to embark on at this point.
My Lords, I do not for one moment suggest that I know the answer to this problem, but I am convinced that it is just as important a problem as the identification of the problem and the suggestion of the remedies, which Professor Swann and the authors of the other Reports mentioned this evening have done. Let us be quite clear that the Swann Report was not the first to discover that something was wrong and needed to be done. Lord Jackson has given the greater part of the last fifteen years to discussing, debating and agitating (in the most respectable way, I hasten to say) to get

1001
change. This problem is of such importance to a country that a way must be found to feed back the findings of these expert Committees into the universities, the polytechnics and the colleges of further education, so that the scientific and engineering departments take account of the debate as it is proceeding.
Perhaps I should just add here that it needs, I think, a recognition, as Lord Todd reminded us, that in fact institutions which teach science and engineering are very different, and that there are differences between universities just as there are differences between a university and a polytechnic. This fact must be taken into account if we are to get sense in this matter. It may be that we need further discussion, but let us not wait before setting up (and I suggest that it should be under the U.G.C.) a negotiating body—or bodies, because it may have to be done regionally—which would in the first instance visit engineering departments and make positive recommendations for action to them and to the vice-chancellor of the universities. I do not believe that there is any other way of translating words into action. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Brown, could find one of those flags which used to be attached to Churchill's files and which bore the legend, "Action this day"!
8.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, this has been an extremely important debate; indeed, I think it would be difficult to over-emphasise its importance, and we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones for giving us the opportunity for this discussion. I do not think I am over-stating the position when I suggest that had a series of debates of this kind taken place at any time between 1800 and 1900, and had the same sentiments been expressed, it is extremely doubtful whether we should have found ourselves in the economic troubles from which we suffer to-day. Many of your Lordships realise that it was about 1800 that the French founded their écoles politechniques, the Germans founded their technical high schools and other European nations were following suit. I think that all we had in this country to put against those great efforts
1002
was the foundation of Anderson's Polytechnic in Glasgow, subsequently to become, in turn, the Royal Technical College of Glasgow and then Strathclyde University.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, there were many other institutions at the same time, one of which is in Manchester, and another is Birkbeck College.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, my history is no doubt deficient; but that is the one which caught my attention in the writings on the subject.
LORD TODD: My Lords, may I intervene, to point out that Birkbeck College, as the name suggests, derives from a professor in Anderson University in Glasgow.
LORD BOWDEN: I know this, my Lords.
LORD TODD: The Manchester College of Technology was, I believe, founded later, some years after the Anderson University.
LORD BOWDEN: Yes, my Lords, it was about five years.
LORD BROWN: That is my information, too.
But, my Lords, had we listened to Lionel Playfair, Professor of Chemistry at Edinburgh, who later became Speaker of the House of Commons, I think we should have been better off than we are to-day. I quote one extract front what he wrote in 1873:
"New professions are arising around us, but for these our old universities make no provisions, and all professions have completely changed their aspects, yet the schools and the colleges remain as of old. Perhaps the most robust men of our time have been our engineers and mechanicians for they have given more impulse to civilisation than any other class of men. But I look in vain for a single representative man among our Telfords, Watts, Stephensons, Arkwrights, and Wedgewoods, whose intellect was nurtured on ancient classical learning or who could find anything in school life to aid the development of their genius."
In a debate of this kind to-day I was disappointed not to see more wholehearted support for the Swann Report. I thought it was an excellent Report. I detected in some parts of the debate today the carrying through to 1969 of some of the attitudes which characterised our attitude to science in the mid-19th

1003
century. I am sorry to say this; but I detected—and sometimes from the younger Members of the House—a defensive support of the status quo. I think that one of the greatest dangers that we suffer from—and I am with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, here—is that we have this deep resistance to change in every one of our institutions, whether they be schools, universities or industry. I almost want change for the sake of change in our particular society at this time; because this is the greatest thing from which we suffer.
I speak strongly on these matters because I believe, with many other speakers to-day, that there are in our schools and universities and industries a growing number of—shall I call them?—iconoclasts ready to stand up to be counted and who believe change is necessary. But these men always are surrounded by those who advise caution. These men always take the risk in our society of being regarded as cranks who are in too much of a hurry. They lose place because of their enthusiasm. I want to see Reports like these that we have discussed to-day backed; because by so doing we are backing those who, I think, are of larger vision than the others who want to keep us where we are. I want to give them the support of these debates, to let them know that though they may be the growing few, at least they are on the side of the angels. Unless we back initiatives of the kind that they support, I think the future of our country economically is indeed grim.
My Lords, the focus of our discussion has been on the recommendations of the Swann Report, but some noble Lords have touched on the subjects covered by the Dainton Report, which is concerned with the teaching of science in our schools and the encouragement of a greater flow of pupils from schools into science and applied science courses in the universities. What I want to take particular note of here—and again I am grateful for the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan—is the question; Who is to stimulate these changes in our schools which will result in a larger body of these young people realising that science, and applied science in particular, really does (if this country is to go the way it ought to go) hold out the great opportunity of
1004
the most exciting creative careers in the future? Who is going to do the job?
I do not think the Government can do it. What we must do is to excite education authorities up and down the country; excite individual teachers to pursue their enthusiasm; excite industrialists and engineers working in the companies in the vicinity of these schools, to do their best to enthuse the teachers and the pupils alike. I cannot think there is any other way to tackle this job. Certainly, I cannot see the Government stepping in and giving direct instructions to the education authorities to do this or do that. It will not happen that way. So we are in the hands of tens of thousands of professional citizens in various walks of life; and unless this bug bites them and they can see that our economic future and our industrial future as a great trading nation is in the hands of changes in those schools, then we shall not get it.
I cannot go further without making reference to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. It was extremely enlightening and was given with great fluidity. It covered a vast range of initiatives in the field of the development of natural resources, which certainly excited me. I am not going to respond by commenting on what he said because, despite the fact that this debate has encompassed the field of investment in the development of natural resources, the main bent of the discussion has been in other directions. I think it is now too late to proceed on to a discussion of that. The only thing I will say is this. There is more going on than I think the noble Earl acknowledges—I hesitate to say "than he recognises", because I am sure he knows what is going on. For instance the Institute of Geological Sciences, a component body of the Natural Environmental Research Council, is continuing an important scientific investigation of the mineral resources of the United Kingdom and of its Continental Shelf, especially hydro-carbons for natural gas supply and the like. Things like this are going on. I do not think we want to be too pessimistic.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, raised the question of preferential salaries. This is a matter for the Burnham Committee to consider. It is a fact that science teachers do better than average in getting responsibility and head-of-department

1005
allowances partly because of their shortage. But I do not know whether the Burnham Committee has the courage to move forward and take this great decision to begin giving preferential treatment to these teachers; and it is not for me, as a Minister of the Crown, to stand here and state my preferences. Noble Lords may deduce them from the way I am talking about the whole subject.
My Lords, turning to what is going on in the universities, I have here a catalogue of things that are happening, and even though it is late I will skim through it, because I do not think that we ought to be left after this debate with a feeling that all that Swann suggests lies in front of us; a little of it has already been accomplished. About 11,000 students are being educated via sandwich courses in our universities, thus getting practical experience of industry during university life. Here I should like to turn to my noble friend of "sandwich course fame", if I may put it in that way. I think he has a legitimate grouse in the sense that Swann made no reference to the whole movement of sandwich courses in the universities which used to be the colleges of advanced technology. Yes, my Lords, I think it is a pity that this great movement was not mentioned. It has done so much for applied science and has been of such help to industry, for these students from the sandwich courses are treasured in industry. I am sure that the noble Lord has a very good point.
Six universities have accepted substantial Ministry of Technology support for industrial units which will help to make their facilities available for industry on contract. The Birniehill Institute of Advanced Machine Tool and Control Technology has been set up, with links with the University of Strathclyde and the National Engineering Laboratory. The Science Education Department of Chelsea College is turning graduates into teachers with a special capacity for teaching science and mathematics, and similar courses exist at Brunel and Bath. Stirling has established a Chair which teaches technological economics. Lancaster has departments of operational research and systems engineering which are strongly industrially oriented and, indeed, derive a fair amount of their income from
1006
industry itself. Birmingham, Newcastle, Oxford and Cambridge are also running courses similar to those at Stirling which I have mentioned. Surrey, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Oxford, Sheffield and HeriotWatt have obtained U.G.C. support for setting up industrial liaison organisations. Ministry of Technology industrial liaison centres exist at Heriot-Watt, Strathclyde, Cardiff, Manchester, Aston, Bath, Brunel, City and Surrey Universities. These centres attempt to make available to industry the whole range of advisory services available from the Ministry of Technology and from other sources, and more of these centres exist inside technical colleges.
My Lords, the University Grants Committee has given special "pump-priming" grants to 14 universities to help them establish various types of courses whose aim is to encourage the orientation of university work towards industrial problems and to encourage collaboration with industry. So far 403 awards have been granted by the Science Research Council—the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made reference to this point—to first degree graduates who enter industry. These guarantee their ability to take up a post-graduate course in a university at any point in the five years following their entry into industry. These awards are a direct encouragement to some of our best students to postpone their desire to take up research work in a university for a second degree and to enter industry immediately. It is possible that over 200 of these awards will be given in the current year, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will be very pleased to hear that.
My Lords, this year about 180 awards will be made to post-graduate .science students working on projects of industrial interest which have the support of an industrial firm. Seven specialised technology courses of the kind recommended by the Bosworth Committee—I am proud to have been a member of the Bosworth Committee for the initial three months of its existence—either exist or are planned. These are sponsored jointly by academic and industrial institutions concerned either with the design of products or the technology of their production. They result in students working within industry and lead to Master of Science degrees

1007
or diplomas. This is a wonderful development. It means that students can leave university and continue to work for a higher degree in an industry while being looked after by some industrial institution and by the university simultaneously.
I am sorry to burden your Lordships with so much detail, but it is important that we should be aware of the fact that not only is thought being given to new types of industrially oriented activity at the universities, but also that at least some concrete results have been achieved. I do not want to exaggerate the extent to which these have gone but they are a beginning, and from small beginnings bigger things grow.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, has referred in strong terms to the need for transferability of pensions. I want to say to him that this is not a subject which has been unthought of by Government. It has received some extremely deep consideration. I am sorry to say that it is a very difficult problem to which to find a solution, but the Government have not finished looking at it. Transferability between Government employees has gone a very long way, but it is transferability of people between Government service and between all the various schemes that industry runs that is the difficulty. I am sure that this can be achieved if time can be spent to get down to it, but it is a very big job.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, stated that there were 300 unfilled medical vacancies in universities, and I must take him up on that point. That is wrong. These vacancies do not exist. If he wants an explanation—
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the figure I quoted was from the University central clearing house for entries.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am aware of the source of the figure, but all I want to say at this late hour is that that is a wrong figure. Those vacancies do not exist and a later statement from the authorities concerned in fact corrects it.
My Lords, there has also been much comment from a number of noble Lords about the fact that there are 1,200 vacancies for scientists, and 400 for technologists in the universities. This is not a matter of fact in the way it has been
1008
stated by many noble Lords. I do not want to go into too deep an explanation, but the universities make estimates of the probable number of graduates that they think they will be able to take at some point in the future—say six months or a year hence. These students come to them at various points in the year and finally, if one makes an assessment of the estimates of the number of places and the actual number of students that come in, you get these discrepancies. But the actual vacancies which were predicted do not always exist in the number predicted and bald statements about 1,200 unfulfilled positions are really in many cases highly misleading. It is not as simple as that. There is a very serious problem as the Swann Report shows, but there have been over-simplified statements about the sort of problem that exists.
My Lords, there has been much support of Swann's recommendations, from the noble Lords, Lord Byers, Lord Mitchison and Lord Aberdare, for more generalisation of education both in the schools and in the universities. On the other hand, there has been criticism. There are those who have said during the debate that if the teaching of scientists and engineers in our universities is more generalised, and if in addition you are going to give them the opportunity of learning how to teach the subjects, you cannot do it in three years. I think this is typical of the reaction of some people, in universities and elsewhere, to any suggestion that the content of any course should be changed. What they say is, "Oh, no, we cannot change it without adding to it." This means, "We are not going to change, we are merely going to add to it." It seems to me that unless universities can face the fact that in many cases the content of courses must be changed towards more generalisation without lengthening them, without additional expense, and without a fresh influx of teachers, and so on, they are not facing the needs of the day; and I think that on this point Swann is quite right.
My noble friends Lord Mais and Lord Bowden have drawn attention to a problem which is not dealt with by the Swann Report. I do not think we can criticise the Committee for not doing so because, after all, a Report must be focused on a narrow area if it is making a deep study of a subject.

1009
My noble friends raised the problem of the H.N.C. students. I would remind my noble friend Lord Hill of Wivenhoe that when the colleges of advanced technology were set up, with the N.C.T.A. benignly presiding over them, one of the first provisions made was that young men in industry who had done well in the ordinary national certificate should be allowed access to the C.A.T.s. The significant thing was that these boys, who did not have "A" levels and had ordinary National Certificates, based on apprenticeships in industrial firms, did very much better than those who stayed on at school and did "A" levels. This should be borne in mind. This is the sort of opportunity which should be given to those in industry who have a strong motivation to study. They are the people we want in the universities, the earthy creatures who can combine practice and theory and who are very valuable when they go hack into industry.
I apologise for making too little reference to many of the contributions made by noble Lords in the course of the debate. I notice that some are not here now, so I may escape their wrath. The noble Lord, Lord Todd, made a speech which contained a great deal of wisdom, but I disagree with him on the emphasis he put on the Ph.D. course as the right form of training for the cream of the intellectuals. I do not accept this, and I do not think that Swann accepts it. Certainly we must train a proportion of our best brains by the sort of disciplines inherent in a Ph.D. course and in continued research, but we must, at the same time, have a proportion of our best men in industry, not carrying on research, but planning all the complex disciplines involved in the management of great industrial concerns.
LORD TODD: My Lords, may I intervene to say that there was no intention on my part to suggest that the only people with ability are people with academic ability? I was talking about the 10 per cent. who have the academic ability to do that type of work and carry on science. I should be the last to suggest that there is not a large number of able people who do not have that particular type of ability, and I said it was only those who are really academically
1010
able who should continue in specialist Ph.D. courses.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. We may have misunderstood each other. On the other hand, we may not; because I was going on to say that so long as we have 64 per cent. of our first-class honours science students remaining in the universities to do Ph.D. courses, or to continue their studies, and a tiny proportion going into industry, something is wrong in the state of affairs.
LORD TODD: My Lords, I mentioned the figure of 10 per cent. of university entry, and I also said that at the present time there were many more being pushed through Ph.D. courses. So I do not think that basically we are in dispute.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, as I said, we may not be. But my criticism of the current position rests not merely on what the noble Lord says but on this figure of 64 per cent. of honours graduates who are not going into industry. Industry needs them. Industry has to compete with an environment where there is great freedom of discipline, where there is the discretion to take long holidays and security of tenure. It is a difficult job for industry to pull these boys out of universities, with these almost idyllic conditions for some minds, and to get them working in the tough hurly-burly of industry. I should like to see more of them coming out and I hope that Swann will help to get them out.
I agree with a great deal of what has been said in this debate about the failure of industry to pay graduates sufficiently. I do not think that industry is paying enough for its senior managers, technologists and scientists. But in talking about the failure of industry to reward these exceptional people who are coining from universities, we have to remember that they form not more than 1 per cert. of our population. Again, industry does not provide these men with the type of responsibility which their intellectual capacity entitles them to have; instead it bores them to tears. The pattern of greater growth is not clear to these young men, and because they cannot see the possibilities that lie ahead, in despair they leave one industry and go to another or emigrate. I do not want to say too much about this point, because perhaps too

1011
much has been made of it during the debate.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would it not be advisable for the noble Lord to make it clear that he is not talking about the whole of industry? A percentage of industry is doing these things, but not enough of them.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord interrupted me to make the point that I was going to make. Just as some of the universities are doing extraordinarily well and are full of liveliness and new ideas, when it comes to industry some are doing extraordinarily well and some are doing too little.
There is one other thing which I should like to emphasise; that is, the need for a change of structure in the government of our universities—the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made reference to this point—which will allow more people in industry to feel it worth while to spend time sitting on the councils of our universities. At the present moment, I believe that too often the pattern of government is concerned with a council, which may meet four times a year, which will pay a great deal of attention to the finances of a university—which is always supposed to be, in the eyes of the senate of the university, a fit and proper subject for them to consider—and very little to the academic and research policies of the university itself.
I well remember sitting as a member of the council of one university threshing out a new charter. In the course of doing this, I, along with others, read the charters of a number of existing universities, and in a high proportion of them one found, when one came to a definition of the role of the council of the university, these words:
"That the Council, subject to a recommendation from the Senate, shall decide …"—
and then it said pretty well everything. We decided that this meant, in effect, that until the senate had discussed changes and decided that they were sound, the council was not able to resolve upon them. That is the position in a large number of our universities to-day. We therefore decided to change the words so that they read:
"The Council, subject to taking into account any recommendations from the Senate, shall decide the following…".
1012
Then a frightful battle ensued, which went on for a year.
The point I am making is that until we begin to look at the structure of universities and begin to realise that they must, in the interests of society, be governed by a body composed not only to a large extent of the staff of the university but also by those who represent the society which pays for these institutions, we shall not get external society, in the shape of its citizens and industrialists, to take that interest in its deliberations which will lead to the greater fusion of industry and university. We shall not get the university orientating itself more to the needs of industry, on whom it depends fundamentally, in the long run, for its funds; and we shall not get industry, surrounding the universities, recognising that by taking more interest in what is going on inside those institutions and extracting from them the growing volume of knowledge which it can use, it will be doing the best for its own economic future. It is this sort of fusion of interest which must be stimulated, and I think the governmental structure of these universities ought to be looked at seriously in order to bring a situation of this sort about.
My Lords, I think I have said enough. I want to close by apologising to those noble Lords on whose speeches I have failed to comment, and, above all, by expressing my candid and grateful thanks to Professor Swann and to his confederates on his Committee who produced this Report. And. While I am about it, I should like to say how grateful we are to Professor Dainton for his complementary Report. I think they have done a service to education in producing these Reports for which we must be grateful.
9.12 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords. I wish to express my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and may I particularly thank my noble friend the Minister who has replied for his courtesy in listening to so much of this debate and for replying to it in such detail. I would make just this one comment. I certainly am not opposed to the Swann Report. I found the Swann Report a fascinating and important document. Otherwise, I should not have wished to have it discussed to-day; nor,

1013
indeed, should I have taken the trouble to criticise it. I would, however, add this. If my noble friend's interpretation of some parts of the Swann Report is correct, perhaps I should have been even more critical of it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RYDE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
  POST OFFICE EMBOSSED ENVELOPES
  POST OFFICE EMBOSSED ENVELOPES